Order Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026.

Madam Clerk, please call the role.

Mayor Sarger.

Present.

Thanks, Mayor Greenberg.

Here.

Councilman Haney?

Here.

Councilman Duffy.

Here.

Councilman Melton.

Present.

Councilman Hastings?

Here.

Councilman Judge.

Here.

Thank you, Mayor.

We have quorum.

Thank you.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Here I'll do this in the meantime.

All right, Madam McClerk, please read item number one.

Item one presentation, discussion, and public comment pertaining to a prep hosed zoning text amendment to the surprise land development ordinance to establish a new battery overlay zone related to battery energy storage systems.

FS twenty-three one zero four one.

Good afternoon.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Just waiting for my presentation to load real quick.

So the purpose for tonight's work session is to provide you with some background and information.

So to give a background on the timeline, we've been working on this for a few years now.

Um our initial outreach meeting was back in January of twenty twenty-five.

Tonight we're here for a work session with City Council.

Overall, the commission was generally supportive of us doing the text amendment, um, created an avenue for the use and the approach that we provided with the the proposed amendments.

Some specific topics of discussion were noise.

There was some feedback that our approach to addressing noise was not clear and defined enough.

Um, our response to that was that it's just mirroring and referencing a different part of existing code.

There was some feedback that our exception for residential and multifamily um projects in relation to like rooftop solar, for example, did not uh was not expanded to commercial purposes.

Um, so our our staff's proposition would be to revise that um exception to include um commercial type uh rooftop solar installations.

There was a discussion on the acceptable distance um from uh residential and the setback requirements.

We had discussion on the economic impact of these facilities and then flexibility and administrative discretion that we're proposing within this text amendment.

Overall, the commission's consensus was to reduce the uh proposed separation from 1,500 feet down to 100 feet, and we'll get into the details of that here in a second, and then clarify the exemption for commercial type best installations.

So, first um, part of our text amendment is to define some terms that we're going to use.

So, battery energy storage systems, also known as BES, uh, is being defined herein, where um it's a facility consisting of all the components that go into a best facility in order to store energy and to release it at a future time.

Um, that last statement where not to include any batteries or systems that are located within single or multifamily residential projects.

That's where we could add that additional clarification that it would also exempt this from like I think the example that was provided was a Walmart has rooftop solar and they want to have batteries associated with that rooftop solar, exempting that from these standards.

And then for battery cabinet, um, this is a term that is used throughout our um proposed text amendment.

So defining what those individual battery cabinets are as well.

So our approach with this is to create a zoning overlay district um to accommodate uh best facilities.

So first um giving an overview of what is an overlay zoning district.

This is a special zoning district that can be combined with one of our existing zoning districts, essentially layered on top of it to modify certain regulations that come with um standard zoning applications.

Um combined with uh existing zoning districts, these can these types of overlay districts can provide flexibility.

They can create specific standards or additional standards, increase protections that could be area specific, um, all while not um affecting the existing underlying zoning designation.

Uh the process for applying uh an overlay zoning district to an existing property is the same as the standard rezon process.

It'll have neighborhood outreach and notification, go through public hearings, and it's ultimately uh at the council's discretion.

So our approach for this and why uh is essentially to create that overlay zoning district specifically for best.

Um, we're calling it a battery overlay district.

It would provide the path for development of these facilities and create that use allowance.

It would ensure that um there's public outreach involved and council discretion.

That is something that we wanted to maintain throughout this process, regardless of the approach, was that uh it would ultimately go to the city council for final approval.

The the overlay would be permitted in all character areas of the general plan because it is that overlay district, it wouldn't create an issue with the underlying zoning district having any conformance issues with the general plan land use designation.

It wouldn't affect any of those existing zoning districts or other sections of our code and makes it very clear and straightforward for us to do a text amendment.

And we're able to build in all the specific regulations and development standards that we want to apply to BESS within that zoning area.

Um and one caveat, we would not want this to be combined with any other overlay zoning districts, so the heritage district, PUD overlays, which is planned unit development, or traditional neighborhood development, which is our master plan overlay zoning designation or any individual residential dwellings.

So the separation has been the main point of discussion throughout this process.

We started with a 1500 foot separation.

Um on the left there, you can see what an existing best facility would look like with a 1500 foot separation.

So the area in blue is that 1500 foot radius around the property outlined in yellow.

That is what our proposed text amendment currently is.

When we took that to the planning and zoning commission, their feedback was to reduce that to 100 feet.

This is a separation requirement for the zoning itself from the boundaries of the property line.

There is also, in addition to that, an on-site setback, just that we just like we do with standard zoning districts.

So to get into detail more there and depict it a little better.

So this is a visual representation.

So in the dotted line, you have the property line of a best facility where it wants to locate.

Within the confines of that property, you would have the actual facility itself where there's the perimeter wall and the cabinets, the battery cabinets contained within that perimeter wall.

And then the houses in green would represent existing residential.

So the on-site setback that we proposed is the 150 foot.

So that's from the property line internal to the perimeter wall of where the best facility would actually develop.

Going external from the property line is that separation distance to existing residential.

So this represents what the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended is having that 100 foot separation from any property line to an existing dwelling unit.

And so in combination, you'd have 250 feet from the perimeter wall of the best facility to an existing residential dwelling.

And kind of in comparison, the 1500 foot would just separate these facilities even more from any existing residential dwelling.

