I like to call this uh planning and zoning commission meeting tour on this Thursday, May twenty first, two thousand twenty-six.

Sir, could we please have roll call?

Commissioner Perry.

Present.

Commissioner Holland.

Here.

Commissioner Leonard.

Here.

Chair Chapman.

Here.

Vice Chair Spader.

Here.

Commissioner Everett.

Here.

Commissioner Bash.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Okay, thank you.

Could you please uh stand and join me in the Pledge of Levi of the United States of America?

And to the Republic for which everybody, do we have any special reports or events?

And uh our director Trevor, do we have any special reports or events?

Thank you, Chair.

Just uh two quick items for you tonight.

Um per your direction.

We are working on a presentation to bring back to you regarding data centers.

Okay.

Um we are targeting the second meeting in June for that.

So that will be coming back before you.

Um and then I also just wanted to um introduce one of our newer planners.

Um, Asha will be presenting to you tonight for the first time.

Um with that, uh we'll go ahead with our uh consent agenda, sir.

Consideration and action to approve or disapprove the May 7th, 2026 planning and zoning commission meeting minute.

Second.

Any further discussion?

Then please vote.

Motion passes.

Motion passes with seven votes in paper.

Okay, thank you.

If we could move on to item uh number two, which is requires a public hearing.

Consideration and action regarding a conditional use permit with site plan for vehicle service minor repair use for a breakmasters facility on a site generally located on the southwest corner of 163rd Avenue and Pat Tillman Boulevard.

Case number FS25-1012.

Good evening, Chair and Commission.

The item before you tonight is for a conditional use permit with site plan for a project called Breakmasters case FS251012.

The site is generally located near the northwest southwest corner of 163rd Avenue and Pat Tillman Boulevard, more specifically in the Asante Trails Commerce Center.

The project is zoned Asante PAD with the underlying zoning of commercial.

To the north, south, and west are zoned Asante PAD, while to the east of 163rd is zone commercial.

The project involves uh a 5400 square foot minor vehicle repair service center.

The site has been designed in accordance to the Asante PAD and the land development ordinance with the use specific standards from the LDO.

Um parking spaces were required and 17 parking spaces are being provided.

The project also involves um eight service base that's facing east away from the public's right-of-way and the residential.

The red dot.

The red dotted line here shows a pedestrian connectivity to the existing commerce center, which matches to the pedestrian connectivity that was approved for the Asante Trails Master Site Plan.

The access to the Commerce Center is um a fully full access along Pat Dillman Boulevard.

Going further further down east on Pat Tillman Boulevard, we have another quarter ton access to the existing commerce center.

On the 163rd Avenue, we have two quarter ton access to the existing commerce center.

The proposed modern architecture will be consistent with the Brake Master's branding while incorporating the design components and elements from the approved master site plan for Asante Trails.

Um the building features of flat roof design with varying parapet heights.

Um we'll also be finished with that.

And we'll also be finished with um earth stone stucco, steel awnings, and neutral color palette.

CME blocks are also being provided for horizontal variations.

The proposed landscaping will be in consistent with the approved uh landscape plan for Asante Trails Master Site Plan, utilizing low water use, drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and ground covers, and it also complies with both PAD and the LDO.

In addition to the requirements set forth in the Asante PAD and the LDO, staff also requested for a noise study, which the applicant has provided.

Um the noise study from the applicate applicant concluded that the sound levels were found to be in the normally acceptable range according to the ANSI S12.9 Part 5, which is the American National Standard Umstitute for providing outdoor noise study, which meets the subjective requirement of our surprise code of ordinance.

The project was evaluated under the LDO section 106-10.51B for the use specific standards from vehicle repair, uh minor vehicle repair, and it meets the following use specific standards as per the LDO.

An outreach meeting was held on February 24th of 2026 at Asante Library with three attendees.

The general question that arose from the meeting was for a broader master development for the area.

Staff has not received any in support or um or opposition for this project.

If the commission approves the CUP with site plan, staff recommends the commission approve uh the subject CUP with site plan is FS251012, subject to stipulations A through E.

This concludes my presentation.

I am available as well as the applicant if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time, I'd like to open the public hearing for anyone that'd like to speak on this subject.

Seeing none, then I will close the uh public hearing and open it up for discussion from our commissioners.

Any discussion?

See none that I'll entertain a motion.

I move to approve the conditional use permit with site plan for vehicle service minor repair use for a breakmasters facility.

Case number FS25-012, subject to stipulations A through E as outlined in the staff report.

I'll second.

Second.

Motion passes with seven votes in favor.

Okay.

At this time, uh we would uh like to move on to our regular agenda items, a non-public hearing.

Would you please uh take on an item number three, please?

Presentation and discussion pertaining to a proposed zoning tax amendment, ZTA to the surprise land development ordinances, LDO to establish a new battery B overlay zone related to the battery battery energy storage system, BES, case FS23-1041.

Okay, we have Chris.

Yes, good evening, Chair and Commission.

We are here tonight to present information, answer questions, and solicit feedback regarding FS23 1041, a zoning text amendment to establish a new battery overlay zone related to battery energy storage systems known as BES.

With the establishment of the overlay district, there are two new definitions that are being added to the LDO, uh, specifically section 101.2.2.2, which is a glossary of terms, and they are BESS and battery cabinet.

The purpose of the battery overlay zone is to permit the use and development of building structures and land associated with battery energy storage systems.

When the overlay zone is combined with another zoning district, it will provide the following.

It modifies the regulations of the zoning district by providing specific regulations, while its intention is to protect the health, welfare, safety, and quality of life for the city of surprise residents.

And lastly, it will assure land use compatibility.

The applicability of the battery overlay zone is that it shall be permitted in all character areas as set forth in the general plan 2040.

It also provides for distinct regulations, and it may be applied to any zoning district in the city, with the exception of the surprise heritage district, another overlay zone, or any individual residential dwellings.

A battery overlay zoning district shall be located no closer than 1,500 feet from any residential existing residential dwelling unit.

Through the outreach effort, the biggest concern and most contentious item with the stakeholders is the 1500 foot separation.

As staff is proposing a BES shall be located no closer than 1500 feet from any existing dwelling unit.

This map depicts a 1500 foot buffer area from a best facility to single family dwellings.

So what is involved in the process?

A rezone would be required, which is a type three application.

Staff would like to point out that with the rezone application, a zoning narrative and preliminary site plan showing compliance with the regulations herein.

It would require a public outreach meeting.

A recommendation from the commission to council is required, with council being the final decision maker.

If the rezone for the overlay is approved, a site plan is the next step.

As stated in the previous slide, a preliminary site plan would be required for the rezone.

If there are any modifications to the preliminary site plan, it would require another type three review as determined by the community development director or designee.

In addition, a type one permit is required to be approved by the comm, excuse me, by the community development director, and it shall be a stated substantially conformance with the narrative and the preliminary site plan.

It is proposed that the BES would be permitted as an accessory use with the approval of a CUP with site plan in the following zoning districts.

And that process would include a now a neighborhood meeting and planning and zoning commission approval.

So the following three slides will outline the development standards for a BES as a standalone and an accessory use.

An eight to 12-foot perimeter wall is required, a minimum 150 feet from property line.

Separation distance between battery cabinets would be per the National Fire Protection Association 855.

And the cabinet shall only provide internal access, external access, excuse me.

Internal access or space for human occupancy is prohibited.

Grading shall be minimal to maintain natural landform.

All landscaping and other vegetation shall be maintained to a minimum of 10 feet from buildings and structures.

Additionally, a landscaped area with a minimum 25 feet in width shall be provided outside the perimeter wall.

And no landscaping shall be provided inside the perimeter wall.

Site lighting shall comply with section 107-3 of the LDO.

On-site parking shall be as followed for all occupied sites daily by employees or contractors, one parking space per employer contractor shall be provided.

For unoccupied sites, one on-site parking shall be provided.

All fire parking, all fire access roadways, parking, and drive aisles shall be paved in accordance with section 107-4, which is parking.

