Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It is November 6, 2025 at 9:31 in the morning. We'll begin with a roll call. Commissioner Dan Z.

Commissioner Finter present. Commissioner Hernandez here. Commissioner Lawrence. Commissioner Leighton here. Chairman Limblum is on the way. Chairman Limblum. He's on the way. And Vice Chair Milhaven here. Commissioner Rockwell here. Commissioner Toma. Commissioner Whitney. I'm here. Chairman, we have a quorum.

Thank you. This meeting has been noticed in accordance with open meeting law ARS 38-431. Agendas are available within 24 hours of each meeting in the Maricopa County Planning and Development Office and are also available on the planning and development website one week prior to hearing at www.mmaricopa.govplanning. Staff reports prepared for each agenda item shall become a part of the permanent record for each case. With respect to a hearing process considered in the order they appear on the agenda unless otherwise agreed to by the commission. For each case, the applicant will be given a set amount of time to present. Anyone wishing to speak in a particular case shall fill out a speaker card for inerson attendance or raise your hand within go to webinar. The amount of time allowed for speaking shall be at the direction of the commission chair. Staff will provide the chairman with names of persons who have registered and noted desire to speak and those registered participants who have raised their hand. The chairman will call on each named participant one at the time. Chairman will conduct a hybrid inerson and virtual public hearing according to bylaws the rules established by the chairman regarding public comment. Votes will be done by roll call vote only. The chairman will verbally identify the specific members responsible for motions and seconds. First item is uh minutes of October 9th, 2025 or any comments or corrections hearing. None. We accept the minutes of October 9th, 2025 and we'll move forward to the continuous agenda.

Madam chair, commissioner Z25003 known as Tonapal Logistics Center District 4 is a zone to IUPD for 62 acres in Tonopah. Uh the this is being continued to December 4th. No actions necessary by the commission. Thank you. Moving on to the consent agenda. We have opposition from case number 8 CPA25006A sun 3-5. Is there anyone here to speak on that? All right. In that case, we'll leave that item on the consent agenda. Staff, please.

Madam Chair, commissioners, uh, there are nine consent items. They are Z250017 known as Mckenry Buckeye Industrial in District 4. This is an industrial 2 IUPD zone change in Hopeville at the west of the southwest corner of Yuma and Palibi roads on 128 acres. There's no opposition. The recommendation in paragraph 13 is for approval subject to conditions A through K. Next two items are related. They are CPA 25002 and Z250015 known as Harka Energy Generation Industrial Complex in district 5. This is a uh industrial 2P zone change and a uh comp plan amendment to change designation to utilities for 917 acres at the northwest corner. 499th Avenue in Camelback Road in Harkella Valley. There's no non opposition. The recommendation is for approval of the CPA in paragraph 18 and approval of the zone change of paragraph 19 subject conditions A through L. Next two items are also related. They are CPA 25004 and Z250028 known as Dandelion Energy Park in district 5. It's a major comprehensive plan amendment to change the designation to util land use designation to utilities and a zone change to industrial 2PD for 2358 acres southeast of Rigs Road Navenddale Boulevard in the Mobile area. There's no known opposition. The recommendations are for approval of the CPA case in paragraph 22 and approval of the resoning case in paragraph 23 subject conditions A through J. The next case is CPA 25005 known as the Mariposa Energy Center in District 5. This is a major comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use designation to utilities on 1,944 acres at the southeast corner of

Patterson Road and Lfield Road in the Mobile area. There's no known opposition. There is support in a handout today. The recommendation in paragraph 17 is for approval. Uh agenda item 8 is CPA 25006 known as Harkcohila Sun 3-5 in district five. It is a uh major comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use designation to utilities on 5,462 acres at the northwest corner of 499th Avenue and Baseline Road in the Harkala Valley area. Uh there is opposition in a handout today uh but no one appears to be present today to discuss the case. The recommendation is for approval in paragraph 12. Uh item nine is C 250022 known as Roosevelt Logistics Center District 4. It's an industrial 2PD zoning on 29 acres uh west of the southwest corner of Roosevelt Street and 339th Avenue in Tonipal. This is essentially an expansion of an existing 162 acre site, same zoning. There's no known opposition. The recommendation of paragraph 13 is for approval subject to conditions A through K. And the final item on consent is SU250026 known as Redhawk Power Plant District 4. It's a special use permit amendment for an existing power plant in the world 190 zoning district on 460 acres southwest of the southwest corner of Elliot Road and 355th Avenue in Arlington. Uh this amendment is modifying uh the case by setting thresholds for groundwater use before there's additional monitoring required uh deleting the annual status report and extending the SGP so that it's a permanent entitlement. There's no known opposition. The recommendation is for approval in paragraph 16 subject

conditions A through J. Happy to answer any questions on these items.