So with that, the um the way the the verbiage is currently written, it would be from an existing dwelling.

So that's to protect the residents that are currently living or properties that are currently have dwelling units on them.

If a home builder or if a property owner wanted to come in after the fact and build within that separation, um, they would be able to do so.

But the the difference there is the best facility would already be entitled and or built, and so it would be known.

And so the effectively they're choosing um to locate closer.

Whereas with the with the separation to existing, we wanted to make sure that existing residences aren't kind of imposed this best facility in their neighborhoods without having proper separation.

So the process for this for the overlay zoning would be that standard rezone process.

Um they would have to provide the applicant or developer would have to provide a project narrative and preliminary site plan with their zoning documentation.

They would be required to hold a neighborhood meeting, uh, go before the planning and zoning commission for a recommendation, and then ultimately city council for a final decision.

And then subsequent to that, they would have to do an administrative site plan review when they were ready to move forward.

So one thing that we have in here is to ensure that what gets built is actually what was presented to council at the time of zoning.

So we made sure that there was language in here that any modifications to the site plan from the preliminary site plan that was presented at city council to this administrative site plan process.

If there was modifications that went beyond what we would consider substantially in conformance, um, that would go back to the city council for another rezone process to accommodate those major changes.

This is um standard kind of with our code with uh other entitlement types.

Um, we look for things to be substantially in conformance with other previously approved documents.

Um, this was a question that had come up at the at the commission um meeting where um some of the representatives asked for additional flexibility or deviation between the time of zoning and site planning, but we wanted to make sure that what was presented at council, um, if that was approved, that that's what actually would would be built.

And then prior to um any permitting, this administrative site plan approval would need to be granted.

So moving into the development standards that would apply to best facilities.

Um there's a requirement for an eight to 12-foot perimeter wall that would have uh to meet that setback on site of 150 feet from the property line.

There's separation distances per the NFPA for between the battery cabinets, and we're also requiring that the cabinets only provide external access, so we don't have any space for human occupancy.

So we don't have any space for human occupancy.

Creating would need to be minimized to keep natural landscape.

The on-site landscaping would have to provide 25 feet along the outside perimeter wall and then keep a separation from any buildings or equipment of at least 10 feet.

Sight lighting would follow our standard um lighting ordinance.

On-site parking is clarified within this.

There's a difference between if it's a um unmanned or a manned uh facility.

The signs would just follow standard um LDO uh sign code provisions.

And then all parking, fire access, roadways, and dry aisles need to be paved.

Also, with this process, they would be required to submit the following plan so that we can ensure the safety and security of the facility.

Um there's a various hazardous materials plans that are being that are required.

A noise study is required to prove that they are not um greatly increasing the the noise uh beyond the boundaries of the property, uh security and surveillance, and then a commissioning and decommissioning plan.

So, in addition to the primary use where the zoning overlay comes in, there's also the option that this use be allowed as an accessory use.

Um typically we see this in the industry with industrial projects.

So we're also proposing that um a conditional use permit be required um in our industrial zoning districts for an accessory best facility.

So um, whatever that primary industrial use would follow the typical um standards that are applicable in that zoning district, and then the best facility itself that's accessory to that primary use would follow all the same standards that we just went through for the primary best facilities.

And this process would also include neighborhood outreach as well as planning and zoning commission approval.

And we'll pass it over to public safety.

Mayor council, um, thanks for having us here tonight and giving us an opportunity to speak on the fire department's position on this matter.

And I think for the panel, just so you guys know I'm the fire chief, but I'm acting in an interim deputy city manager role.

So that's why I'm over here tonight with our fire marshal, one of our deputy chiefs.

So thank you guys also for being here.

Um, you know, the fire department's original 1,500 foot recommendation.

Um obviously follows some pretty conservative public safety positions based on our experience um with the McMickan incident that we did have here in Surprise.

And although that incident was pretty tragic for both Surprise and Peoria fire departments, we do understand that as technology and monitoring systems have advanced, and I believe a lot of those recommendations were taken from the McMickan incident.

Uh, we still recognize there are opportunities to reduce the distance that we initially had recommended of 1,500 feet.

I would just like to say that regardless of the final setback adopted by the council, the fire department's position remains unchanged, which is that the public safety must remain the primary consideration in any decision involving these battery energy storage systems.

Our concern is not, and never was the equipment.

It is the people who we are paid to defend in this community, and um we entertain or happy to entertain in this conversation with the group and the experts, what we think that setback might be.

And with that, I believe I will hand it over to James, um, one of the panel members.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Go ahead.

Uh just uh for the county.

There you go.

Is that better, sir?

Okay.

Uh, just for the council brief introduction.

Um, some of you I met, some of you I have not.

My name is James Caulfield.

I work for Fire and Risk Alliance.

We're a third-party fire and engineering firm.

I like it to make it very clear.

I am a firefighter, not a fire engineer.

I have 22 years of active service in the fire department.

I travel internationally on a weekly basis, training fire departments, developing emergency response plans and conducting meetings like this to educate and pretty much bring together the communities to understand what the response looks like if there is an event at a battery energy storage system.

Um, happy to answer any questions if there are any.

Um, we had a really good meeting uh last week with planning and zoning.

And as far as work here, we did a I personally did a training in Sun City uh a few months ago, and I've done extensive work um in Panaw County with the Board of Supervisors, educating our communities on battery energy storage systems as well.

So look forward to the questions and happy to have those conversations.

