Welcome to the Mesa City Council study session for July 27th, 2026.

All of our council members are present.

Again, council item one's review the agenda for tonight's council meeting.

I know we went over this previously, but are there any additional questions for staff?

It seems like the microphone is a little different sound, which is fine.

I don't know how can you hear us okay out there?

Yeah.

All right.

Mayor, I know I don't know if we want the discussion here or upstairs about um the um fleet ordinance.

Okay.

We have to make a decision tonight, and so we need to have a discussion since we have a full council here to make a final decision.

Okay.

Do we want to discuss that or you want to go numerically to um yeah that's 8A and B.

So that's at the bottom.

So is there something beforehand?

Well, we can talk about um 5C as the Falcon Fields landing fee implementation date.

Uh I'm gonna remove that off consent agenda so that we can discuss that separately.

And if there's any not any questions on the landing fees, council.

Okay.

We can have that conversation upstairs.

And then 7A and B is the San Antonio uh tire shop, and then 8A is uh and B or the two different amendments to the chapter regarding uh fleet based services.

So Ms.

Duff, do you want to lead out on 8A or B or discuss options?

Um I I prefer 8A uh because of all I suggested the C UP for L C if we could do 100 feet, but I understand we're at 150, so we'll just leave it at that.

But I think it's a smarter use of our land and um allows to allows us to store or have fleets of drones vertically instead of using the land, and that's the land use I spoke about, and uh being able to use rooftops, which is an excellent use of space.

Um so those are the reasons that I prefer A, because on B uh I I'm going to vote no on B because again it prohibits rifttop charging.

Um I don't like the just at 30 feet, but here we are.

We have to have the uh have uh 30 feet, you know.

Um let's see.

I think as a city we should uh always evaluate the value per square foot to our city expanding parking areas um provides no value, sales tax, property tax, job opportunity, and reduces land available for economic activities.

This is the reason I don't want to see drones stored at grade on the asphalt, which requires screening, a fencing and such.

Um so there is a concern about that.

Also, I'm concerned the noise factor at people level at grade level is gonna be much louder than if it was a 30-foot, much higher.

Um parking lot light poles are at 30 feet, so they have drones, a poll having drones on it.

I don't think is any more much more of a uh eye sore.

And I think it's a good use of land, and of course we have the CUP on uh limited commercial districts to look at the residential impacts.

Um so we have that provision in A.

Um.

I think that's the majority of my remarks on why I prefer A over B.

Thank you.

More over you, you and Rachel, regarding the two differences between A and B.

8A and 8B.

Yeah, sure.

Happy to do so, Mayor.

You good?

Well, okay, so so since our uh our conversation a couple weeks ago, back on the 16th, I believe it was.

Um we did come back with two options as you're seeing 8A and 8B.

Um I think maybe what all what I can do is start with um what's the same in both of them now, which is both of them require that C UP.

This is different than what was discussed on Thursday morning, but it is now introduced.

They both require that CUP uh for light fleet in LC, and they both have a hundred and fifty-foot separation from residential.

Um where they differ is option two would allow the the height up to 30 feet only in those GI and HI zones.

Okay Clarify, so um option two is that grade except in the GI and HI.

Correct.

Where option Ail the difference then you have the vertical landing then on option A.

Yeah, so option A would allow up to that 30-foot maximum height in all the zones where that light fleet and heavy fleet are allowed.

Is some of this driven by the state legislature, some of some of what we discussed earlier?

So there is definitely a piece of this that um that does come into play when it comes to the legislation.

The legislation does allow uh for generally applicable provisions to be applied to drones, so long as that's done prior to um the general effective date, which I believe is September 12th.

Um what we are doing here is we are we're talking about fleets in general.

Um so that does include drones, but it also includes things like robotaxi parking, um, general fleets like delivery vans if somebody just has staging for fleets.

Um there's other things here like accessory fleet use, uh service stations, that sort of thing as well.

And is this battery-based uh vehicles as well?

Mayor it could be, yeah, absolutely.

It doesn't have to be, but it could be.

Okay.

Let's go forth.