Any proposed sign shall comply with chapter 109, which is the signed ordinance.

The following plans, studies, and reports shall be submitted to the city for review during the site plan process.

Approval of these is required prior to the site plan approval.

So this outlines the separation comparison for other cities.

Subsidia of surprise is proposing a 1,500-foot separation.

It varies from the other jurisdictions from 100 feet to 500 feet for a best facilities residential.

So the next slide shows a timeline of the project case.

The first outreach meeting was held on January 30th, 2025 at City Hall.

The second outreach meeting was held on January 7th, 2026.

In addition to the outreach meeting, staff met with stakeholders, attended presentations.

Therefore, staff could be educated on the technology to better understand how it operates and it's managed.

Tonight is the work session for the commission, and the city council work session will be held on January 2nd.

The public hearings are scheduled, scheduled for June 4th for planning and zoning commission and June 16th for City Council.

This concludes staff presentation and staff is available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chris.

I know that we have some people would like to speak.

We have uh several people who would like to speak.

Um this is your time.

And if I could ask you to hold it to three minutes, it would be appreciated.

And uh hopefully not continually repeat what the person ahead of you said.

So uh Sarah, do we have uh a first speaker?

Yes, the first speaker would be Jermin Jeremy Atkin.

Okay, Jeremy.

Please state your name and if you represent somebody or if you're a member of Surprise.

Certainly.

Uh Jeremy Aiken, development manager with Bay WA.

We are planning a battery project within the limits of City of Surprise.

We've reviewed the latest draft of the zoning text amendment, and we acknowledge that while the 1500-foot setback to houses is on the conservative side.

We are confident that our battery can move forward under the current text as drafted.

Um, so we look forward to working with city staff to develop a best in class battery and urge the city to move forward promptly.

Thank you.

Next James Caulfield.

Thank you, Ford.

Good evening.

My name is James Caulfield.

I work for Fire Risk Alliance, is a fire and engineering firm and consulting group.

I'm here tonight to explain and give you some information on battery energy storage systems.

I'm a 22-year active firefighter.

I do a lot of work in Arizona.

I had the opportunity to give a very thorough presentation to the Board of Supervisors in Pinhall County.

I was in Yuma yesterday, and earlier this year I did a training with Sun City Fire Department.

What we do is we go around and we train, educate, and speak with fire departments, local stakeholders, and communities to give them information on battery energy storage systems, what the res what the risk and what the response looks like.

Some of my constituents and colleagues sit on that board and they overview and they actually write that policy and procedure that's recognized internationally.

So one of the things I can highlight and what I really enjoy doing is going out on an international level, working with fire departments, educating them, and ultimately keeping them safe in the event they have to respond to an emergency at a battery energy storage system.

Being mindful and respectful of your time, I'll let the next speaker take the take the mic, uh, so I keep it under the three minutes.

But there is a lot of other information that I would happily be answering, or any questions that you may have to kind of clear things up or provide you some facts and data that I often share with local stakeholders, fire departments, and community members.

Thank you for your James.

Can we ask him a question?

Can we wait, maybe?

Yeah, let's let's wait until we have the presentation, then we can have some communication here.

Sarah next.

Thank you, James.

Next is Matthew Ragsdale.

Hi, Matthew Ragstale.

I'm with Key Capture Energy.

We're a battery storage developer and independent power producer.

We work with folks like Fire and Risk Alliance to make sure that our projects are up to the standards and the of the utmost safety.

Um so what I encourage y'all to do is take advantage of FRA being here today.

Ask them whatever questions you have.

There, they really are the best in the business.

Um, and when it when it comes to a setback like this, we hope that it's the the facts and the data that prevail.

Um, we really feel that 1500 feet is not supported by the facts and the data, and encourage y'all to uh uh use those facts and data to come to a more reasonable setback.

So we appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I do encourage y'all to ask James question and pick his and pick his rank because he really is one of the best in the business.

Thank you.

Thank you, Matthew.

Next, I have Mike Johnson.

Good afternoon.

My name's Mike Johnson.

Um, I am a landowner in the City of Surprise.

Um, I would like to offer a specific recommendation for consideration.

Um first let's recognize the fact that Buckeye has 150 foot setbacks for best.

Um they just passed 330 feet, but they also have 150-foot setback with a variance.

Both of these cities correspond with the APA, American Planning Association, the largest membership organization of professional planners and planning resources available, and the NFPA, National Fire Protection Agency.

Both of these agencies are on record recommending setbacks with 50 to 150 feet.

I propose that the City of Surprise adopt a similar standard consisting of 150-foot setbacks from residential structures and a 50-foot setback from property lines.

This approach reflects a balanced practical standard that addresses safety while preserving siding feasibility.

Best are a critical tool for stabilizing the electrical grid, particularly as demand continues to rise in the Northwest Valley.

The technology continues to improve and become safer each year.

Maintaining an extreme 1500 foot setback as currently proposed.

That's five football fields, would effectively eliminate approximately 99% of the viable sites in the areas where grid support is most urgent, urgently needed.

A 1,500 foot setbacks are not based on facts.

BEST is the best technology we have right now to support our current electrical grid.

By handcuffing this technology with these unrealistic setbacks, you are not supporting the utilized for your citizens.

You are not supporting your city.

You are not supporting your community.

The proposed 1500 foot setbacks are considering would make the city less competitive, and it will affect our energy cost and economic development in the future.

A 150-foot residential setback and a 50-foot property line setback provides more than adequate protection.

BES checks all the boxes.

BEST delivers power for wind turbine facilities on non-windy days.

Best balances and stabilizes the existing electrical grid we have today.

And on one last note, there have been no fatalities directly attributed to grid scale best facilities in the United States to date.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mike.

Next, we have Autumn Johnson.

Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners.

I'm Autumn Johnson on behalf of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association.

Aresea has been actively engaged in this process since the beginning.

To date, we've sent three rounds of written comments and participated in both of the public meetings that the city has conducted on this matter.

I want to acknowledge that the latest draft does reflect some meaningful improvements, including better alignment with certain nationally recognized technical standards.

That said, several significant concerns remain.

The first is that the ordinance still does not clearly define its intended scope.

While the latest draft excludes batteries located within single family and multifamily residential projects, it does not clearly state that this ordinance only applies to utility scale battery storage.

As written, it could potentially sweep in commercial behind-the-meter systems at schools, small businesses, hospitals, or other non-utility applications that were clearly not the focus of this discussion to date.

If the city's intent is to regulate utility-scale battery storage, the ordinance should say so explicitly.

Second, the proposed 1,500-foot setback from existing dwellings remains extraordinarily restrictive and unsupported by nationally recognized standards or common practice in peer jurisdictions.

If the city believes a residential setback is warranted, it should adopt an evidence-based distance.

Eresia has consistently recommended no more than 150 feet, consistent with jurisdictions such as Maricopa County and Buckeye, rather than a setback that is effective effectively functions as a prohibition.

The Goodyear example is still a draft.

It has not been voted on, and it is correct that it in its current uh version has been reduced to 330 feet unless you have an airplane study and then it's 150 feet.

Third, the proposed noise standard should be revised, requiring that noise be perceptible beyond the site boundaries, creates a subjective and difficult to enforce standard.

A better approach would be to use an objective, measurable standard tied to a decibel threshold, or the city's existing noise framework so that applicants, staff, and neighbors all have clarity.

And I'm gonna run out of time, so I'll just conclude by saying that it is important to have some administrative flexibility.

Storage technology evolves quickly, and project details can often change during engineering and permitting.

A well-designed ordinance should allow reasonable modifications where an applicant can demonstrate equivalent safety and compatibility rather than forcing unnecessarily reapprovals.

So, for example, for example, if you did have the ordinance and you move forward with it as it is today, and it's four, you know, 1,499 feet from a residence, it would be prohibited based on the ordinance.

We think you should put in some flexibility or waiver provisions so that if a project is well suited and meets 99% of the ordinance, it isn't just automatically rejected.