So thank you for letting me be here.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Uh mayor, vice mayor, members of council, my name is Sipand Alazata.

I am the government relations specialist for the Arizona Technology Council.

I am also an attorney.

Uh, before I begin my comments, I want to take a moment just to thank your staff.

Uh Ms.

Davis, uh, Ms.

Sexton, Mr.

Abrams have all been super responsive to our recommendations.

Uh they have been fantastic to work with.

Uh, they have given feedback, they have listened to us, listened to our recommendations.

And I'm just very, very grateful for all that has been done so far.

So kudos to the City of Surprises professionalism.

It really, really stands out.

So, as I mentioned, uh, I am the government relations specialist for the Arizona Technology Council.

My job is to advocate for these battery energy storage systems all across the state.

I travel all over, uh, been in Penal County multiple times, uh, Maricopa County, uh City of Goodyear, City of Buckeye, uh, Northern Arizona, Southern Arizona.

Uh simply put, Arizona needs energy in all its forms.

Arizona has to have it.

Particularly, surprise has to have energy in all its forms because it is growing so fast.

Tech companies want to come to Arizona because we have an amazing business climate that has been developed over decades.

When tech companies decide to set up operations in Arizona or consider it, they spend ample amounts of time and money researching city councils to see what have they approved, what their approach to energy is.

So if you all want to continue being a tech hub in Arizona in the West Valley, then you need to take an approach to energy that is all of the above and particularly incorporates battery energy storage systems in any possible way.

Uh, I have a set of talking points with some recommendations.

I would be more than happy to get into that when the time comes.

But again, it's an honor and a privilege to sit here before you all and work towards getting an ordinance on the books that makes sense for residents, businesses, and all stakeholders.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

My name is Anna Smith, and I'm the public affairs manager from APS.

I just want to thank you guys for the opportunity to be involved in today's work session.

Today I've got joining me Ben Clough, the director of renewable generation, and Tim Russert, director of power supply services to provide context as needed.

And I would also like to take a moment to thank the surprise staff for their work on this ordinance and for allowing for the stakeholder process.

Uh, we have been involved in this process since the beginning, and I know how much work is has been done on behalf of your community.

So thank you all for your your hard work on this.

APS has submitted comments early on and most recently a letter expressing concerns for the excessive setback that far exceeds the NFPA association standards recommendation.

And what other neighboring jurisdictions have adopted or are considering.

The battery energy storage system industry is advancing rapidly.

The proposed amendment setback does not allow for the continuous advancement in the technology and safety requirements, leaving surprise with an amendment that would likely need to be updated again in the very near future.

Safety is a priority at APS, and we are proud to be a leader in safety with the requirements set for our own projects.

And we are always willing and available to walk through those standards with your public safety team as well.

Batteries are a key part of our generation portfolio.

They allow us to charge at a time when power is readily available, and then be deployed during peak hours when they're most needed.

Overall, APS appreciates the zoning amendment proposed today.

And we are available to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So with that, um, here is uh kind of a comparison of some of the other communities and the separation standards that they are um proposing or have already implemented.

So as you can see, there isn't a clear um standard across the board.

Um obviously we initially proposed the 1500 feet.

Mesa also did um a thousand feet, um, but it ranges down to 100 feet up to our proposed 1500 feet.

So again, um we're here to receive your feedback, answer any questions you may have and get your direction on this proposal.

Um, you know, we we proposed that 1500 feet commission recommended the 100 feet again.

That's in addition to the 150 foot on-site setback for the perimeter wall.

Um, and then um also just getting clarification on that um change to the uh definition to clarify the commercial applications of these uh best facilities for accessory uses.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Duffy.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh so I just have I said a question about the 1500, like what's wrong with 1500 feet?

When whose idea was it to change it?

And where how did the commission come up with a hundred feet to say that's okay?

If anybody knows, yeah, thank you.

Um so we proposed the 1500 feet through conversations um both with the stakeholders in the neighborhood outreach meeting um and at the public uh at the commission hearing, they um uh were we're asking for significantly less.

Um the key is they, who's they the the um the the development community essentially?

Yeah.

The commission ultimately, after some deliberation and some conversations with some of those individuals that attended the commission meeting, they'll ultimately landed on that 100 feet.

Councilman Duffy, if I may add the original 1,500 feet um really comes out of the ERG, which is a national standard that fire departments will use.

I think it's guide 147 discusses uh lithium ion batteries, for example.

Um, and uh and early on, that was the stance that we we looked at that to say if we had an incident of this caliber, the initial evacuation zones 15.

Well, it's actually 1640 feet, but we went with 1,500 feet um was the number we had landed on early on.

Um we again we realized we were here to discuss that, but that's how that original 1500 foot number came to fruition.

Okay.

So I guess now it's like okay, well, 100 feet is close, and how safe is this?

We had that that issue years ago, which was tragic.

And now you want to put these everywhere?

I don't understand why 100 feet.

Someone explain why 100 is a good idea.

I think we'd look to the experts for an answer.

I know nothing about it.

That's what I'm asking.

What uh why is 100 feet a good idea?

No, no, uh and I and I appreciate the question, and I apologize.

I didn't want to want to step on the chief's toes there.

Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

So when we look at our response tactics when we're training the fire department, we look at 100 feet.

NFPA recommends 100 feet setbacks for these.

So this is authored and adopted on an international level as what is acceptable.

So we work within those guidelines.