Uh what what are the what's the separation requirement for service stations now?

There currently is no separation requirement for service stations in the ordinance that we proposed originally, it was just to um electric charging um infrastructure.

So that was because of the noise.

Um but after city council study session, we were directed to apply that to all of the service station, not just the electric charging infrastructure.

But under the code right now, there is no separation requirement.

That is correct for service stations.

Okay, and what this is proposing 150 feet, correct?

And and Mayor and Council Member Go Forth for service stations and light fleet uh based services as well.

So this is the proposed amendment or the proposed ordinance, and right now existing fleet um doesn't have any separation.

Mayor council member go forth currently light fleet-based service doesn't have any development standards for it.

So there's no regulations as far as screening or separation.

There's no development standards for it.

If memory serves, the discussion was twofold.

One is protection in neighborhoods, and two, this fleet bait services also addresses aerial drones.

So the delivery drones that we're starting to see becoming increasingly common.

Um we haven't seen too many of them yet, but we're seeing more and more.

These are the things that are gonna be flying over people's homes.

Yeah, but we're not gonna stop that with a correct and that's and the 150 feet came out of the state's own legislation, I believe, correct?

Yeah.

So that's that's where we got the 150 feet because we're we're changing from just fleet-based services used to be cars and trucks driving up on the street, coming in, fueling up, doing what they need to do, off they went.

This is a whole different thing.

These are aerial develop uh aerial vehicles that would be flying over folks' homes, potentially.

And think about it if you live near uh uh limited commercial, what drug stores, Mary drugstores, shopping centers, those type of things.

This now, these delivery services potentially because of the the state requirement, the LC district could now put up a 30-foot pole and start pulling drones over your head.

So we're really changing our perception of what our definition of what fleet bait services is.

It's not just vehicles on the ground, those little things you try not to run over in the street, but the aerial drones as well.

We have to consider that.

And those make a little bit of noise.

Yeah, and I think some of that discussion was also particularly near the light commercial.

And so we were working to consider how far off can we set the charging stations, particularly for drones to be taking off and landing constantly when maybe the weather's good for seven and a half months.

You want to be outside to have a nice conversation with someone and you don't hear buzzing dropping down and taking off constantly.

So it was more or less to protect some of those businesses that also draw people in from the outside that sit outside and enjoy the outdoor areas.

But the 50 feet though is only to other zoning, not to the same.

Say that again.

Well, mayor, maybe a quick clarification on that.

Yeah.

Mayor, council members, just a couple clarifications.

So the 150 foot separation is just a residentially zoned properties or residential uses.

And then I also wanted to add just a reminder that there still is the provision that the planning director could reduce that distance if there is a sound study that that proved that they were not increasing the noise levels.

So they can still be right next to light commercial.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

So there's 150 separation is just a residential.

And there's no way for us to help those businesses by separating the drone docking stations from being right next to them.

Is that correct?

Well, mayor council member Taylor, I guess one one caveat to that is we still have our our landscape yard requirements.

So it's not going to be right up against it.

There would be about a 15-foot buffer between the properties, but yes, it would not be the 150 feet separation.

And mayor, if I couldn't, council member tailor, we also that's why council asked us to look at the council use permit.

So they'll have to meet specific criteria and show how they're not, you know, they're complying with the general plan and all of those other criteria related to the council use permit.

So those would come to you for those uh whether it was a drone fleet or whether it was a Waymo fleet or whether it was a van fleet, that it and it would have to come to you for that CUP.

Okay.

And mayor and council, I think that is such an important distinction, and everyone's alluded to it, but again, each one of these requires a council use permit, where previously, as proposed, um, you did not require a C UP in the L C area, it would then by right.

And so now each of the each of those will come back to council for your consideration.

And I I think that way it doesn't tie your hands.

So if you did go with A, it's less restrictive, but every project is coming back, and you can look at each one on each of its merits.

One, you know, not all L C is created equal.

You've you know, you you have a very different use, and it could be compatible potentially in one LC use, but maybe not in another.

