Mesa City Council on Dec. 1 moved forward with introduction of two zoning measures governing battery energy storage systems (BES), while deferring immediate action on two companion ordinances amid sharp public comment over how far the facilities should sit from homes.

Supporters from the renewable‑energy industry urged narrower separation distances to avoid hindering grid reliability and jobs. Jeff Crockett, an attorney and Mesa resident, asked the council to set the BES items for a vote Dec. 8 so the city could resolve separation requirements after more discussion. Court Rich of the Rose Law Group, representing AIPA Power, thanked staff and the fire department for what he called a stringent, workable ordinance and urged approval.

Opponents and some residents raised safety, noise and environmental concerns. Mary Mabenow, who lives off Ricker and Round Road, warned a permissive accessory use threshold could place large systems near neighborhoods and described risks from thermal runaway events, ongoing reignition, blast uncertainty and constant humming noise reported around some facilities.

Staff framed the change as a zoning tool to regulate utility‑scale BES: the code distinguishes principal uses (utility‑scale systems of 5 megawatts and above, requiring a planned area development) from accessory systems (smaller, tied to a principal use). Planning staff said they had raised the recommendation from an original 1 MW threshold to 5 MW based on further research and stakeholder input.

Fire‑safety officials described how code and operational requirements would work together. Mesa Fire Marshal Chief Alexander said the city trains for and has responded to battery incidents and that disposal and mitigation would involve hazardous‑waste contractors and decommissioning plans submitted to the fire marshal. Chief Alexander tied a 100‑foot equipment‑to‑property‑line setback to NFPA 855, and clarified that the larger 400‑ and 1,000‑foot figures under discussion are separate "separation distance" rules measured from an external site screen wall or perimeter fence to residential zoning or uses.

Council members debated whether NFPA 855 should be treated as the baseline or whether Mesa should set a longer residential separation. One council member with firefighting experience said NFPA is a minimum and argued for 1,000 feet from homes; industry speakers and technical consultants recommended much smaller separations (NFPA 855 typically corresponds to ~100 feet). Staff said planning and zoning had recommended returning to 400 feet for sensitive receptors (schools, parks, churches) while the 1,000‑foot option had been proposed for residential zoning in a separate approach.

After discussion, an omnibus motion to introduce all four BES items failed. The council then voted to introduce items 7A and 7B (the resolutions/ordinances tied to adoption by reference) for future consideration; the motion to introduce 7C and 7D was not taken up for introduction that evening. Council members and staff repeatedly labeled the action procedural—introduction rather than final adoption—and said the specifics (setback distances, decommissioning bond language) will be further considered at subsequent hearings.

What happens next: the introduced items (7A and 7B) will appear on a future agenda for formal action and staff indicated it can prepare an additional ordinance option if the council wants a different separation scheme (for example, extending 1,000 feet to sensitive receptors as well). The fire marshal and planning staff said permitting will require decommissioning plans, hazardous‑mitigation analyses and plan‑review testing before any BES project can proceed.

Why it matters: the council is balancing two city priorities—public safety and grid resiliency—while deciding local land‑use rules that will affect where battery storage projects can locate in Mesa for years to come.