Um, and our training based upon what we're seeing dictates that is a safe area to be operating in to have handle or manage an event if there were to be one to occur.

Mayor, council member Duffy, may I add the NFPA standard that uh James just referenced, it is a standard that has developed over time, multiple years, multiple refinements.

The NFPA is an association made with uh consisting of fire professionals, scientists, and most importantly, also insurance professionals.

And insurance professionals are very conscious about risk and risk management.

So this is a board that gives this advice, and and if they are saying 100 to 100 feet is safe, then it is back it is safe and it is backed by science.

Okay.

That's what I want to know.

I want to know who came up with it and why.

So I appreciate it.

Are those conflicting, Chief?

Uh Mr.

SP, you talked about a standard that you used, an acronym, and these gentlemen used a different acronym.

Are those conflicting, or is it the same acronym?

No, Mayor, uh, thank you for the question, but we're we're speaking of the same.

So I I'm referenced the ERG, which is a manual that responders will use when they're going to a large-scale incident to give you guidance on what you know what's an evacuation zone.

What's your first steps on something that's not, you know, we'll say like a cookie cutter call that we're going on every day.

The ERG recommends uh evacuation zone, initial evacuation zone.

That's the main, that's their guide that I was referencing.

But the NFPA, obviously, we still are in agreement with them on what NFPA's purpose is and and the guidance and recommendations they give.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Judd.

Um, so I have a few questions, but before I come to that, can you expand on that a little bit more?

I mean, you're in agreement with them, but you're not in agreement with them.

I'm trying to understand why.

I mean, that is a huge discrepancy.

1,500 feet to 100 feet.

Mayor and Councilman Judd, let me clarify that.

I agree with them what the NFPA's purpose is.

I I don't necessarily agree with the separation in the number, but I agree with the purpose of the NFPA.

What's what's NFP?

It's what's the acronym stand for?

We go ahead, take it over.

Councilman, we're referencing the National Fire Protection Association, which is uh NFPA, they develop the standards that we follow for pretty much anything fire protection.

And it's what is referenced specifically in our fire code.

So when we came to do our amendments recently, we adopted the 2024 International Fire Code.

It references the 2023 edition of NFPA 855, which is the specific standards that addresses what you need to do to install battery energy storage systems safely.

So if if I could take this time, councilman, just to mention a few numbers that NFP 855 references, the evacuation area that's specifically referenced and recommended in the annex material of 855 is a 200 foot radius or excuse me, diameter from all buildings in that area.

200 feet.

It's based off of explosion modeling.

So those two numbers are what we're given as guidance for um basically coming up with a number that is safe for our community.

We already have in the 2024 IFC adopted 150 feet from the battery to the property line.

And Trevor, if you wouldn't mind going back a few slides, I think one of those gives a really good idea of what we're talking about.

So that 150 feet, there we go.

So 150 feet from the batteries, battery cabinets themselves to the property line is what we already have in place.

The buffer we're talking about now is what number we want to put from property line to existing residential.

And that is what we're discussing.

And when we originally came up with the 1500 feet, uh, that was based off of, as Chief Espy said, the emergency response guidebook, which is used not for planning purposes, but for emergency response purposes.

So the purpose of NFPA is 855 and the ERG are completely separate.

One is for planning and building and making sure it's constructed correctly, and the ERG is used for response.

So though though that's the difference between those two um stand with the standard and then the guidebook.

Um the 1500 feet, when we originally came up with that, was based off of worst-case scenario, thinking if we did have something catastrophic fail at one of these facilities, how far would it be reasonable to evacuate around that area?

And that's where the 1500 feet came in.

And with the planning and zoning commission meeting that we've referenced, we talked quite a bit with industry and then the planning and zoning commission came up with that 100 foot number that uh they thought that that was reasonable to reduce to.

So that that is where that 100 foot came from, and then where the 1500 feet that we originally proposed came from.

So we're looking for a 200 foot radius, then 100 feet of that radius is in case there's an explosion, and that's supposed to be covered in the 150 feet we have here from the best perimeter wall to the property line.

Thank you, councilman.

So what we're essentially trying to do in that chart that when we went to see what other um municipalities and counties were doing around here, you can see that those numbers are different.

Everyone is a little bit different.

So every community has used their best judgment to come up with a number that they feel fits their community.

What we're trying to do is use our best judgment with the recommendations that uh 855 provides and come up with a number that makes sense.

So essentially what what this shows is that 250 feet would be the total number that we would have from the battery cabinets themselves to the existing residential.

So those two numbers that I gave as recommendations from 855 would be within that 250 foot distance.

And then Trevor, this this best parameter wall, that's a that's a block wall.

That's correct.

And then the property line, is there any wall to property line also?

Not required.

Not required.

We're assuming it's that that's gonna be far enough.

Now, is there any as the battery facility scales up, as you have more storage containers in there, does it change any of the math?

For example, if you have four containers versus 4,000 containers.

As far as the math on the um setback requirements, or as far as the math on the on the setback requirements, the perimeter wall, all that.

I mean, we're talking about cabinets here, right?

Individual cabinets that are that are contained within that wall.

And so as we increase the number of cabinets, does that change the math on setbacks?

Yeah.

So the preliminary site plan that would be required at the time of that rezone for the overlay would have to show what they're proposing to build.

Now, if they if they want to propose um, if they want to show the full build out, they would need to show that and prove that it can meet all the setback requirements.