And so option A does give council more discretion and doesn't tie your hands while still giving you the ultimate say to look at each one on a case-by-case basis and make a determination on that.

So just a point to consider through that.

Well, I guess that's what I'm trying to figure out since I wasn't here for the discussion.

Why would we limit ourselves if every time we have to they have to come and get our uh approval?

Well, and the other thing too, since this is so new or that discussion was uh having our eyes on it.

Um, as we muddle through this a little bit and and we start to see how this shapes out, we might decide in a future action that hey, we don't need a CUP for certain zoning districts.

But for now, why don't we put it in there so we can just track how this goes and and that will inform allow us to inform better policy if we don't do that right now, then they have an immediate uh use to it, and if we try to peel it back, it's a 207 problem.

So yeah, and how much do we know about noise?

Are we just making presumptions?

Do you know?

Have you looked into this is an issue, that there are well uh so Mayor and Councilmember, again, this covers a variety of uses, and and so there's gonna be a variety of noise levels depending on uh what vehicle is there, what vehicle type they are using.

Um there's definitely noise with everything.

Uh it I couldn't tell you here and now what it is uh because we don't exactly have the use in front of us necessarily.

Um there is noise, but again, um there's a way to uh for for the applicant to do a sound study to show that there's maybe no noise, perhaps.

Uh you know, that they'd have that option, and then there's there's more um options that allowed to them at that point.

Yeah, and I guess I'm a little surprised as well that we've included this 150 feet for service station.

We think that that's more disruptive than a gas service station.

Um mayor council members, I wanted to make a couple clarifications.

So the the service station, we proposed that because of the electric charging equipment, because we know that does that does make more of a humming noise.

Um so we had proposed that for both of the service station and the light fleet-based service, and we got directed by council to make that apply to all.

Um but I wanted to step back in regards to the CUP requirement, and and just to clarify that we we were just directed by council to require the CUP in the L C district.

So it is not every zoning district that requires a C UP.

Um so when we look at that separation requirement, that would still per that would still apply to some zoning districts, such as the general commercial, light, industrial.

Um, so that would still be a standard where they're permitted by rate.

So based on our and please jump in.

I don't want to take your expertise.

Based on the timeline we have needing to pass this tonight, we are deciding the only thing we have to decide is where are we going to allow the polls, or we're gonna require everything to be at grade on the ground?

Except for the exception of GI and HI is allowed at 30 feet per you know, B.

So in those you have the 30 foot, but the big difference is at grade and allowing polls.

And mayor council, if I if I could, Scott made a really important point that not every LC district that comes in for a C UP, not every one of these is going to be the same, and that's why council will have that discretion.

Because there are some where there may not be restaurants and people sitting outside, and it makes sense for for drone delivery to you know have a poll that they're they're they're parking on or uh you know at ground grade parking, uh depending on which option council chooses.

And then there are some where it could be disruptive, and that's why I think the noise study is really important because you'll look at the ambient noise to to make sure that you're staying within those thresholds.

So it's really important that that C UP comes back to you because not every LC is going to be the same.

Sometimes this makes sense, sometimes it may not.

Can you tell me high level, not you know, briefly, what are the requirements for a CUP?

Um Mayor, Councilmember Go for So a council use permit, it it generally has criteria that looks at compatibility and impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.

So you're gonna have criteria about making sure that it's not detrimental impacts to the surrounding area.

Um they're they're that in nature.

I don't have them memorized.

Is it administrative or legislative?

I can't remember.

Jim.

Uh mayor and council.

Um so the law isn't clear on that.

Um I describe it as a discretionary decision.

Uh it has criteria for it, um, but the law hasn't clarified whether or not it's a legislative or but I describe it as a discretionary decision, subject to the criteria.

Okay.

Thank you.

Ian, can you give us some examples of municipalities that have drone deliveries?

I mean, uh it was I'm it's interesting that the industry has not even been to.

I mean, I met some at a conference, but not been to Mesa and really has anybody talked to you from the industry about whether wing or zip line and what the industry standards are, what they would like for drone delivery, so to help us know get a better decision making.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor.

So a couple answers to that those questions.