Thank you. I'll entertain a motion to recommend approval of the consent agenda. Uh Vice Chair uh Mil Haven, I would like to make recommendation to approve the consent agenda as presented by staff. Do I have a second? Second. Commissioner and a second from Commissioner Roth Wallik. Is there someone to speak? All right. Thank you. Commissioner Dan Zeiss. Yes. Commissioner Finter. Yes. Commissioner Hernandez.

Yes. Commissioner Leightton, yes. Vice Chair Milhaven, yes. Commissioner Rockwe, yes. Commissioner Whitney, I vote yes, but I have a request if the speakers could hold their microphones a little closer. I am having a real hard time hearing uh both Ter Darren and uh Vice Chair Mil Haven. Okay. Thank you. We have a motion recommending approval of a consent agenda by a vote of seven to zero. Thank you. That was a yes as well. Oh, I didn't know if you heard the whole spiel.

Yep, I'm good. You're good. Okay. Thank you, chairman.

All right. Thank you for covering for me. Apologize about being late. We'll go ahead and move into regular agenda case number CPA 25008. Good morning, commissioners. Agenda item number 11, KCPA25008 in supervisor district 4 is a major comprehensive plan amendment to modify the land use destination for 277 acres in the Tonapa Arlington area plan from Hyia Ranch development master plan to industrial in order to support future light industrial land uses in the Tonapa area. The site was originally approved in 2005 for a development master plan which was never developed. The site is located west of the future Belmont industrial development master plan and northwest of two mining operations. The applicant is proposing to file a zone change request after the major CPA is processed in order to change the existing zoning of the site to IND2 IUPD to allow light industrial uses that may include a warehouse, a data center, sand and gravel and power and or power generation uses. The use will not be determined until a plan of development is submitted. During the initial phase of this request, staff received opposition from the city of Buckeye. The applicant has met with the city to discuss their concerns regarding the impact in industrial use can have on the area. Since receipt of the city's initial letter to staff, the city provided an updated letter indicating there is no objection as the applicant has agreed to work with the city by supporting the need to address potential impacts to the area and the wildlife. The applicant states in their citizen participation plan that they they did not receive any direct opposition, but they were in contact with the public to answer any questions or concerns. Since the publishing of the staff report, staff has received opposition from the public. As stated in the

handout memo dated November 4th, a letter of opposition, an email, and two petitions were received with 100 people in opposition. Only nine properties are within the 300 foot buffer of the subject site. The opposition language states in the letter stated in the letter petition and email implicates concerns with the proposed industrial use having a negative impact to the area such as traffic, quality of life, and property values. Staff recommends the commission to adopt a motion to recommend approval for KCPA20008 as a proposed major CPA amendment meets the goals and objectives of the Tonapa Arlington area plan. and the county's comprehensive plan. The site is surrounded by existing and proposed industrial uses and existing Hayyampa development master plan is not feasible due to the current climate and water concerns in this region. The site is opt is an optimal location for distribution facilities, warehouses, facilities and similar industrial uses due to the nearby future 11 freeway and rail corridor. Therefore, staff supports this request. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? Hearing none, we'll hear from the applicant. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair, members of the commission.