But if they're going to only show maybe a phase one at the time of zoning and want to come back through for additional, they're gonna have to to make sure that they're they're able to to meet those setback requirements in future phases, but then also still come back through council.

Okay, that wasn't my question.

My question was if we change the number of cabinets that they're gonna put on the site, does that change the setback?

No, it's just from the perimeter wall.

Just from the perimeter wall.

Now, as we increase the cabinets, does that increase the risk?

No, sir, it does not.

So the safety standards are built for each container, uh, again, are governed by code and compliance, and they're all UL tested on multiple different levels, uh, basically saying they have to pass in order to be put into production.

So to your point, if you have one container or you have a thousand containers, they're all individual, so it doesn't increase the risk.

So if one container goes up, it won't take the other ones with it?

Uh it will not.

And I can attest to the fact that I was in Arizona several months ago where we did a large-scale fire test.

We specifically lit one of these containers on fire, and we wanted to see if that would propagate.

So go to the next container and without any intervention allowed.

So the fire department was not allowed to step in.

That container was purposely set on fire and it did not propagate to the next container.

And then that's based upon the the codes and the standards in the testing that we are now that we have to adhere to.

And now are the are these cabinets are are we specifying how big the cabinets are, or is that something the engineers decide?

So typically what we're seeing is it's almost like buying a car, if you will.

Um there's different models, so there's different manufacturers.

So some manufacturers may have containers a little bit larger than others.

Roughly, we're looking at uh a connex box, like a shipping container is is in an approximate size, but plus minus a few feet here or there is a is a fair estimate of what we're looking at size-wise.

And then are we putting restrictions in on how far apart these cabinets need to be?

So I don't I don't want to cut you off, Chief.

Um, in reference to the spacing, that's actually dictated by the large scale testing.

So based upon the testing results that they're seeing, the manufacturers have a minimum standard of what those distances from those containers has to be.

And so, Trevor, we're not putting that in the code, we're just leaving that to industry standard.

So the the section of code that we have related to that is that the separation would be per the NFPA 55.

Okay.

Um can you go?

Do you had a list of requirements?

Can you move move to the slide?

I think it was further forward list requirements that they would have to go through to get this approved.

Was it before that?

It was a list of studies.

Yeah, like noise and like there you go.

Okay, and then I don't see emergency response plan on there.

Councilman, I'll address that.

That would be a part of our normal plan check process, our plan review process when it comes to permit.

So even at concept review, we would be looking for those those documents.

So a lot of the hazardous materials impact analysis management plan, those things are a normal part of what we look for for any hazardous facility.

So those would be in the emergency response plan, would be requested and required at uh any of the plan review processes.

Okay.

And the zoning that we're allowing this to happen, if I understand it, we're we're talking about putting an overlay over any kind of zoning that isn't a PUD, PAD, any of that stuff.

So residential?

That's correct.

So if if if it's uh farther out in the city where it's just uh rural residential and a best facility about the property and wanted to come in, they would do a rezone.

They could keep their existing rural residential underlying zoning, but add this this best overlay essentially.

What if we had the the rule overlay?

Would it wouldn't you not be allowed to do it with that?

I mean, you said you can't have two overlays, would that preclude that?

Correct.

We would we would not support this within the rural residential overlay of the general plan.

And if we shorten this down to a hundred feet instead of 1500 feet, would that also mean that you could infill in parts of the city with these battery storage facilities?

I mean, I know that many of the communities around have vacant lots.

So if we I mean, I know you've been looking at doing 1500 feet, but if we shorten this to 100 feet, does that change the places where this would be able to go?

So you could end up having it in sort of a more dense area?

Theoretically, yes.

There's not as many parcels.

Um there's probably some um there's a few industrial parcels um in our the southeast portion of the of the city where it could happen.

So would the industrial area also need the overlay, or the industrial areas is that just gonna be part of their zoning?

So it depends on if it's a primary best facility or if it's accessory to an uh another primary use.

So if it's standalone, they would need the rezone for the overlay.

If it's accessory, their their primary facility would go through standard processes and then the accessory would go through that CUP process.

So I'm I'm really uncomfortable with allowing the overlay in residential area.

Especially if we if we're talking about doing a hundred foot a hundred feet.

I mean, you've got people who've who've bought houses, have established houses, they've done their due diligence, they know what's allowed to come in there, and then all of a sudden they've got this hazardous facility.

I mean, it is a hazardous facility, right?

We treat this as a hazardous facility.

So we look at look at it as a supplemental to the energy supply.

We don't view this as a hazardous facility.

But it has hazardous materials, and I mean you're putting a bunch of batteries in there, and you're supposed to throw batteries in the garbage because they're hazardous, right?

There was they're recycled, yes, sir.

Okay.

And so I think, and I don't think I saw it on here, or maybe I missed it, but we were talking about doing 1,500 feet for anything that's already existing, but shortening it down to 100 feet for areas that don't have existing residential.

Did I did I gather that correctly?

Did I was that on the presentation?

Did I miss that?

It would it would be 1,500 feet from an existing residential dwelling unit.

Commission's uh consensus was to reduce that to 100 feet from an existing residence.

No, what if they're going out somewhere where there's nothing around anyways?

It's still 1500 feet for any new houses that could come in.

No, so any new houses coming in could be within that area.

It's just at the time of zoning, they aren't to be within that distance to anything existing where they're locating.

Okay.

Okay.

That's all my questions for now.

Yeah.