Um, staff has actually had, and myself included, have had uh a variety of meetings with the industry, uh, several meetings, I'd say extensive meetings, in fact, with multiple uh uh players in this space.

Um so it's it's been a very robust and lively and back and forth a good conversation that we've had over the last months.

Um now they they've actually even uh one one of the companies set up a demonstration in Tempe where some of our staff was were able to go.

I believe even some of our public safety folks are able to go to that.

Um so that was very very um helpful.

Uh there have been drones operating in Arizona, but to date, uh my understanding is it's mostly been in the Tulson area, um, and so in in the West Valley.

Um so this would be new to the East Valley.

Uh they have they are operating elsewhere in the country and across the world.

Um Dallas Fort Worth area has thousands of deliveries across the company, uh the multiple companies per day right now.

So as we speak.

Um so it is something that's real and happening.

Well, I think it's good for us to get in front of it.

I know I asked this a couple of months ago that make sure, at least on electric uh vehicle charging stations to make sure the correct correct separation was there.

Uh council, any uh feedback for tonight as far as options.

I mean, I can make a recommendation to see what motion uh you know, make a motion on item 8A and see if we get a uh motion for that in a second.

We can vote on that if that goes away, then we'll uh do 8B would be our next one.

So I have uh just a just a quick comment.

I you know, I I see the merits in in certain instances and locations of the uh the pole mounted charging stations.

We we're talking about GI and HI.

I also can see the the downside to allowing these things in the air, which I personally find visually unappealing, and depending on how close they're placed together or where they're placed.

Um I I I see the merits on both sides of that.

In my opinion, option two lets us take a first step into this with these 30-foot poles, not everywhere.

It allows for the council use permit.

And if we're into this for a while and it looks like it's working great, and not very many people find the uh the 30-foot poles uh objectionable, then this matter can always be reconsidered.

I I'm not supportive of jumping into it in all districts um at this time.

So uh I'm not supportive of 8A, I'm supportive of 8B for those reasons, but uh mayor, whatever you think, uh make a motion, see how it flies and go over.

Oh, see how it flies, huh?

Yeah.

Good.

So I can I ask a clarifying question, which you're saying you're not in favor of them being allowed out because it it doesn't require the C UP outside of LC.

And that's what you're saying.

So in L I, G I H I, you're not in favor of the I I'm fine with the wording on option two.

Uh they're allowed in GI and HI up to 30 foot height.

Council use permit, uh oh, it just went away.

Um sorry, I go ahead and go to slide three so you can see the polls.

Oh okay.

Uh yeah, I've I've I've gazed upon them before.

Uh thank you.

But uh sorry, go ahead, Jim.

No, no.

I don't really think there are anything more different than a parking lot light.

Um I I and the other thing is this delivery service is expanding very quickly, it's already happening in a number of cities, and we're trying to get in our ordinance in front of it instead of on the backside because technologies are moving very fast, we can't afford to do that.

But I don't want to be a city that is gonna restrict the these new innovations because we want them on the ground.

I I don't think it's an efficient use of space, how all the space is going to have to be acquired or used in a way to keep them on the ground, and we're missing the opportunity when that supplier says, No, we're not doing ground, it doesn't work for us, we don't have enough space here.

It doesn't, it's not effective for us.

Um, what is having it on that ground, I think would even be noisier.

But as if we're talking about drones, if you take a drone and a car, which is how things are being delivered right now, can you say it's noisier?

I don't think so.

I think of it as like a parking garage.

And if we said we don't want any cars in in garages, because we don't want to see garages.

We don't want to see anything vertical, but we're gonna use acres and acres and acres to park things and this not producing anything for us.

It's I think a waste of space.

Thanks.

Well, I I see the merit to your argument, but I think we could argue the merits on it only all night all night long until we take a vote and we see where it goes.

Well, I guess that's my question, Rich is what are you losing for option A?

What what is the council giving up for option A?

That's what I'm saying.

We're not restricting where these poles can go.

Yeah, that's the big thing.

I'm I'm suggesting we ease into it.

We can with they're allowed in GI and H I.