Uh, Wendy Redell with the law firm Barry Redella 6750 East Camelback. My pleasure to be here this morning on behalf of Anita Verma. By the way, I appreciate that you guys have put a computer here for the um, visually challenged. That is a new development. So, thank you very much. Uh I'm here this morning on behalf of Hasayyama Ranch. Uh the site we are talking about is over 2,000 acres. Uh we are north of the I 10. We are out near 339th Avenue. Um the site itself was actually entitled back in 2008. It's pretty intensely entitled. Um you've got, you know, 5,700 homes. You've got a mix of commercial, a golf course, elementary schools, uh, fire stations, utilities. U, this is a vision that has not come to fruition. And something I'm going to explain a little bit here as to why. Uh, I should mention it actually, not only was there a DMP on this site, there's actually zoning. So, it's it's zoned for these uses and has been for quite a while. So, we are here seeking a major comprehensive plan amendment. um for the Hosiampa Ranch development to modify this designation to industrial. Give you an idea of what that would look like. Again, eliminating that development master plan, that pretty intense little city that is planned out there, uh and modifying it to an industrial use. So, the site itself um has Jack Rabbit Wash to the east, the Hashi River. It also has a large sand and gravel operation both onsite and off-site. So on-site there's a 390 acre sand and gravel facility. Just offsite there's another 400 acres that is all out there um existing today and and as I'm sure this commission is well aware that is

exempt from the zoning regulations. So that is an existing operation immediately off our eastern border. And then as to why we think industrial is more important. If you take a little more global view of what is occurring out here, this is a really important graphic. You can see that the Belmont master plan um in large ways has been modified to industrial. Uh there have been zoning cases now even to our south and pending modifying to industrial. I think recognizing the transportation corridor in the area, the benefit that this brings of having uses that can come over uh and use this transportation corridor, we now find ourselves, frankly, sandwiched between um 700 acres of a sand and gravel operation and in future industrial uses um planned to our west. So um even again just expanding upon that I know on your agenda today postponed a little further there is a request to reszone IND3 IUPD industrial uses um in our immediate area. So what we are proposing today is consistent with the comprehensive plan as staff has indicated to you. It helps achieve that balanced development. It contributes to the effective regional economy um and helps ultimately to establish infrastructure in the area and it is also consistent with the Tonapa Arlington area plan to preserve that Hyia ranch. We did have a very productive dialogue with the uh city of Buckeye. We've agreed to some certain um restrictions that we've now placed in our narrative to make sure that we abide by their concerns. Um, we also have had very recently um a dialogue and started a dialogue with the neighbors that live in the area. That's something we look forward to continuing particularly as we

move forward on a zoning case where I can talk about specific stipulations, setbacks, and things we can do to address their concerns that Mr. Chair um as I mentioned collaboration with Buckeye that has taken place here. They are no longer in opposition. With that, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I'm happy to answer any questions that you have and would respectfully request your approval. Any questions for the applicant at this time? Thank you.

Hearing none, we'll go ahead and um hear from those that wish to speak in the public. I have two cards. Um we'll start with Kathleen Fletcher. Thank you for being here. We'll go ahead and just have you state your name and um just even kind of proximity. I don't care that you give me your address because you don't need to give everybody your physical address, but where you're kind of at in regards to the property and then um we'll give you three minutes.

Okay. Thank you. My name is Kathy Fletcher and my husband Ron and I own property that abuts right up against this proposed change. And um what we did send in a petition that explains our deep concerns, but what we're asking the commission today is to in um to make sure that they understand that the residents of Tonapa are really looking at at maintaining a rural lifestyle. And and though we know there were plans for a community uh above us to the north of us, the there's a lot of difference between industrial and community growth. And I don't think it would be so objectional to the original plan that did not come to fruition so far. But um most of the people moved out there because they didn't want to be in an urbanized area full of traffic. Um and although we've been told that some of this won't create that much traffic, it's it's hard to believe. We're extremely concerned about the environmental impact on the desert. It seems like Maricopa County in particular is developing a lot of industrial and solar farms. And uh we have heard several uh actually read several things that imply uh a possible data center out there and we're extremely concerned about the wa where are they going to get the water? We're all on wells out there and if you

start sucking water from our wells, it could cause a table uh water drop which could burn up uh the pumps in the well, cost us a lot of money for the people that are going to be affected by this. Uh, and if it's solar farms, we've seen tons of growth out there, not only in Tonapa, but the Arlington area, and now they're going to develop over in the perquala valley. I I don't even know how to say that. I don't either. You're