Councilman Milton.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and I want to thank staff for putting this together.

It's I I get the sense industry has been waiting for this moment for a long time to have the city of surprise draft ordinances, and it's uh the city, Trevor and Lloyd and your team have been working very hard for a long time to put this together, and I really appreciate that.

Um it's as you noted, I think the our history has um informed some of these decisions.

And through the process, uh the ordinances I think are gonna get better.

Um Trevor, I think you you you've noted that there was one I think one thing we're gonna address is the distinction between battery energy storage, utility scale, and commercial.

Is that I think we've we've we've managed to I think clarify that in our in this ordinance that will that will we'll be able to say, okay, this does not apply to a commercial property that has you know one mega or you know, I don't whatever that you know, smaller batteries for their on-site needs, is that right?

Do I have that?

Yes, thank you, councilman.

I'd so our proposed response to that would be to in the definition of best include the exception for um roof uh best or batteries associated with rooftop solar to create to create that exception for those commercial applications.

Okay, or uh are there okay, or any other commercial opera, which I mean, is there any instance where a commercial operator would have on-site gener on-site batteries without solar?

I don't know if that's a question for the panel, but uh mayor council mayor, I can jump in right there.

Right.

Because they can't sometimes if the grid goes down, they need to have batteries uh power that facility.

So that's why it's been brought up that it's too broad in scope right now.

So what we recommend is to really make it this distinguish it by saying that this ordinance applies to uh best facilities with five megawatts or more.

Right.

To make it utility to make it clear, this is only applying to utility scale.

Okay.

And uh our friends here at APS can explain what utility scale is if if needed.

But but I'm thinking about hospitals.

Hospitals have best all across the country, especially in Arizona.

So, you know, making them subject to this could hinder their ability to power if something's got forbid happens.

That's why I'm asking the question.

I I don't want this, I want this to be very clear.

This ordinances for utility scale uh battery energy storage systems.

I don't want this to spill over into areas that um so I I try to think it's something to think about.

Maybe we just want to really want to clarify.

I don't want, I don't want this, I don't want to be confusion on what this is supposed to be.

Yeah, we can take a look at that five megawatt uh threshold.

I think the the difficulty that we've had is because we're also proposing the accessory use.

Um, we want to make sure that there's a fine line between um a smaller scale commercial application and just creating an exception where a a large industrial facility could come in with a very large scale accessory best.

We don't want that to be in the exception.

Right.

So finding that line has been tricky for us.

But so yeah, maybe maybe maybe maybe a five megawatt number is the right number.

I don't know.

I don't know what the right number is.

Five sounds right, but um, I don't know if APS.

I would like to hear about the utility scale from the showman from APS, just to kind of put it in context.

Yeah, it's good.

Councilman's talking about and the uh Trevor's talking about.

Yeah.

Uh utility scale for APS, the current size that we typically buy at this point from uh developers is 150 megawatts or larger.

Oh, we have some a little more historic uh uh developments that are somewhere down to the 10 megawatt size.

I think that would be our smallest.

So five five that's in out of range.

Right.

I think I think five megawatts is a um I I'll get I'll look at the panel if anybody has a different number, but it sounds right to me as a distinguishing line.

Mayor, council member, we just need to be very specific.

We need to we need to have that number in the ordinance.

So that's that's sort of the issue where pardon me, sorry, I'm moving this too much.

Uh that's sort of the you know, a couple of the issues we've had is this ordinance sometimes the language lacks specificity.

For instance, the noise ordinance component, the noise component of it is you know, something that I believe the language in there is perceptible.

Well, what is perceptible to Sipandalazata is different than what is perceptible to the mayor, to James, to Tim, uh to Ben here.

So with that, we need to have specific language about DBAs, which is the scientific term for noise.

So that's another recommendation we have that needs to be incorporated in is ambient noise and making sure that the no, you know, you have noise studies, but be specific with the numbers because perceptible is just too subjective of a term.

I understand.

Thank you, C-Pan.

And I if we just go right back to my original point.

Um I guess if we Trevor, if you if you inserted a clarified number, five mega, if you had that number, call five megawatts, that would go back to P and Z.

And I would imagine we would get more discussion.

Is that I don't I don't know.

So our plan and approach here is to take your direction and recommendations, incorporate them into the amendment that goes to commission for um a recommendation on Thursday.

Okay.

Well, what are you referencing and what is that?

I apologize.

Um there's concerns that this ordinance, there's a that it may be that again, the ordinance is supposed to be for utility scale, large scale battery systems.

It is not intended for these smaller batteries that you might see at a Walmart that has its own PV system or a hospital that has their own battery energy storage backup system, smaller scale, right?

And so one way to distinguish the the ordinance to make sure that we're we're just talking about large scale is to put it one one idea is to put a number in.

Say this this ordinance only applies to uh a site with call number five megawatts or some X megawatts of capacity.

If you say that, if you say five, right, then it will not apply to anything with five, you know, less than five megawatts.

Therefore, it we're seeing what I'm saying.

So it's it's we're trying to target this just for utility scale where it's not supposed to govern a residence that has their battery for their car.

It's not supposed to be an ordinance for a hospital backup battery system or a some commercial private property that has our own PV array.

That's that's that's what I'm trying to get at here.

So um so I I think maybe five megawatts would be a number you should entertain.

So um one more question.

I'll let it back to the I know my other colleagues have questions.