Oh, okay, so that's your you don't want to have any.

I agree with everything uh Councilmember Duff has said as far as this being the wave of the future, whether we like it or not, that's where it's going.

I I don't think we have totally accurate information on how noisy they are.

I don't know.

Uh that that thing that looks like a B-52, that's probably pretty noisy.

But I don't know.

And that's part of my point.

Uh whether it's noisier or less noisy than uh than a busy parking garage.

It may well be, maybe not.

I don't know.

I'm just I'm more in favor of quieter on the ground versus on the pole.

I think it depends on where it is and who it disturbs.

And I think I'm just saying regardless.

Do you think it's going to be quieter on the ground versus on the pole?

I don't know that it would be one way or another, but you put the thing 30 feet up in the air and you put it close to uh uh an area that council member Taylor described, I think it's gonna make a good deal of noise, whether it takes off from the ground or from a pole.

Um we we do know that some of the companies actually will have ground-based fleets and some will have pole-based, depending on who the vendor is, you know.

I know that I was reading that Amazon has some that are just all ground-based and they'll use their land for that.

Um I think that I'm just well, I resonate you.

I it's good to be prudent in my mind and start small and have them peripheral, and then if we find the residents are like, yeah, we accept this, we can move forward and say, okay, let's let's open up some spaces closer into light commercial.

Um obviously they can they have to be 150 feet away from residential areas.

So I'm thinking that's really not that far as it is.

So we're we could see them going up within the city and more locations.

I'm voting based on the temp check that I took with the general public and people saying that they were just this is this is actually fairly overwhelming for a lot of residents to think that in the near future they may look up into their sky and just see kind of a beehive of drones delivering things.

I did look at Dallas Fort Worth.

There are thousands of deliveries every day.

Um and we don't mitigate what goes on in the airspace, you know, that's the FAA's territory.

So I uh I'm just trying to be prudent in my vote and in my recommendation.

I think a CUP is wonderful.

I think that's gonna be great, but some of it is discretionary, and since there is no solid law on what that looks like, you know, things may not come to us.

So I'm I just want to do my best to represent what the people have asked me to do.

I I think we're gonna have them one way or another.

I think it just how how how aggressively do we dive into it out the gate?

Do you want to see the 30-foot poles everywhere to start potentially or not?

Mr.

Radio.

I think uh question when uh a CUP comes in, uh is there an opportunity to create like a good neighbor policy or you know, work in uh agreement with I'm assuming when the you know they apply for this uh if it's gonna be a 30-foot pole, there is gonna be some outreach done to the community, there's gonna be, you know, of course, our meetings.

Um is there other potential pieces that we can work on uh to make sure that we get them input from the public because we really don't know because we don't have any of these right now, so yes, Mayor, Councilmember Heretia, because it would be subject to a public hearing, they would have to adhere to the public notice in the neighborhood meetings.

Um we also could require as a condition of approval a good neighborhood policy or good neighbor policy.

That's good.

Um Mayor Councilmember Summers, are our noise standards would apply?

And I'm not gonna I can't speak to them specifically, but there are no hard because they're in and out like a car, and I think day-night levels, that type of thing.

But yeah, that as I believe there's not objective levels within our noise standards, and I can let someone from from PD or maybe because the gym wants to speak to that.

That's correct.

There isn't an objective um decibel number within our within our noise ordinance.

So I'm not sure how the noise ordinance would really be enforced against um this use.

Yeah.

You do?

Yeah.

And uh and in your meetings with industry, what methods of delivery have been most prevalent?

I see a picture with ground-based uh you know, delivery.

I don't know what they're delivering.

Uh we we know that it's coming to Mesa and having this uh ordinance uh here is important.

So I mean, out there in the industry, vertical versus ground, is there a certain percentage between the two, or is it mixed bag?

Uh yeah, Mayor, it's it's more of a mixed bag at the moment.

We we are getting applications um from companies that do both types of of operations, all types.

Again, when we talk fleet services, remember we're talking a lot and we're seeing applications for uh robo taxi staging as well right now.