But um, but you know what I'm talking about. So, and and they seem pretty excited about the the u expansion of u their area. And um so we're just asking that the commission really and we're putting a lot of trust in you that you will evaluate how the residents really feel about this. And you can tell by the 104 signatures, we not only got the people that were within the 300 ft, but we got them below us and across the road from us on Tonapas Salom, which is also Indian School Road. If you go to the west um to sign our petitions plus the electronic ones that were put online,

you could wrap up. That'd be great. So, um I I guess that that we're just really concerned about protecting the lifestyle that we all moved out there for and uh the peacefulness number one. And we know there will be growth and we're not against growth, but I don't think we really want industrial growth of any kind. uh it doesn't do much for property value and if it surrounds us it definitely isn't going to do it. But uh that's all I have to say. Uh I'm sure that you will be looking at the petition and our longer concerns. I tried to do a reader digest version.

Thank you. But I would like to extend uh a special thanks and and she's not here but to uh Miss Sawyer for the Barry uh she works for the attorneys and to uh Miss Hamaro Cano, the planner for Maricopa Planning Development. their responsiveness was instrumental in helping me and some of the people that we got to talk to and meet in our area uh understand the proposed changes and um I would also like to extend uh my appreciation to the commission uh for thoughtfully considering the community's concerns and helping preserve what makes Tonapos special.

Thank you. Appreciate that. As I was digging through my backpack, I for my badge to come in, I pulled out a picture of uh about 30 years ago when I lived in Gilbert and you could see just farm fields all the way to the superstitions. And so we're very mindful of it. We've seen growth and now it's not like that at my home. It's surrounded by growth, but we do consider it. So, thank you. Appreciate your time. All right, James. Is it Rebe? Yes. Thank you.

Good morning uh to the board and everybody else attending and thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is James Rey. I'm one of Kathy and Ron's neighbors. Uh I am also butt right up against the uh the borderline of this proposal and and we will have a great view of these these giant buildings that we don't want. Um this area is very flat uh for the most part other than a lot of washes and the again the washes bring up water concerns of of where this water's going to go. But we went house to house and talked to the whole community in the area. Although there's only seven to nine people directly touching this borderline that uh see seems relatively benign that we're only affecting seven to eight people. Well, the whole neighborhood, we're going to be surrounded uh by this uh this proposal. It goes on all three sides, including access roads. So, we're going to be essentially just blocked off. This is uh uh recreation for people that like to go horseback riding, off-roading, hiking, biking, uh and even uh uh wildlife research. There's a lot of wildlife out there. And I'm sure uh with a lot more research, you'll find that uh this wildlife is is endangered. We have the owls, we have the hawks, we have uh the road runners and all the other uh gil monsters and stuff like that that are rare for this area. Siguaro's everywhere. Um which which of course as you get closer to the city, those all disappear. Um I understand this is a relatively rural area. Uh, but you'll be able to see a massive building, whether it's one story high at 60 feet or or or however large this building is all the way to the I 10, which is about four miles away. And and everybody in the entire neighborhood that lives on both sides of the Indian school road will be able to to see this on a daily basis. Uh the construction, of course, there's other concerns with with how long it's

going to take. I heard could take 10 years to build this this area. So, we're going to have to deal with the dust, the traffic, these trucks, the noise, everything. And especially someone that works from home, I'm going to have to deal with it all just 24/7, never get away from it. And and uh this there's just so many environmental uh considerations. Uh there's recreation considerations. We'd rather keep it into a residential area where we can make a bigger community. Of course, there's other small uh commercial areas that would help support that community, but we we would be willing to to to suffice with that before we want large construction projects that are really going to cut us off from the natural wildlife that we moved out there for.

All right. If you could wrap up. Yep. Absolutely. So, so, uh, I I I really kind of hit on all the points I wanted to talk about. Uh, and and I really hope that you you and the, uh, the board and, uh, the rest of the community helps to, uh, to to make a determination not to, to pass this and leave it residential. Uh, I wish more people could have been here today, but obviously on a, uh, Thursday at 9:00, we couldn't get everybody here. Uh, they all have to work. And fortunately, we were the only three that were able to take time off to to make it this distance, about an hour away. So, I appreciate everybody's time and uh that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. And we do read the letters that come in as well and so we did hear and see many of the other uh people's issues as well. So, thank you.