Uh the uh I really appreciate that a lot has changed as McMickham technology and chemistry and standards have changed.

Uh the 1500 foot setback was never gonna work.

It it completely shuts out the industry, and I don't think it's grounded in good science or best practices.

And I do appreciate uh that we're here talking about a much better setback condition of 100 feet, but as we noticed actually 250 feet because of the perimeter wall.

And I'm gonna ask, I I really don't, I guess I'll ask APS.

Have you ever seen I have never seen a I haven't seen them all, but I had never seen a best site with this 150 foot wall to the property line.

Is that common?

Have you have we seen that in any other jurisdictions?

Yeah, so Ben Cleft, thanks for having us here.

Um the facilities, I operate and maintain all the APS owned renewable energy, so solar, BES, um, and a few other facilities that we have out there.

So the facilities that I have, we have a minimum of 100 feet.

That's the minimum or more to the first responder station.

Um that's a facility where you can see indications, alarms, alerts, you know, all of those things.

The sites that I operate do not have a block perimeter wall just around the batteries themselves.

It's just that setback, it's open space.

Um, and then you have the perimeter fence, which is not absolute on the property boundary, but that's a perimeter fence.

But the purpose of that being to separate, you know, employees, the general public, whatever, if there were to an were to be an event, that's a place where I could isolate the site, ensure site safety, ensure site security, make sure I have no exposed hazards to to anyone or anything, so that I can ensure that I'm not in a personnel safety situation.

I'm more in a thermal event and you manage those differently.

So that's where I normally have that setback on the facilities that operate is at least 100 or more.

Um it's not a hard block wall in the facilities that I have.

Yeah, that was think of the the West Wing site is a good example of you have a you have the you have a block wall perimeter around the property line.

And uh I think that makes more sense.

I don't I don't I just I don't understand this putting a perimeter wall directly around the I think most of these developers, I guess Trevor asked what why why is there a hundred and fifty foot?

Why is there a perimeter wall before the property line?

I don't understand this.

Thank you.

So we wanted to make sure, and this evolved over time, of course, through our different iterations and approaches, but we wanted to make sure that um this was treated similar to other developments and other zoning districts where you have standard setback requirements from the property line to the thing that is potentially impactful to the the area, whether it be commercial, industrial, residential, what have you.

And so we're not we're not per the for the zoning in the and the zoning code, we're not regulating the distance between cabinets and the perimeter wall.

We're regulating the wall from the property line so that we can choose that setback, make sure that make sure that there's separation to adjacent uses.

So even if it's not going in an area where it's residential where that additional hundred foot applies, if it's adjacent to commercial, there's still a separation to provide for that safety and for that buffering.

Okay, understood.

Well, I do like the block.

I think a block wall should be put up, but I think it should be at the property line.

But um, but I again so thank you for uh thank you for clarifying that.

Um this would put it at 250 feet setback, which is not gonna kill us, but um it's we can't go much farther than that.

If we go beyond 250 feet setback, um we are really gonna um restrict where we can use it.

I don't know if infill in a residential is logistically possible given the substation placements, but I understand your your your comment, uh, Councilman Judd.

Um last question, and then I'll hand over to somebody else.

Have you ever seen any guys at best so they go into a residential area?

Kind of is there, I don't know if that's even possible.

Thank you.

Uh to your question, yes.

Uh again, traveling internationally, there's projects that are cited in inner cities without without block walls with standard fences that are well within these numbers.

So, yes, we have seen them applications are used, you know, on all different levels of rural, commercial, industrial, residential.

Okay.

All right.

Um, I'm sorry, Steve, go ahead.

Mayor, council member, I'd like to just just make a point of correction in the presentation.

Uh staff did a great job explaining other municipalities throughout Arizona what their separation requirements are.

The Goodyear one is not what so good year is actually updating their ordinance as well right now.

Uh, but they are not proposing 500 feet.

They have revised it down to 330 feet, but with a plume study down to 150 feet separation requirements.

So just one again, it's another municipality, but I just want the facts stated correctly about the numbers in other municipalities.

Okay, thank you.

Mayor Latzby, I'll speak now.

Okay, thank you.

We do have about five minutes left in the meeting.

We could probably push it a little bit longer.

And then um, Ms.

Davis, we probably need to bring this back again for a further discussion.

Yes, and just so everyone knows we have unfortunately have a primary property tax hearing at 5 30, which is why we have a hard stop.

If it wasn't a primary property tax, we could extend it a little further, but unfortunately we have to notice that.

So we can't push that too far.

So apologies to everyone.

I know this is not ideal.

Uh but yeah, so I think what we can do is bring it back for either we'll have to look for session or uh bring the meeting on the 16th.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, I'd like to, I mean, they have half the council hasn't asked a single question.

And I appreciate the experts coming in and giving their opinion and staff.

So um we like I said, we have like four more minutes of the meeting if anybody wants to uh vice mayor's on the list next to talk.

Thanks, Mayor.

I'll talk fast.

Um I am opposed to doing it in an infill um situation.

Black wall, yes.

The the facility that you and I walked, um, that's four megawatts.

Um I just checked it.

That west speed is not four megawatts.

That AES one, one that you and I walked.

Way high.

Oh chat GPT is wrong then.

Um so I guess the main thing that you're looking at is a thermal runaway.

Um, if that's an issue.

But as I recall, all those cabinets had uh fire suppression things within each cabinet within each like tractor trailer thing, right?