And then I'll just finally say that best cannot be built in the city today, so it is important that you move forward promptly with revisions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker is James.

I'm apologize, I cannot read your last name.

So the second James.

There you go.

Thank you.

Good evening.

And I'm on here, I'm here on the behalf of Next Air Energy Resources.

Uh we participate, we appreciate the opportunity to review the proposed uh best ordinance and would like to offer some feedback on the text amendment.

NIER has provided comments on the previous versions of the proposed best uh ordinance and appreciates the city's continued work on the amendment.

Some of the concern rised raised previously remains, and we would like to share additional context as the city considers its next steps.

At a high level, the provision and the best text ordinance makes it challenging to site best within the city.

In particular, the setback requirement are significantly larger than what we typically see in other jurisdictions and by industry standards.

Based on our experience, setbacks from dwellings are generally 50 to 150 feet.

The proposed 1500-foot setback would create substantial constraints that would limit the development under the ordinance and excludes most of the ideal locations for its future use.

Conducted conducted in an industry review of the BES as a land use and found that typical setbacks for best facilities range from 50 to 150 feet from the property line.

Similarly, the National Fire Protection Association considers a BES that is set back to 100 feet from another building or lot line to be considered a remote location with no requirement for fire suppression systems.

Additionally, for a large outdoor BES, NFPA only requires a 10-foot setback from a lot line and building with no specific residential unit setback.

We ask that the city consider passing a text amendment more similarly to Maricopa County.

As you know, Maricopa County recently passed the BEST ordinance that allows BEST within I2 or NIND2, IND3 zoning districts with a right with a property uh line set back and site plan approval.

The best ordinance as currently drafted will unnecessarily deter uh best development within the city surprise.

I strongly recommend that the 1500 foot setback from dwellings be dramatically reduced.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, James.

Next, we have Sarah No.

Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners.

My name is Sarah No.

I'm an attorney at the law firm Ballard Spar LLP, and I'm here making a statement on behalf of my client Next Era Energy Resources, or NIR.

NEAR appreciates the city and city staff's effort to develop BES specific standards, and we share the city's interest in ensuring that any such development is carried out responsibly.

That said, we ask that the city consider the practical impact of the uh approval process proposed by this text amendment.

As you know, Arizona is experiencing unprecedented growth, and the state's utilities and energy developers are working diligently to keep up with rising demand.

Best systems have emerged as one of the most promising solutions to help utilities meet demand during peak periods.

Under the proposed text amendment, a developer seeking to construct a best facility anywhere in the city would require a type three rezone.

And that's the most intensive level of review offered by the city.

And this process can take six to nine months.

After completing the type three rezone, the developer would then need to obtain type one site plan approval.

During that review, under the proposed amendment, the community development director would have sole discretion to determine whether the project remains in quote, substantial conformance with the zoning narrative and preliminary site plan.

If the director concludes that it does not, the developer would then be required to go back to the beginning and pursue a type three review.

This level of discretion combined with the approval timeline creates an unmanageable risk for energy developers.

And here's why that matters.

Developers must meet power purchase agreement deadlines.

A process that already can last nearly a year, with the potential for the community development director to, in his sole discretion, require an additional six to nine months over review period, creates an unworkable level of uncertainty.

The practical effect of passing a text amendment this restrictive may result in a de facto moratorium on BESS in the city of surprise.

For these reasons, we respectfully request the city consider an alternative approach.

Specifically, we think the city should add BES as a use permitted by right in the I2 and I3 zoning districts, subject to reasonable conditions and site plan approval.

This would be more similar to the Maricopa County BESS ordinance that has recently been passed.

Thank you so much for your time and consideration of this matter.

Thank you very much.

We have our last speaker would be CPAN Alizada.

Before I begin, fantastic job.

That's the best I've heard today.

Fantastic.

All right.

Hi, everyone.

My name is Sipan, Chair, Vice Chair, my name is Sipandalazata.

I am with the Arizona Technology Council, 2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1530 in Phoenix.

Here to uh speak about the proposed zoning text amendment.

Uh before I begin, I want to thank Chris for all her work.

She's been fantastic to work with, very responsive to questions, um, provides updates in a timely matter.

So thank you so much, Chris.

Uh earlier today, I was in Florence in Penal County for a couple rezonings for best projects, actually.

And one of the attorneys who spoke said the only constant in life is change.

And nowhere is that more apparent than in technology.

The technology that we see with BESS today is much different than what we saw first generation five, six years ago.

It has become safer, as I'm sure James will testify to.

Uh, more rigorous, uh, more efficient with energy use.

And best systems store all types of energy.

I want to make that very clear.

They store all types of energy and release it when needed.

So also Arizona Technology Council is a trade association.

We have over 750 members, and many of our members are looking to come to the West Valley.

And in order to come to the West Valley, we need to have energy to power these tech companies that want to set up shop here.

Best facilities are able to meet that.

So, with that, I ask you, please reconsider the 1,500-foot separation requirement from dwellings.

It is restrictive.

Uh, it is not in line with what we are seeing in the West Valley and in Maricopa County, and it will allow more technology companies to come here, more economic development come here, more tax revenue to come here, and more impact to come to the city.

Surprise.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Sarah, do we have anyone else?

No, that is all chair.

Well, thank all of you for your input.

Uh, this is very new to all of us up here, I'm sure.

Oh, wait.

Sorry, I found out the form online, so I wasn't.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Oh, come on up.

Thank you very much.

Are you Christiana?

Yes, that's okay.

Perfect.

Yay.

Okay, I'm glad I made it through at the last moment.

All right.

Well, good evening, planning and zoning commissioners.

My name is Christiana Fadul Pepper.

I am an advocate for a cleaner, more sustainable energy future across the entire Western Valley.

So, although I do live in Buckeye, um, I am a frequent visitor of surprise.

I have been my entire life.

Um, as of recent, my husband and I often spend a lot of time at the village at Prasada for date nights.

Um, and I have some family that lives out here off of Wadell Road and 137th Avenue.

So I'm here quite frequently, and I care about this city.

So I'm here tonight to also urge you, as everyone else in this room has to update the city's land and development ordinance around battered battery energy storage projects to reflect modern technology and reasonable setbacks that will allow safe, responsible projects to move forward.

As the prize continues to grow, which it has been quite frequently, we do need to make sure that our infrastructure is growing with it.

Energy storage projects can help reduce grid strain, support reliability during our hottest summer months, which are coming sooner and more frequently than ever, when our electricity demand is at its peak, and we do need things like dependable air conditioning, and we need it because it's critical for our families, our seniors, everybody both here in Surprise, but across the valley as well.

I would also much rather see energy storage be provided than let's say some fossil fuels like any kind of Pika plants.

I would much rather have clean energy like energy storage.

These projects also do represent a real investment in surprises future.

Energy storage can generate millions of dollars over the life of a project in local tax revenue that can support our schools, our fire departments, road construction, community services, without raising taxes on residents.

Uh, they also will create hundreds of good paying construction jobs, and that alone will even just bring economic activity to our local businesses while the development process is happening.

So, of course, again, as everybody else has stayed here tonight, safety has to remain the top priority.

Today's energy storage is the safest it has ever been, with the strongest safety standards, uh, the improved technology and coordination with first responders that really do reflect how far this industry has come over the last 10 years.

Uh so I really do also urge y'all to reconsider the 1500 setback from any existing dwelling unit.

Uh, we want it to be more on par with like what we're seeing in Maricopa County in my city of Backeye as well.

It's gonna be too restrictive.

We are gonna be putting opportunities at our doorstep at the back of the doorstep or blocking these different projects that come to us.

We really need to have them.

Uh, and I want us to hopefully align more with the NFPA's national fire safety guidelines and best practices, uh, giving the city that ample flexibility that they have to uh determine it by case-by-case basis.

But that all being said, because I'm over time, I really hope that you consider not only what I'm saying as a resident of this area, but also all the developers and the people that are here tonight.