Thank you. If we have the applicant uh do we have any online? Nobody online indicating that. Thank you. Applicant come back up if you'd like to address any of those issues.

Members of the commission, I'll be very brief. Um, I think frankly these folks, Kathy, they have um valid questions and concerns and I think we have the ability to work with them on a 2,000 acre site as we bring our zoning application forward. I think there is um plenty of area for us to make sure that they can maintain their quality of life and their rural lifestyle um through through setbacks. There's, as you know, this commission has challenged us in the past to be very creative with our land plans and how we approach things. Um, and that's very much what we anticipate we're going to be doing here. I I always hate when I have to bring a comp plan amendment and I don't have the actual development plan to share. It's very challenging. It's unfortunately a requirement of state law that I do it this way and bring the comp plan forward. Um, but we do look forward to um, engaging with these folks and working with them um, and coming back with plan that can do our best to address their concerns.

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Um, appreciate it. Um we'll we uh we're done with you then I think and uh we'll uh go ahead and open it for disc we'll close public comment open up uh discussion amongst uh the commission any comments or yes I'd like to say something all right go ahead

let's see um I really understand your concerns those folks of you who live in the area Um, and we have heard this as time comes forward. Development is going to happen. Um, I understand where you're coming from, but I also look at the alternative, which is 6,200 residential homes. Um, that's going to use more water than industrial, as far as we know. Um I we agree with you about the data processing centers. We've had discussion about that in the past and I would hope that you un you believe that we will as they come forward with their zoning um address your concerns so that you are least affected if in fact this vote goes forward. Thank you, Commissioner Leighton. Um, yeah, I I will echo the um thoughts of the applicant. There is time for them to work with you to create um hopefully some buffer and um I'm a big property rights person. I think you should be able to enjoy your property the way you intended, as well as the person next to you. Um and finding the right balance and creating a way where they don't impede on you and you don't impede on them. That's our goal. And so I will see you again in the future um if this was approved and uh it's on the applicant to show that they did a good job to actually um consider your rights as well and how they will impact you. And so we're very mindful of that. As I mentioned um I saw my home go from surrounded by farm fields to highdensity homes that are literally two stories looking into my parents' backyard now.

So, I'm very mindful of your of your uh your situation and um and we we always try to find the right balance. Any other thoughts? Hearing none. Entertain a motion. Commissioner Mil, I make a motion to recommend approval of CPA25008 Ranch. We have a motion by Commissioner Mil Haven. Do we have a second? Second. All right. Second by Commissioner Leighton. Uh we'll do a roll call vote. Commissioner Dan Zeiss. Yes. Commissioner Finter. Yes. Commissioner Hernandez.

Yes. Commissioner Leighton. Yes. Chairman Llam. Yes. Vice Chair Mil Haven. Yes. Commissioner Rockwallik. Yes. Commissioner Whitney. Yes. Chairman, we have a motion recommending approval by a vote of 8 to zero.

Thank you. And we thank those that came down. Um we're always available in the future as well. You reach out through the county and our information is available and I'm always willing to meet with folks too. So, um we'll work with you on this and try to find the right mix for everybody. So, thank you for being here. Your voices were heard. So, um, we'll go ahead and move on to the next agenda item, TA250001, the, um, we call this the comprehensive plan update. So, or not, that's not what we called it. A zoning Yeah, I'm going to get this right. Zoning ordinance update, not comprehensive plan. So, uh, we'll have, um, staff has been super busy on this and working with the community and we're excited to hear about what you've come up with today and we get, uh, Mr. Ellsworth today to present. So, it's wonderful extra bonus.