Um but we so in talking to the industry, uh the pictures that you see on the screen are what we're seeing from them as well.

So there likely will be some that operate uh via the ground and some via the poles.

Um they they all at the moment usually have, and this is very general, but they have a capacity of holding up to like five pounds, so it's it's light delivery.

It's my hammer uh that I've talked about last time.

Um can't wait to get that.

Uh so it's stuff that that's lightweight.

Um, but it and another point that I I think it's worth considering is they do partner, at least they they've explained to us that they do partner with these um maybe smaller shops or commercial shops.

Um and so proximity to those uses is important is what we've heard.

Um, and so uh and and obviously proximity to the end customer, uh, you know, typically a resident residential neighborhood is also important, but um just something to keep in mind as well.

But it would be a variety of uses in Mesa that we would see.

I'll leave it at that.

Okay.

On the limited commercial, my question is are there options for them to uh not do vertical deployment?

Mayor if they want to do ground base, they're the option to do that.

Yeah, Mayor, absolutely absolutely.

Um it's just in again, and speaking to uh a couple of these companies, uh it does appear that there's a company whose business model is the vertical um uh attachment.

Um, and then there's there's another, there's other companies where they can do ground base or potentially on tops of buildings as well.

So it's it's the whole gamut right now.

But yeah, it does it does appear in our conversations that one company's business model does use verticality.

Okay.

I think for now where I'm at is I I'm leaning to 8A, and the reason is I don't want to limit uh uh well limit a limit commercial building, the option just to do ground-based when that might be the best option to have a vertical-based delivery system and allow that to happen.

We have the separation there, we have the council use permit, we have the decibels.

Uh I mean, we have fixed components here, so that's I can sense it's gonna be a really tight vote upstairs.

So we'll see where it goes from there.

But that's where I'm leaning is eight a just to give more options to the industry and as well as to those platforms within our community.

And so Rachel and Mary, I mean, in the future, if we had to tweak this ordinance, we find something that's not working right, is that an option?

So, mayor, uh we always come in with code refinements.

We we're we have one on the agenda for tonight.

So if we find that there's a an issue, if something's not quite working, we can definitely you know look to tweak this so that it it's meeting any of the changes that we're seeing in the industry because the industry is changing really rapidly.

So, with that said, would that make those businesses grandfathered into the current one?

Then obviously in the new ones would have to comply with the stage?

Yes, Mayor, if they if they were built, they would comply with whatever code was in place unless they were making modifications to their site plan or to their their operations, um, then they would have to follow the new code.

But obviously they'd be grandfathered and we couldn't go back and ask them to meet any new requirements if they were working and weren't asking for any changes.

Yeah, that's fair enough.

Mayor question.

Yes, let's go for it.

I I would like to give the city the most flexibility that we can, in addition to protecting you know the surrounding communities.

Why can't we add I the only the the only thing that I don't see in here is the CUP for LI.

Why in option one can we just not add a requirement for the CUP for LC and LI and then allow them in GI and HI, which is allowed in option two anyway?

Mayor councils, there's there's still the attorneys up there's still the the Prop 207 issue because we do allow light fleet-based services right now and the LI, so we'd be diminishing their potentially their property value.

So if we were to do that, we would have had to create a waiver system like we did with with the data centers and the drive-throughs in requiring a C UP triggers okay.

Okay.

Council, just uh yeah, while we're on this topic, Kirsten of Vorchak with the city attorney's office.

Uh I I want to also um come back to the uh general effective date of the statute.

The language in the statute allows us to apply um standards and regulations, and it's phrased as existing uh regulations.

So we in introducing this in the timeline that it was brought, the versions that were brought were introduced last week so that an action be can be taken today, which is your last regular meeting before the general effective date.

So uh certainly uh as Mary and Rachel said, as things progress, we can look at options to bring back, but there's limited ability at least right now to make a change before there's an action taken um by the council and sort of in that same vein because of the language.

Um, what exactly we could change in the future is subject to debate, but certainly something that we look at.

I have a question, Mayor.

Yes, Ms.

Taylor.

So just break this down for me really simply so I can understand one thing.