We care, we want to see a stronger feature for these communities, and I feel like best truly is what we need to do to make that happen.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Christiana.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak?

No, Chair, I believe that's all.

Okay.

Seeing then, then we'll uh open this up for our commission.

This is uh This is uh something new that we're learning here about the uh best program and uh Commissioner Perry.

Oh, thank and thank you, Chair Chapman.

I'll uh try to keep my comments pithy, but that's very difficult for me to do.

Uh in fact, uh the chair said that the reason that I sit at the end is uh for a reason.

So I'll uh I'll just let you ponder that.

Now this has come up a number of times, and I started on my own to do some research and have had about six or seven different meetings over the last uh I'd say seven or eight months uh with uh some safety folks, with some suppliers of the technology and uh and with actual sites where this has been deployed.

And in fact, uh yesterday I was at a uh site at a neighboring city uh where a uh I believe it was uh 70 or 80 megawatt facility was working at full um at full speed and was in the process of charging itself, which is one of the noisiest uh times that that a best makes.

And as I walked from the facility about a hundred and fifty or two hundred feet away, and this was around 10 in the morning, uh, I couldn't hear anything.

So I look at is it safe?

Well, as I toured the facility, it looks like it's safe from a variety of reasons, including the fact that the batteries are now isolated, that the cabinets are isolated, that they are monitored with an array of sensors, and uh that a runaway situation like we had at McMicken some years ago with current technology is extremely extremely low risk.

Uh the second thing I would let everybody know is that my background is technology.

Before I retired, I worked for, I worked in Silicon Valley.

I was uh I was in the technology business.

So uh I asked a lot of technical questions, and I feel uh reasonably certain that the technology is leaps and bounds, several generations ahead of where it was uh under uh the McMicken issue.

Then I started to look at it from an economic situation.

So uh one of the committees that I'm on uh is a uh there's the master transportation committee here in surprise, because transportation is one of our major issues with traffic congestion.

And one of the things that I believe is by having more industry and more supporting uh job uh uh in surprise, we reduce the commuting out of the city, keeping in mind that the world's largest semiconductor manufacturer is uh 25 miles down the road.

And we could have an array of high-paying jobs here that are supporting that facility, and they're gonna require energy.

So I think it is important that we keep in mind from an economic perspective what this will do.

And that doesn't even mention the tax revenue uh from one of these facilities over a five or a 10-year period.

So uh let me uh let me uh give this uh back to the chair, but all the experience that I've seen so far indicates that what a number of folks are saying is from uh 150 feet or so away, uh seems to be prudent and reasonable with today's technology.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Just to follow up on his comments about uh the advanced technology from uh McInnack.

McMick uh accident that we had.

Uh I know there was a like clouds of of uh some sort of gas or whatever that was uh laying low, which is uh interesting.

And uh hazardous materials or anyone do we has it things changed that we have sensors or other things that can identify this and the improvement.

Is there anyone that would like to speak on that?

Uh any one of you with the the knowledge.

Yes, sir, I could speak to that.

Um if you want to speak about the sensors, uh each manufacturer is so there's no uh they're not all the same, but as far as sensors, it's gonna be typically hydrogen, heat, and smoke.

We're seeing multiple of the multiple alarms within those containers.

So you're talking there's more alarms in those containers than we're seeing in residential homes, and the containers are 20 feet, you know, 20 feet long.

So there's a lot of redundancy, a lot of safety, and there's a lot of autonomous shutoffs built in to ensure when those alarms are triggered that those batteries are isolated so they no longer charge and discharge and uh you know they're taken offline.

Okay, could you just uh what the rest of the people will speak to, but just uh what kind of suppression activity do you have, something like that?

It's a great question.

So there is actually no suppression.

We've learned over the years that based upon all of the events that have occurred, when there is an event, what we do is we apply water to the adjacent containers.

So if there's a container on fire, intermittent water is applied to the containers next to it to keep the temperatures down.

Now, when I say intermittent, I don't need an excessive amount of water.

We're gonna monitor our data points, and what we do is we teach the fire department, they work with subject matter experts from the company, they analyze those data points, they work hand in hand to make sure that they're getting real-time information.

And as the event continues to go on, the fire is going to deteriorate.

Essentially, it is burning off its own energy.

So the word suppression isn't necessarily used.

We're we're doing more of asset protection.

Okay, thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Can you before you leave?

Can you just give us a little bit of maybe a 30-second commercial of where the hazards come from and how they happen?

Just, I mean, take us like we're five-year-olds and just say, all right, here's the battery.

What happens?

How does it get to be to where it could catch fire?

And then what do we do with it?

Sure.

So there are the there's four major highlighted areas that I see in my industry, the questions are proposed.

It's fire explosion, plume, and soil.

Those are the four topic issues that we like to discuss.

I can go into further detail on each of them and kind of give you a little bit of an explanation of what we see with fire, what the explosion risks are, how we mitigate them, um, the plume of what's in the smoke in the air, and if there's any effects to the soil.

So it's up to you if you'd like me to keep going on that.

So real quick, give us some one minute commercial on how it happens and what we need to worry about, be worried about.

So, in the event there is a fire, what we do is we train the fire department, they're gonna take their standoff distances, they're gonna conduct some air monitoring.

If there is a fire, they're gonna do some exposure protection, they're gonna monitor the air as the event continues to occur, they're gonna monitor those data points.

Like I said, as that fire continues to decrease and it burns off its energy, the incident land be turned over, considered handled, and then they'll move on to the decommissioning phase of getting that equipment off site.

Um, and there's numerous regulations and standards that occur from that point forward.

And then if my house is 150 feet away from it, what do I have to worry about for my family?

Nothing.

We haven't seen anything leave the site.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Chris, hold on.

Thank you, Chair Chapman.

I I actually want to do some conversation, two different directions.

Number one, and coming back at you, Chris, uh, why are we proposing a 1500 foot setback?

Uh I I've heard a lot of people say, make it 150 feet or make it 300 or do a plume study and so forth.

Why are we proposing a 1500?

Um, thank you, Chair.

Um, Commissioner Holland.

The reason my staff chose 1500 is there were past incidences and we knew the evacuation areas were 1500 feet, and that's why we chose that just for the health and safety of the surprise residents.

Are we so evacuation zone buffer?

Okay.

And and so if if if there was an incident, we're talking about evacuating 1,500 feet worth of people, is that correct?

My understanding.

And I saw them sitting over there.

And so, yeah, uh pipe up, please.

Thank you, Commissioner.

What we would do is use the emergency response guidebook, uh, which is what we would apply to any incident involving hazardous materials.

If a plume were to develop, that's what we would use.

I think James explained it well, though, that what we do with the fire code is we try to apply stringent requirements to the site itself.

So that's why we defer to planning and to this commission to to discuss what we want surprise specific to be the buffer.

So what we do in industry and what we do in the fire department when we do reviews on projects like this is we try to keep it within the site.

And um, I think that acknowledging McPick and was early-ish on in the technology uh is a good thing to do.

It was seven years ago, so I think we should acknowledge that um and and have these types of discussions.

And I think that's it's important.

We've got industry, we've got the commission, and we've got our planning department here to have these discussions.

We need to figure out what fits surprise the best.

I agree, thank you.

And so basically, if I understand what you're you're saying correctly, uh rather than uh having the the impetus on us, if there is an incident to go out and evacuate people, if the idea is to just keep it all on site, that way we don't have to evacuate anybody.

If it happens there, it happens there, and we're not too worried.

Is that that that is correct?

I I believe that through engineering controls, I think that is the idea of what we're trying to do.

Now, all of us can acknowledge that if things get out of control, we may have to evacuate.

And I think that is what we're talking about right now is is considering worst-case scenario.

So if if it did get off site for whatever reason, if there was a cascading effect between batteries, cells, between the cabinets, whatever it may be, and it were to grow to a point where we had to go defensive from a firefighting perspective and it got out of control, then that's when that evacuation uh distance would kick in.

So I believe that is what the 1500 feet is intending to do is anticipate worst-case scenario.