Well, thanks. You're welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the board, as you've indicated, this has been a a very long process, a very involved process. Um we were challenged at the beginning of this year to have an update to the zoning ordinance um from the chairman. It was initiated um per his initiatives that he identified through his his uh opening speech this year. Um and as we went through this the the directive that we took forward was to simplify the code, make it more readable, make it more user friendly. Um, specifically looking at land uses, looking at development standards and regulations and looking at um, specifically any any housing um, availability or attainability options that we might be able to put into our zoning ordinance. As we move forward, the uh the board of supervisors appointed a task force with many of the greatest minds in the valley related to sorry related to uh zoning development and zoning regulations, zoning reform. We've met with them. Um oops, I keep pushing the button. Um and they hang on. They focused on six six um six focus areas when they when they um when we met with them. Those were revolved around the development standards, housing policies, permitting and administrative procedures, use regulations, uh rural and infrastructure considerations. This was a big discussion yesterday with board supervisors um and the public health and safety nuisance controls. So as we went through through this, let me move. Naughty, can you control that? Okay, thank you. Um, as we went through the the update, the public participation was integral to this process. Um, between February and

October of this year, staff conducted extensive outreach. We held two stakeholder workshops, both in person and virtual. We had uh a questionnaire that was received and had over 300 respondents. We um initiated a draft. Um the draft ordinance was received and we received input from over 150 individuals. Um all of this input affected the directly shape the draft that's before you today. Um it's ensuring to ensure the final recommendation reflects both the technical best practices and community perspectives. Next slide. Over these next few slides, these are key updates to the zoning ordinance. Um you have the zoning. So the zoning itself is a very thick document as we went through it. Staff staff started with a with a redline version before we began this process. And so it it's become this very thick document. So it was very important to us that we got that out in front of the public. We used the conveyo system to to put the draft out there to accumulate comments. We met weekly on those comments, tried to adjust where we could. And so what what was put before you today is that best effort. Um as we went through there, there were things that what were very easy to put in and there were there were at least three issues that we want to talk about today as we come forward. But what I want to do is highlight some of the things from from the ordinance. Um for policies and definitions, it clarified and expanded definitions including emergency technologies. Battery battery energy storage systems and data centers were among these. But we clear currently do not have a any standards or definitions regarding those two uses and we'll we'll be discussing the battery energy storage systems later on in the presentation. Uh it consolidated 201 land uses into 137 um within one sing uh within a single streamlined use table. It standardized measurement and routing rules to improve

clarity and consistency. Um, under development standards and design, it introduced Next slide, please. It introduced tables and charts to display development standards for quick reference. It adjusted setbacks, building heights, and landscaping standards across zoning districts. It modernizes parking regulations to allow parking studies, shared parking, and reduced requirements for self-s storage facilities. Um, next slide. Administrative and process improvements. Uh, it moved temporary use permits to the planning zoning commission. Currently, the temporary use permits heard by the board of adjustment, which meets monthly, which means if somebody submits for one of those, there's a four-week delay. By moving it to this process, you can get to to a TUP discussion with front of this board within two weeks. Um, it updated drainage and violation and compliance in that section to align with current practices. Um, throughout the document, we simplified language and formatting to improve usability and readability. Um, next slide. Additional additional improvements included a reduction from 17 chapters to 14. Further from the latest version, we reduced almost 53 pages of text in doing this update. That's almost 15,000 words. A lot of that was redundancy um within the ordinance. And we were specifically looking for redundancy, uh, simplification and, um, anything that would improve that, the ability to find what you need quickly and and not have any conflicts within the code. We added new graphics and tables, something that was missing from the old code. It was very textheavy. it it becomes very easier as we're discussing zoning regulations if we can can point to to a a figure inside the regulation itself to describe setbacks to try where encroachments could be allowed. Um this is this becomes very usable and and necessary as we introduce the ADU part of this

ordinance. We consolidated land use as I mentioned we integrated functions and quick links into the ordinance. This will be a fully functional linkable document so that as you go through that table, it'll list that there are there is a section of the code that that regulates that use. You can click on that and it will go to that section of the code versus needing to to flip through and find that on your own. Um, so with all of those updates, we've we've we've included something that is very user friendly, more usable, more simple. Um we've we've tried in every instance to add flexibility into the code where we could um look at use by rights use by right to to um not require things to unnecessarily come before this board for discussion. Um next slide. Uh this is a slide that represents what the new development standards table look like. Currently in our zoning code, this is all text formatted. So this clearly goes through and defines by zoning ordinance or by zoning type what those development standards are. It becomes very clear. It becomes very easy and simple to compare between zoning zoning or zoning designations themselves of what is a setback in this one versus that one or currently you would be flipping back and forth actually between chapters to do that. Next slide. Along with that, this is this is the portion that eliminated a ton of text from our code. This is a one one simple not it's not simplified, but it it's a one table that lists all of the land uses available in Maricopa County. It categorizes them and it puts them within their various zoning districts. It allows for which ones are permitted, which ones are permitted with certain conditions, which ones require a special use permit, which ones aren't allowed. The very last column is where that link would be for where you could go find the further regulations associated with that land use category. So, this was a very