Is it easier for our text amendments to be changed to be relaxed on something if we start slightly more stringent?

Or is it just as easy if we start relaxed?

So if we were to go with A, would it be harder to turn it into B?

Or is it easier to start with something like B and say, okay, we're gonna pull off the reins a little bit and move to A.

I mean it takes planning do that, yes.

Okay.

Mayor, Councilmember Taylor.

So when it comes to the the Prop 207 piece of it, the the zoning portion, it is it's easier to go from something that is more restrictive to less restrictive because we would not be diminishing their their property rights.

Um the development standards that that doesn't apply in the same vein as the zoning entitlement does itself.

Um so those could be those could be changed a little more easily.

And then I had one other question, and maybe I maybe I just didn't understand this originally, but for some reason I was under the impression that if outside of the GI and the HI if a company like let's say let's say a neighborhood super Walmart wanted to have their fleet on their roof, can they not do that if we voted for B option two?

Correct.

Yeah, Mary Council Taylor.

Well, more than likely, as long as yeah, yeah, because it depending on where it is in the zone, it would have to be at grade.

Okay, that's what I was wondering.

Okay.

Yeah, just I know we're running out of time.

Um but I would also say when we do text amendments, it takes a minimum of six months.

I don't know if we even do it quicker than that.

So there's the time factor.

Um and the second thing is since I won't be here next year, I'll put in my opinion on the 30 foot is gotta go, so that we allow rooftops that are higher than 30 feet.

Basically, 30 feet is only allowing two-story buildings.

We use drones on this building, and it's probably I don't know, a hundred feet, I'm guessing.

But there could be quite a few instances where rooftop makes sense, and we're limiting any drone to 30 feet.

So going forward, we can't do anything about that now, but going forward, I just want to put that out there as a consideration for any text amendments.

Um I would actually like to see them all take off from rooftops if that was the case, because then we don't have ugly polls going up around the city where you just see these random structures popping up, and it's even more efficient that way, in my opinion.

But I know that based on how you had to structure it in the text amendments, we couldn't say only the drone stations that are polls can go out in the general industrial area.

Correct.

That was our big concern, which is these things like popping up like farming areas, you know.

Sure.

I and one point, Mayor and Councilmember Taylor, option one or or eight A would actually give the council the most flexibility to allow them on rooftops in in the most spaces, um, just just for consumption.

But then that would also open up the doors for the zip line structures to appear that's correct in a more concentrated format.

Trying to use my language correctly, Heron.

Okay.

Can I just make sure?

Can I just clarify one last point?

So option two, um they're allowed in GI and HI at 30 feet everywhere else at um grade level.

What's the C U P for?

To even put it at grade level in the LC?

Mayor and council are correct.

Okay.

And what's the C UP for in option one?

Just to put it at all the same.

Yes, the same.

Yes.

And sorry, mayor, council member go forth when we say the same, that would be either on a poll or at grade.

So the the company would decide how they wanted to put it in, but they would need a council use permission.

So I'm trying to figure out the distinction here.

The only distinction to me that I see is L I.

Because there's you all don't have a problem with GI and HI, and you can do it in with a C we control L C for the C UP.

The only issue here is L I.

You don't you don't want it in L I by right?

G C L C C Light commercial was so G C L I and G C and L I are not required under the C U P T.

Correct.

Because of that proposition.

Okay, so we're talking light industrial and general commercial.

Yeah.

Okay.

The big conversation was more around those light commercial areas because they might sit.

But you got that covered.

Yes, but that's discretionary too.

Remember, like it may not come to a C UP because there is no actual rule around if unless I didn't understand Jim, that's every it's every the requirement every C requires a C UP every time.

That's every C requires a C UP every time.

Now the criteria.

Right.

Oh, the criteria.

But yes.

Okay.

Okay, council.

Mary, did you want to last parting words?

I know Councilmember Go for it because you weren't at the the it's a little bit convoluted, it seems.

The big distinction, and there are several nuances too, but the big distinction is will all of the um drone delivery be at grade in the LC district, or will we allow polls in the LC district and at grade, both of which would require the C UP.