Okay, and and by keeping it on site, we don't necessarily have to go off-site to worry about at least residences.

That's what I'm hearing.

Okay.

So with that in mind, uh, and and thank you for that explanation.

That that helps me understand kind of why it's being proposed.

Now, uh from this aspect, I'm gonna bring you back up.

Uh sorry, I forgot your first name from James.

Thank you.

Thank you.

From FRE.

Uh as far as historically and what we're seeing out there, are we seeing how how often are we having to have evacuations and things occur where there's uh a pretty significant incident uh that requires local firefighters to do anything other than pour water on the adjacent containers?

So we're finding that evacuations are not necessary.

Um, part of what we do is we actually do a plume study.

So um when we have these UL tests, so we have to test these batteries at multiple levels, and we conduct a plume analysis.

So we understand what are the main elements that are burning.

So they're carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen.

There are their constituents that we're familiar with as well.

But those gases rise and dissipate.

So when we talk about evacuations, part of the process and the first step when we work with the fire department is the air monitoring.

So we're gonna monitor the air for carbon monoxide.

And the best way in the and the training that we give, I try to give it at a level where not everybody's a firefighter.

So when we talk about carbon monoxide, can it be harmful?

Absolutely.

I don't I don't discount that.

The emissions from a vehicle are carbon monoxide.

People aren't dying in traffic jams.

Um we have to understand that distance and dissipation is what's occurring.

So as that event is happening and those gases are rising and dissipating, we work with the fire department on that emergency response plan to ensure that that first step is going to do the air monitoring.

If they're not detecting any of those gases at 150 feet, they're not going to detect it further.

So evacuations that have taken place have been made off of fear and emotion.

Um, not so much science and data.

And what we've done in the industry is unfortunately when these events occur, we're given the opportunity to sit back and analyze the data and analyze the facts and really change our response tactics.

Because at the end of the day, whether it's paid fire department or volunteer fire department, keeping those firefighters and the members of the service safe is paramount, but also the safety of the community.

But when we make those decisions, we have to do them based on fact.

And that's what we do when we do these plume studies and we do analyze the events that have occurred and we take the data and we look at it as a whole.

So with the plume dissipation that you're talking about here, and uh I I understand you're saying uh evacuations are more emotion-based and fear, but we've also got standards that we need to abide by as well because we want to keep people safe.

I'm in favor of best.

Let me put it out there.

Okay, I'm I'm in favor of best.

I want to do this safely because we're not going to have another McMicken coming into surprise.

Uh and so uh my thought here is I'm I'm looking for something less than 1,500 feet, but I'm also looking for something that I can look the residents in the face and me being one of them and say we we did our very best to make sure that you are safe and we're not gonna have another McMicken problem.

So with that, uh, as as far as plume and dissipation is concerned, uh, what are the studies telling us?

How big do those plumes get and how much dissipation are we talking about?

Sure.

So so I I sat several months ago, I went to a large scale test um, and we actually burned a container.

And we wanted to study and analyze what happened.

And what we saw was there was no propagation.

So it didn't go from one container to the next.

So when we talk about worst-case scenario, I know that's always encompassed in that decision.

Um, without any type of intervention, no water application allowed, there was no propagation.

But to get back to the plume portion of it, we're only seeing one container.

I can't tell you exactly how much smoke is going to be involved in the fire because I'm not sure how much in that container is going to be burning.

So it's very hard for me to give you a firm or solid number of what's going to be burning.

What I can bring you to is I can highlight an event that was taking place in Escondido and there was evacuations and there were shelter in place that were instituted.

I have data and facts from that day from Hazmat from readings at the fence line.

Again, that's where a lot of our decision making comes from is we analyze that data and there was nothing found outside the fence line.

So again, far away was the fence line.

The uh the fence line of the facility.

How far was that from the container?

If if I told you number I'd be making it up, I'd happily research it and get to you.

Okay.

Um I don't want to give you a.

You're telling me it didn't cross fence line.

If it's 1500 feet, then I I'm with you.

But uh we 150 or I'm sorry, yeah.

So the fence line to the to the best facility.

So happily I'll get you the information of how far that container was to the fence line, but at the fence line, which would be the most outside part of the facility, there were there was nothing detected.

So again, we understand what's burning.

When we go to a house fire, I'll I'll if you just bear with me one second, I'm gonna lay on the plane, I promise.

If I go into my garage right now, I have gasoline for the lawnmower, kerosene for the heater, my aerosol spray canes, spray paint spray paint cans, fertilizer for the lawn, and uh paint for my molding, because I have a puppy who's currently destroying all of my molding.

The constituents that are burning in that garage are bad.

There's a lot of unknowns when we go to fire, right?

We go out of the house to save life and property.

There's a lot, a lot of unknowns in house fires.

We we don't take evacuations for those house fires.

We don't know what's burning.

So when we look at a best facility, I can tell you that from the plume studies, I can tell you exactly what's burning.

And I have a much more concrete answer versus a house or an industrial fire that I don't know.

Um, so again, I'm sorry I can't give you a better context of the smoke and the plume itself, but I like to try to paint a better picture of of what we see in the fire service um as a whole, comparing fires from best to other things.

With today's technology, and I know it's advancing.

How often do we have more than one container that has an incident at the same time or uh so when we do this UL underwriters laboratory large scale testing, there's four major parts of these batteries.

There's cell module rack and then the container itself.

So they need to be tested at every level in order to be passed.

Um like I had you know alluded to before, I was at a large scale fire test, and we purposely lit a container on fire with the spacing that we're seeing in the industry and without applying any intermittent water application of what we would do, there was no propagation from one container to the next.

So we're not seeing if there's a fire in one best container, the entire facility goes up.

That that's not the case.

We're we're seeing no propagation without any intervention.

Um again, it it's a it's a manageable event.

Um I I've seen them on fire.

I I've worked with multiple fire departments on an international level, training firefighters who've been involved.

And um, from a firefighter's perspective, it's a safe response.

We're not putting anybody in harm's way.

And again, to the fact of the plume is I can tell you what's burning in there.

Okay.

And and uh I understand all the insulation and distance between the containers that's that's going into it.

And uh I I have uh looked into this a little bit more than uh just today.

Uh so I understand that, but uh to your knowledge that we don't have multiple containers that are having uh incidences at the same time.

No.

Okay.

We are not.

Um with regard to uh, well, let me I'm gonna hop back over here to you, Chris, because I heard a couple other issues that were brought up regarding the the scope and only uh taking it to commercial utilities uh as opposed to putting it just anywhere, I believe was something that was brought up.

Uh is there any portion of and I didn't see this, so any portion of the the proposed text amendment that would make it so that it's it's only uh restricted to commercial uh uses.

Um thank you, Chair Commissioner Holland.

There isn't anything in the in the proposed ledge edit that would only have it towards commercial and industrial.

Okay.

I might be in favor of that one.

I don't I don't mind that one at all.

I I'm sorry, but it for accessory uses, it is mostly industrial and business park, but not for standalone.

And and so, yeah, and and the suggestion I know was made to to make it permitted uh permitted uses of right in I2 and I3 zones.

Uh I'm I'll get to that in just a second, but uh, I'm I'm not opposed to uh it being is some sort of restriction if you're looking for feedback from me uh with regard to commercial uses and utilities uh and and accessory uses uh in industrial uh locations.

That that actually makes a lot of common sense to me.

As far as no noise, I I agree with the the idea that uh there's you know, we've got a noise ordinance that's out there.

Uh I as long as we can comply with that and perhaps even a noise study uh that that comes with the uh um application, uh I think that should take care of it.

I I don't know anything else out there that I'm aware of where we say you can absolutely make no noise whatsoever, leave your premises.

Uh no, we don't want them.

I mean, every time somebody comes through with I I saw the noise study, by the way.

Thank you very much for bringing that noise study through uh with the uh breakmasters that just was approved, because I would have asked about it, and I'm sure you knew that.

Uh, but with if we get a noise study, then I I think in from my perspective, that would take care of it.