And that's one big difference between what we have now in the technology and what they had back when McMickan.

Is that accurate?

No analogy.

Got it.

Uh being being mindful of time, I'll I'll try to be brief, but happy to clarify or provide more context to it.

So we are currently not utilizing any type of suppression inside of the containers.

So I don't know if I'm if I misunderstood your question.

I apologize.

There used to be some type of agents that would be utilized in the event that there were to be something occurring.

We no longer utilize that approach.

What we're doing now is those agents are no longer installed.

And our approach is to monitor our exposures and apply some intermittent water for cooling to the adjacent containers.

So suppression is not necessarily the response.

Uh so if that answers your question, okay.

If if I understood it, misunderstood, I apologize.

But we uh we have no agents and we do not do any suppression.

Okay.

So I mean, an event of a thermal runaway, hydrogen fluoride's the main thing that is the situation as far as fire people getting injured.

So when we look at there's there's three prevalent gases, and I've we do plume modeling.

Uh, we're seeing uh carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen as our three prevalent gases.

Um are are they harmful?

Yes, but distance and dissipation allows us to not be harmed.

And I can go into a much deeper discussion on that.

But as far as HF, do we recognize it?

Yes.

We also recognize HF in in house fires.

Um we're not seeing it outside of the fence line.

We've collected data at past events that have occurred.

We've had hazmat teams conduct air monitoring.

We utilize their results within our guidance and within our training of why we have the distance that we have for not only the safety of the community, but safety of the members of the firefighters and first responders.

Okay.

Uh last thing is uh as far as sound.

Uh when we were there, I mean, I literally walked one foot outside of the wall, and I could basically not hear the stuff that was running, and I get my ears tested every year.

So that's it for me.

Okay.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um, we we have one minute left, so I think uh unless you have any.

Yeah, can I go real fast?

Go ahead.

I mean, I know it's like probably impossible for me to do this in a minute.

I will say, like, overall, I just want to like give you the impression of our math.

Like, I don't like government regulation.

Um, but I don't understand any of this.

And I want to know where the numbers are coming from.

Uh we had a battery explosion in 2019.

Eight firefighters got injured.

I think some of them had body parts blown off.

And I'm not trying, like, that's just what happened.

So what I expected today was a little just a little more information.

It's like I want to be supportive of this.

I don't like the regulation, but it comes down to if we do this a hundred foot type thing.

I mean, the guy next to me is one of my best friends, he's a firefighter.

I couldn't live with myself if something happened to him.

And our the residents who are 250 foot away, it's feet away.

If this thing blows up, are they gonna be okay?

Like, that's just my honest question.

And if I can't explain that to my residents, then how are they supposed to understand like what I'm voting for?

So that's just where I'm at, and I know we're short on time.

So that's just like I just wanted to like put those out there.

Like where we're at, 1500 feet is five football fields, and a hundred feet is like NFL red zone.

I mean, so it's just I just I need some education on it.

We have to be able to explain this to our residents.

I don't know any of these terms mean.

I know you've probably done the and there might be like all these different acronyms are thrown out, but I just don't know what they are.

Does that make sense?

Like, I'm just trying to level with you.

I know you guys have probably given this presentation a ton, but um just in this like for the next meeting, I just I want this a little more spelled out to me so I can answer for it and and where these numbers are just like coming from.

Cool.

Yeah, I don't disagree.

Ms.

Davis, can we get the experts point of contact uh and give it to council that way if they have any questions we're now in the next meeting?

Maybe uh, you know, they can get those answered, but then also have more time for this discussion.

Sure, absolutely.

I think we got some of your feedback.

We'll continue to work between staff and our panel here with questions so we can be as ready as we can be for the next meeting.

Okay, thank you.

Gentlemen, I appreciate uh your time and expertise.

Uh Mr.

SP and everybody appreciate you.

Are we still is this still gonna go to uh P and Z?

Yeah, we're not this isn't going to P and Z on Thursday then.

Uh correct.

And Lloyd, if you want to jump in, but correct since there hasn't been specific direction, then I believe, yeah, Lloyd, if you want to talk to that, but it won't move forward.

Mayor Council, it was agenda sized.

So what we'll do is we'll continue to uh uh future date and then uh bring that what we have what we get from you at the next meeting.

We'll bring back to P and Z and then go from there to bring it back to council for approval.

Okay, thank you.

All right, I'll intend a motion to adjourn.

It's been moved and seconded.

All in favor, voice vote.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed or adjourned.

All right.

Okay.

All right, good afternoon.

I'm uh call this Marley Park community funded district commission meeting to order Tuesday, June 2nd.

Chair Sarder.

Present.

Vice Chair Greenberg.

Here.

Board Member Haney.

Here.

Board Member Duffy.

Here.

Board Member Melton.

Present.

Board Member Hastings.

Here.

Board Member Judd.

Here.

Thank you, Mayor.

We have quorum.

Thank you.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

There's one item on the consent agenda.

Uh, if anyone would like to pull it for clarification, if not, I'll entertain a motion.

Uh move to approve the Marley Park CFD Commission meeting minutes of May 5th, 2026.

Thank you.

I move and second.

Please cast your vote.

That's a pass vote.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, please read item number two.

Item two, consideration and action pertaining to the Marley Park Community Facilities District Board's intent to levy secondary property taxes on June 16th, 2026.

Resolution MPC FD 202603.

Ms.

Simmons, good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

So our meeting.