So both of those options require the C UP and the LC.

One allows a poll, one does option B does not.

That's probably the biggest distinction, I think, between the two.

There's other nuances, but that's I think one of the big ones.

At grade or poll and at rate option.

For LC.

Okay.

I think uh we'll uh think about that and make a decision upstairs.

Anything else on the council agenda for tonight?

I don't know if we're gonna cover 7A, 7B upstairs or I know they made some changes or like the 24 hours they made the change there, but well let's discuss it here.

Yeah, Mr.

Odeo.

Well, and and mayor, yeah, to that point.

If you want to, I know Mr.

Ballmer is prepared.

I I know you had one to make sure that the residents and others who might want to participate in this conversation could see the renderings and understand some of the aspects.

So will you prepare to do that upstairs?

Council would so choose.

Yeah, okay.

Anything else, council?

All right.

Um finish the item one.

Item two is the acknowledged receipt of board minutes.

Is there a motion to that effect?

So thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Ms.

Duff.

All in favor say aye.

Okay, that's unanimous.

Next is current events and conferences attended.

Uh Mr.

Butler, can you share with us?

Well, not yet for you.

Uh council.

I think you're just skipping right over there.

Council A, Mr.

Adams, Ms.

Duff.

No.

I'll be real quick.

I'll be real.

Um last week I attended the historic preservation community meeting going over our design guidelines and code text amendment updates.

And it was just approved through planning and zoning, and it'll be coming to us fairly soon.

Um also attended uh along with Vice Mayor Summers, Mesa Police Department Awards and Promotions event.

Um addition, we included some heroic citizens that saved lives.

Um Saturday I attended uh a back to school event um at Mesa High School with uh in partnership with community bridges and Mesa Prevention Alliance and making sure that all children receive all the supplies and goodies that they need to start school.

Thank you to the sponsors and partners, and there was thousands of families with children.

Um and primary election was last week.

Uh congratulations to Nick Willis, who will be representing district for my district next year.

Also council member Go Forth led her race and continues and then to the general election in November.

Congratulations.

And oh Vice Mayor Summers.

How can we not celebrate your victory?

Congratulations.

I'm gonna have one of these I feel like I was set up on that.

Vice Mayor.

Uh Mayor, uh at your request, I attended the celebration of life for firefighter uh Joseph Thomas Christopher, he was a Mesa resident, uh Salt River firefighter who passed away from uh occupationally uh cancer acquired cancer.

Um these are always sad events, unfortunately.

We're seeing more and more of them, and I do appreciate Mr.

Butler, all our investment in trying to keep our firefighters as safe as possible.

So forth, Miss Taylor.

Yeah, I just wanted to mention one thing.

I went to the opening of another Polaris Academy location here in Mesa.

This is their fifth location, and they are a school for autistic students.

And um, I just wanted to thank them for they are Mesa community members, and they continue to keep investing uh in Mesa.

They saw a need for students and children with autism, and they stepped up and they're filling that need.

So, and as I said, this is the fifth location, and they're partnering.

Um they got really creative and they're partnering with Mesa Public Schools in the locations that they're on two of their locations in Smith Junior High and Rose Junior High, and it's a win-win uh Mesa Public School has extra space.

They needed the space, so anyway, great community members, small business owners, and and doing a great job serving our community I just met with residents actually.

I just met with residents actually.

I didn't go to any events, but that's it was where my events attended.

Thank you.

It was great.

They have a lot of feedback.

Good.

Well, and with autism, you know, Mesa's certified as the number one safest autism city, the first one in the world to get certified in autism.

So I'm glad Polaris is here.

With that, uh Mr.

Butler, it's your turn.

Well, mayor and council, um, we will convene for a special council meeting on Monday, August the 10th, in order to canvas the results of the election.

So that's at 2 p.m.

on Monday, August 10th.

That's the only item that council will consider, is just the canvas of the election.

Then we'll uh be back here for study session on Thursday, August the 13th.

So see you all soon.

Good.

I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Miss Goforth.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

We'll see you upstairs.