Um as far as the 1500 foot setback, uh, you know, I I'm I I think it's uh it's it's too big.

Um my my feeling would be that it it would be something substantially less if we not if we don't have anything that indicates that we're putting people in danger from explosion fire, uh, soil issues or even the plume uh that could be produced from that.

I I would say that a setback would be appropriate that would have those factors affect uh the homes around it.

Now, while I understand the standard of a 1,500 foot uh um uh requirement that we're gonna need to evacuate people, from what I'm hearing, we don't evacuate very often.

And uh the worst case scenario is the whole place explodes.

And at that point, yes, we need to evacuate, but prior to that, unless unless we've got something else that says we're gonna have to be evacuating people, I think that the distance uh to uh setback distance needs to be uh um related somehow to what we're gonna see as one of those containers exploding.

And it doesn't sound like it's gonna be 1500 feet.

It sounds like it's gonna be something more along the lines of of, you know, I don't know if it's gonna be 150 feet or if it's gonna be 300 feet, and then you do a plume study like was proposed from Goodyear.

Uh, and if you do a plume study and you can show that it's not gonna be 330 feet, it's only gonna be 150 feet.

And that's that seems reasonable to me.

Uh, and and if we're able to contain that and keep our people safe, especially our firefighters safe, uh, then it makes sense to me that we would have only a setback that would require them to or enable them to take care of the issue without it spreading elsewhere, and only in a very scary circumstance would we ever need to evacuate anybody.

So that is that is my personal feeling on that, and I'll leave it to the rest of the commission.

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Everett.

Thank you.

Um, I have been looking into this for quite some time, knowing this um ordinance was coming.

And of course, the 1500 feet is it's prohibitive, and we've all heard from everyone in this room saying it's not it's not acceptable for us to if we want to have a BES in our city.

It just doesn't work.

Um I've heard people speak of McMicken fire, and I wanted to bring something to everyone's attention.

All batteries are not the same.

The McMicken fire was a lead battery, like your car battery.

Battery now is lithium, it is different.

So McMicken, it was a tragic event, but with the technology we have today, that's not going to happen.

There's a lot of other things that were mentioned besides the setback, which I am strongly in favor of a hundred-foot setback, and I don't see why we can't have a wall on the property line.

Um but there were other things mentioned, such as the community development director being the only one that can just, you know, this is what I think, so I'm gonna veto this.

We need to tighten that language some.

We need to make that not an arbitrary decision.

And when they mentioned the noise, um uh a lady mentioned it saying that it needs to be a decibel level.

Well, it does.

It needs to be a decibel level.

That way, again, it's not subjective.

The way our the ordinance reads now is very subjective, and it if I didn't know better, we just didn't want batteries in our city, and that's tax dollars.

I don't know how many of you were at the city council meeting, not this last one, but the one before that, where we were talking about we can't hire additional police officers because we don't have the money.

So if we continue this down this road the way it is, we are telling folks take your tax dollars to other cities, take it to Buckeye because they're more reasonable, take it to Goodyear because they're more reasonable.

We need to take the setback to a reasonable length.

I again say 100 feet, just like the county, and we also need to address some of the other concerns that were mentioned today, because I don't want this to be subjective.

I want I want developers to be able to look at the ordinance and say, I need to do this, this, and this, and I can build in surprise.

And right now, the way it reads, there's a lot of subjectivity to it, and that's not good.

Okay, thank you, Commissioner Everett.

Commissioner Bash.

Thank you, Chair Chapman.

Whenever I get into a situation like this, I always like to try to simplify things.

The issue is explosion, fire, hazardous gas pollution from a battery cabinet in a battery field.

And I look back and I'm thinking, if I want to simplify it, to me, propane tanks that sit in people's yards between homes, is very similar to what we're talking about here.

I mean, that is very explosive.

It could trigger an event.

And if we allow what is the setback for a propane tank, is there one?

Depends on the size, Commissioner.

So for a small one you would use for your grill, there is no setback requirement.

Okay.

My point.

So if you're worried about explosion fire hazardous gas and pollution, you have it on a simpler level with propane tank, which is right next to a house.

So if we allow propane tanks right next to residences, I think a 1,500 feet is too restrictive.

Thank you.

Trevor Burrus.

Sure, just if I could add a few points of clarification for your for your consideration.

So on a few of the topics that have been brought up, um part of what staff has proposed so far and put together in this legislative edit, um without going beyond the bounds of existing code, we have tried to mirror other sections of our code as much as possible.

So with regard to noise, we have an existing section of our code where it talks about a building or a use cannot generate noise beyond the boundaries of a property in excess of what's uh uh currently existing.

And so this proposed legislative edit just aims to mirror that.

Um however, if you know, if if the the point of this meeting tonight is to get um feedback and direction from from you all.

So if there's a different route that you would like us to go, we would like to know that.

But um that is that is the reasoning that we have done that for the noise, as far as the um substantially complete um determination from the community development director to clarify that.

So at the initial rezone stage, the applicant has to provide a preliminary site plan and a rezone narrative.

Um our concern was that if after they receive zoning, if there's any substantial changes that are being proposed to the to the site plan, whether that's expanding how much acreage they want to use or making significant changes to the layout or what have you, we didn't want substantial changes to be um reviewed and approved at a uh at an administrative level um where you now have a discrepancy of what's actually approved versus what was presented to the commission and to the council.

So we wanted to build in something that created that consistency.

So the way that we have it set up is their site plan that comes in either um concurrently or subsequently to the zoning, if it does not substantially conform to the site plan that was presented to commission and council at the time of rezone, then it would have to go through that um that process over again.

And that's consistent with what we do with with other um entitlement processes.

If we had a CUP application come before you and it was approved, and the applicant wanted to make changes after your approval, if it was a substantial change, we would bring it back before the commission because that's um that's how our code is currently set up.

So this is consistent with that as well.

And then on the setbacks, um, just to clarify one thing there the way that we have it proposed right now is a 1500-foot setback from any existing dwelling units at the time of that that rezone process.

So if subsequent to the rezone, um a home developer came in or a property owner came in within that buffer area, that would not um you know retroactively um do anything to the to the approval of the best.

It's just at the time of that application for the rezone, we're evaluing whether whether or not there are dwelling units within that 1500 foot radius.

But with that, you know, as as uh my colleague in in fire stated, we are basing that off of our standard evacuation radius.

And so if there is a different um direction that you guys would like us to to proceed with, we would like to know you know what the what the commission's general consensus is on a different setback.

Um and and you know, as you've seen with with our presentation across the other communities that have done best ordinances, they're not there's not a standard.

Um so we're just trying to base things off of um things that we we currently have, and so that's where our you know 1500 foot came from.

Okay, Commissioner Everett, yes.

So it sounds like what you're saying is you want the 1500 foot setback, but afterwards, uh a developer could put a home there right next to it.

So what is the purpose?

Am I missing I I could be missing something, but I I'm not understanding.

Yeah, I think thank you, Commissioner.

So the purpose of that is so that we don't have existing residences who bought in an area without best, suddenly having a hazardous type use come in next to them without any sort of protection or you know, noticing or what have you.

And so community meetings like before it's built, they would reach out to the community and they would be educated and ask questions then, right?

Correct.

It's just the the setback protection wouldn't be there.

Yeah.

Okay, Commissioner uh Perry.

Uh uh thank you, Chair Chapman.

Uh, a quick question to you, uh uh to our planning folks, Leslie.

Did we do uh an in-depth look at all of the cities uh within a 40-mile radius of surprise uh or in the county as to what setbacks were, because I only saw two or three that were on that chart, and uh and is it because in many locales they haven't set a standard, or did we just get the data that was available?

Yeah, thank you, Commissioner.

Um so the ones that were in the chart are the um either um existing or ongoing best specific ordinances that we're aware of.

Um we have not done a full evaluation of how all the cities in the in the valley handle this use.

Um that's something that we could do if you'd like us to before um the next hearing, but um some municipalities kind of treat it under the umbrella of utilities.

Um this is set of sort of a a newer um standalone use.

So I think um not everyone is treating it kind of consistently, and so that's why you're seeing new ordinances pop up um variation in in regulation.

So the ones that we have in the chart are the ones that we're currently aware of.

Um, but we could take a look to see if there's anything else out there.

Yeah, thank you, Trevor.

Uh I'm just wondering if Peoria has uh uh has an or an ordinance, if Glendale has an ordinance, if Avondale has an ordinance, and they may not, uh to your point, because this is uh brand new stuff, but I think that also helps to guide us as to um what uh because like it or not, economically we're in competition with all the cities around us, and that's my big concern uh is the economics of best.

I believe that if BES can't be cited easily or conveniently within the city limits, that we will have an economic hardship put on the city, not only from tax revenue, but from employment uh opportunities.

So uh I don't want to repeat what I said earlier, but that that's why I'm just interested in understanding what's happening locally.

Thank thank you, thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Hall.

Thank you for letting me speak again.

Yeah, yeah, again.

Yeah.

Um thank you, and interim director.

I I I appreciate the uh uh the insights and information that you gave uh regarding why uh the non-substantial compliance issue.

I agree with that.

Uh uh with regard to noise, I agree it should mirror what we have with everything else.

And that that's what I was hoping to convey.

If I didn't uh that that's I I like that, thank you.

Uh, with regard to the setback, I uh um I agree with the the idea that uh that Commissioner Everett uh mentioned I I think if we're gonna have 1500 foot a setback, and I know it's from existing uh um houses and and residences, but we're gonna then allow uh developers to come and develop within that 1500 uh foot setback, it it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to to do that if what we're concerned about is safety of our residents.

Now, you indicated well, we don't want to have somebody have something move into their backyard when they bought out here.

Well, growth happens, that happens every day, and I don't mean say that flippantly.

Uh, we obviously are here in the planning zoning commission because we're trying to control and make sure that growth is the right way in the right place.

Uh, nonetheless, uh I I come back to a safety issue, and are those houses going to be affected, uh, those residences.

So if building within a 300 foot radius of a best facility, uh, they're not going to be affected, then I don't I don't see the benefit of having a 1,500 foot setback.

If 350 is not going to be affected, sure, surely the 1500 foot people aren't going to be affected.

Yes, there is a facility there.

Uh, I had a uh um uh mini storage facility built right in our backyard, and I was concerned about that over in my neighborhood.

I'm very concerned about that.

They are the best neighbors, uh they're quiet.

We don't have anybody coming in.

People must store it and leave it there because nobody ever comes around.

Uh and and and they look nice, and I need to find a way to get into that so people can just pay me to store their stuff.

And nonetheless, uh I I think I think we're we're fearing something that may not affect people.

Yes, it's going to be a facility, but now we're talking about an eight to 12 foot wall that we're gonna make it so that it it doesn't look like a prison, we're gonna make it so that it looks like a place that that's part of our community.

So if they're not gonna be affected at 150 feet or 200 feet, and that's why I said I think we need to base it off of who is going to be affected by an incident uh and and have a setback with that.

Not just in the worst case scenario, we've got to evacuate everybody, but who is going to actually be affected by that?

And if they're not going to be affected at 150 feet, then 1500 feet doesn't make any sense anymore.

If they're not going to be affected at 300 feet, if if it the affection line is 250, 300 feet, then let's put it there for everybody, and you just can't build anywhere near it and leave the 1500 feet off.

Uh and and so I I agree with the sentiment that's been shared today of we needed evidence-based, we need to understand who is going to be affected by an incident and what the effects are going to be.

If if the plume is going to be dissipated such that it doesn't affect residences at 250, 300 feet, then that's where it needs to be.

If it if it's 150 feet, then that's where it needs to be.

Uh, but but the the whole idea of a of a new uh the legal term, a nuisance coming to you and having a public or private nuisance issue.

I don't know that that's gonna happen because we are we're uh uh have coverage such that the the wall and the uh the foliage and and uh landscaping that we're gonna have put in there is gonna make it so that we don't have a prison in our backyard, but something that looks nice.

So uh that that I believe is the appropriate measure is where are people affected, not necessarily uh who all do we have to evacuate in a absolute worst-case scenario where the whole place erupts and creates a crater in the in the ground.

Uh that that's that's what I would like to base it off of uh Commissioner Leather.

I think um so I have a few benefits of uh one, I'm in a UL listed facility that deals with batteries.

I've been dealing with batteries and solar power for 20 years.

So love love what you guys are doing.

I'm a I'm a huge proponent of it, and I I absolutely love the fact that we can actually store enough power to make a difference.

Um I also have uh a brother-in-law who's a driller and does geothermal, and so I'm very familiar with that as well.

If you guys can start drilling wells and power and stuff off of that, that's pretty cool technology.

But obviously, you know, we had the McMickan incident.

Um it's it's one of those unfortunate things.

I think in um seven years, technology's changed.

Um, I I also look at the 1,500 feet setback.

I know in the worst case scenario, we want to be as safe as possible, but I also understand that that disqualifies us.

And I believe that surprise is a as a growth city that that needs to embrace um what's happening.

Um my recommendation would be one to to ask you as an expert, what do we need to do here?

Like we're looking at 1,500, three, 300 feet.

What what what would as a as a as a consultant or somebody that that is coming in?

You've looked at what we have, you worked with the city, you've you've you've kind of looked at it from an outside perspective.

You're traveling the world and saying, hey, here's what we're doing.

Um, what are your recommendations?

And as I as a as a group of people that need to understand this and what would be reasonable, um give us your expert opinion on what needs to be adjusted and what our staff should look at and how we can make this work.

So we use 100 feet.

That's within the NFPA standards.

That's with the data and the information that we're collecting um from our standpoint.

And then that's as far as any other conversations.

I I like to recuse myself.

I like the you know, the towns, municipalities to come to their conclusions.

But what I will give you is the standard that we're using training safety-wise is 100 feet.

And then looking at the other things that the staff has, you've worked with them, you've reviewed it.

What else do we need to look at?

So, as far as I'm concerned, when we talk about safety, um, there's a lot of benchmarks throughout this process that we as a consultant will start engaging the fire department, preferably sooner than later.

Um, and obviously that's going to come down to when you make the determination of what that number is, and if a project gets approved, but ultimately one of my next steps is engaging the fire department, seeing what their needs are, seeing the equipment they have.

Do they have what they need?

How do we get them the training?

Let's start building an emergency response plan.

And that's going to be done hand in hand.

So the emergency response plan is tailored to site specifics.

I don't just grab it off the shelf.

So there's a lot of thought and really uh information that needs to be gathered.

So as we reach those benchmarks and as we can get further into the process, um, that's what we'll do.

But for right now, it would I would go with the 100 feet and the engaging your emergency services to ensure that they're staffed and able to handle with the equipment that they have.

Thank you.

So that would be my recommendation is that we look at the the 100 feet if we have that opportunity and and see if we can work within that and then engage our friends at fire and and see if they can, you know, what what do we need?

What would we need?

What equipment would you need?

Is that a reasonable request for the city?

Um, and then can we can we deal with 100 to 150 feet and be comfortable with that?

The other thing that I will say is um we we build cabinets, we put batteries in them, we put solar, we've tried really hard to set them on fire.

I promise we have.

Um, not on purpose, but sometimes when you're you know hiring people and bringing them in, they they they can it's pretty hard to set a battery on fire.

Um, and and when it when and in 20 years we've never had it, knock on wood.

Um, but when I've seen those type of fires, I've also seen the response, how the response is handled, the containment, the fact that it is a contained unit, the fact that we're gonna know, you know, with the sensors.

I I've done UL listing, I know the stuff that you have to do to get UL listed and all the the hoops that you continually jump through and the certifications and the it's much like the NFPA, it's it's it's pretty it's pretty intense.

And so to get it to be yielded listed cabinet, to have it set up the way that it is, I'd be comfortable with the hundred feet and looking at what do we have to do and is it reasonable for the city and the fire to take on that responsibility and and let's see if we can't get that taken care of.

Thank you, Commissioner Bash.

Thanks, Chair Chapman.

Uh to Commissioner Perry's point about the economics.

Have we engaged the economic development department in review of this and its impact on their ability to go out and get new industry and businesses into the city of supplies?

If not, I would recommend that economic development weigh in on the uh new organs.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Yeah, we can get some specific feedback from them.

Okay, Commissioner Perry.

Uh thank you, Chair Chapman.

A question uh to our uh planning department, I just want to be clear on this so that I'm not so if this site was in a industrial zone already, what is the setback to the nearest industrial building?

Thank you, Chair, Commissioner Perry.

Um, if it was an industrial area, it would have to rezone if the overlay and it would just go down to what the um the industrial setbacks would be, unless unless it was near, for instance, an existing dwelling unit.

Yes, thank you.

That's that's how I read this.

And from a safety perspective, are we less concerned about the safety of a worker in an industrial zone who's closer to this facility than we are to a resident?

I think that's something that we must consider on this ordinance uh in terms of that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Leonard.

Having been a safety professional in former life for 20 years, um, there are different standards in commercial and industrial areas.

So to make the statement that are we more concerned or less concerned.

I think that's not a fair statement.

There are standards.

So I don't think it's a concern for people.

I don't ever want it to be portrayed that way.

I think as our fire department will tell you.

We've written standards, we stand by the standards.

We do all of the pieces and parts to make sure people are safe.

Thank you, Commissioner Everett.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I would just like to agree with the 100 foot that was mentioned earlier.

Um recommendation is definitely the the 100 foot, and we need to look at where we want to allow them to put the wall around the facility.

But I would just like it on the record that I recommend 100 feet.

Any other commissioners?

Well, first let's thank all of you experts out there in the field.

You've uh really provided us a lot of information.

Very helpful.

And uh I think that uh as a commission, we're looking for maybe a possible shorter distance here, but uh yes, uh director Trevor.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Um, just just a point of clarification.

So um to understand the consensus in the direction with the hundred foot setback, is that a reduction of the separation requirement at zoning um from existing dwelling units from 1,500 feet to 100 feet?

Um, because there's also the on-site um setback requirement that we have built in for 150 feet.

So from the wall that's on property to the closest dwelling unit would then effectively be 250 feet.

I just wanted to clarify what the the direction of the commission was because there's there's the on-site setback as well as the buffering for zoning requirements.

So I I would probably say that's that's an excellent point.

So that I think that's where we've come up with the I think we've seen anywhere from 100 feet to 300 feet, and I think that consideration probably brings into that 300 feet.

Would you agree with that?

That it's the 150 plus correct, the additional 100.

So would we would we be reasonable at looking at between you know those two 100 or 250, saying we keep the 150 as the standard setback and then somewhere add the additional 100 feet and keep it at 250 feet?

Is that the overall consensus?

Okay, Commissioner Perry.

Uh the site that I visited, I believe had close to a 200-foot setback from the wall to the nearest storage container.

I'm sure it was at least 150 feet from the inside of the wall to the storage containers on the entire perimeter.

Uh so keeping that in mind, uh, I uh I do believe, and I also believe that the installers of this uh want a very sufficient setback, and there's also quite a bit of space between the rows of batteries uh to allow for a fire uh if necessary, inspection service and maintenance.

So, you know, it's not like there's a whole bunch of batteries in a little area.

It's uh it's lined up uh with a number of cabinets, and at the end of each cabinet, there's an inverter, and then there's a number of cabinets that contain the lithium ion batteries and uh and and the monitoring equipment and all.

So there's plenty of space inside the facility as well as uh on the wall on the inside perimeter as well.

So I I would think that some standard should be set that's consistent with uh with what's normally uh in codes for that type of installation.

Is there anybody that can speak intelligently on to whether the 150 plus the 100 would make sense?

Is that going to disqualify us for having opportunities?

Is that going to create a problem?

It's James Jackson again.

Uh how you guys doing today.

Um, so the the site that that uh commissioner Perry's talking about is in Goodyear, Arizona.

I was the developer of that project, and it is a hundred feet from the wall to the first container.

And that's because we follow NFPA 55, 855 that says a remote site cannot have a container anywhere close to within 100 feet to be considered remote.

Um, and then to the point of then from a dwelling, um uh just sort of uh understanding is is that from a safety standpoint, you can stand at that wall and you will not get any elevated exposure.

So I I would ask that the commissioners look at what happened in California and what the EPA said after.

And then also there has been jurisdictions here in Arizona in Pennell County specifically, where they conducted their own test where it took them longer than they thought to propagate the best site.

Uh and then there are some things like Western Way, which is an alliance of Western states, um, that actually took the McMicken fire and how things are developed today and made a single slide.

And one of the main things that happen at McMicken that can't happen today is the capture of the gases inside something.

So right now it gets vented out, so therefore it takes away from that.

So that's why there's not the setback to another structure or a house.

And then to the commission's point, it sounded like staff was concerned about property values uh within that 1,500 feet, but historically there's been a lot of economists and also states and local governments that have done economic studies and actually found the reverse that actually putting batteries and other energy producing sites in their city, their values, their home values actually went up because it brought economic development to their city.

So if you were to to give us a recommendation, would your recommendation to be keeping with the NFPA standards that we stay within the hundred feet from the wall and not take into consideration the 150 foot setback that we currently have?

Or should we keep that intact?

Um, sort of to I believe it's James, correct?

Yeah, James, James and James.

Um so as an industry leader in developing uh at next air injury resources, so we provide what the the standards are, and then we allow the city to sort of dictate what's best for their constituents because you answer to them, not to us.

And so from a safety standpoint, what I can tell you is that if there was propagation of a cell, you could stand at the wall if it's a chain link fence, if it's a wall, or even if there isn't anything there, if you stand a hundred feet away, you will be perfectly fine.

And evidence of that is there has been there have been propagated events here and arounding communities where you had camera crews within the hundred-foot distance while they're standing there and actually uh recording on the incident.

So no recommendations.

My recommendation is we are here to help anyway, best as possible, but we would say follow the standards, but it it's up to the commission.

Cool, thank you.

So again, I I would probably say to save you, not losing all of your hair on this one.

Um, probably the 150 feet is reasonable plus the 100 feet that the NFPA says, I think would be would be a reasonable setback.

Which would get us 250.

Any other comments?

Well, thank you guys very much for all your input and uh hopefully guide us in uh a direction that'll be safe for our community and be able to accommodate your interests.

So Trevor, do you think you have a handle on where we're going here?

Just just want to make sure that um as as we go back and as we move to city council on this item, um the commission's direction is for us to look at the setback, but as far as the um approach for the zoning overlay, the process, the conditional use permit, um no additional feedback or direction on that.

It's primarily with the setback, correct?

I think so.

I think the only thing was the the commercial uh is it for commercial purposes or uh adjacent uses, but other than that, I think you're good.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

And we'll move on to um next thing.

Is it we have any interest in uh anyone that wants to speak on a non-agenda item at this time?

No, Chair.

Is there anyone out there seeing none?

Then we'll close the uh the public hearing uh and uh we'll move on.

Is there any other business from the commission for any future agenda item?

Seeing none, then uh we will uh if no other questions we'll adjourn the meeting.

We'll have a voice vote.

Uh all those in favor say aye.

You want a motion first?

Oh motion, excuse me.

If okay, if he motions, I'll I'll second it.

Got too carried away here.

Okay.

How about a motion?

I'll motion.

And I'll second.

Okay, it has been moved and seconded.

So why don't we uh have a voice vote?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

And no.

None hearing none, then we'll adjourn the meeting.

We said we'd never break the three-second rule.

We'd never make a separate dinner.

And never do that.

We'd never let them sleep in our room.

And never become a minivan mom.

Hey Chris.

Um okay, well, I'm not at my desk right now.

As parents, we say never a lot, but never happens.