significant update to our zoning ordinance. Next slide. Uh I'm not going to go through this one in depth because we we went over this with with the board last time. Um the text amendment that we were discussed at the last commission hearing is is in companion to this zoning code update. We are we are required by state statute to have our ADU regulation adopted by the end of the year. So for any reason the overall update were to stall that text amendment we discussed last time would proceed forward in December for the board of supervisors. But we did update and add um a section on access accessory dwelling units that complies with the state statute requirements. Um next slide. We also included regulations related to short-term rentals. Well, let me go through this real quick just just as a a provision. Um, in state statute, we it state statute allows or requires that we allow up to two dwelling units or two additional accessory dwelling units on a on a residential property um with um an allowance for a third accessory detached accessory or a second detached but a third accessory dwelling on property over an acre. So what is in the code is a differentiation between over an acre and under an acre. Under an acre, we're allowing accessory dwelling units to be 75% of the primary dwelling or thousand square feet, whichever is less. That is per the um per the state statute over anacre. We're requiring that an ADU be not more than the than the um primary dwelling unit. Um, just back to a comment that we received from the board last time and a clarification is that if somebody currently has a thousand square foot home, it meets the setbacks and they want to build a bigger home, they can now make that a primary dwelling unit as long as it's meeting the setbacks for a primary dwelling unit

and designate the older home as as an accessory dwelling unit. I wanted to make that clarification. Thank you. Next slide.

Go next slide. So, short-term rentals. Um, currently in our zoning code, we do not have any regulations associated directly with short-term rentals. State statute allows counties to to institute an ordinance that would regulate those. In this, we are codifying what is in the ordinance that allows us to do that. Specifically, we are stating that a short-term rental um does not allow for commercial events. That requires a special use permit um for public assembly, special gatherings, weddings, signage, retail food. STS may not be rented, leased, or occupied by arrest or sex sex offenders. Listes may not include such individuals as member of the renting party. That is a provision in the state statute that that they provide for the local jurisdiction to make that determination and it was important to the board that we include that as well. Um, next slide. Oh, back up one. uh on short-term rentals. Um we are eliminating it. This is something that is unique in our code. We are limiting short-term rentals to state statute does not allow us to prohibit short-term rentals, but we are limiting it to one short-term rental per property. State statute further states if an ADU is on the property that the owner must occupy the property um to rent out the ADU or the primary property as a short-term rental. So, we have put that into our zoning ordinance as well. Um, so there are stricter regulations on short-term rentals within our zoning ordinance. Next slide. That brings us to one of the one of the topics that will be a lot of discussion today, I believe, as we went through our public process with our um with our zoning ordinance. Three things popped up. Um, one of those is battery energy storage systems. The other is uh regulations in the Wikcinberg uh carefree highway scenic

corridor area. And then a third is is a a cleanup. Uh let me start well I'll start with battery energy storage systems. Let's do that. Okay. So knows it's one of my buttons just for the room to understand. It's primarily the discussion today. Yes.

So battery energy storage systems we have seen um significant number of those come through the county before this board and for the board of supervisors. In our zoning ordinance today, there's not a definition on those and there's no specific regulations on where they're allowed or what specific setbacks may be required to these systems. Um, what we are proposing in the zoning ordinance is that there would be a separation from the property line to a best system of 100 ft. We are also further um recommending that between the the best unit and the closest existing residential dwelling unit um there'll be 500 ft. Where these recommendations came from were through the the uh the past couple of years of negotiating these as they came through. Most of them require a reszone to industrial and as part of that we were aware of what the use was. There was there's been significant conversation in front of this commission and the board on a case-byase basis of what is the appropriate distance. What this regulation is doing is trying to combine what we have heard from the Arizona fire authorities and what we have heard from the discussion within those um within those meetings themselves of what has been acceptable. Over the past we've seen some that are less than 500 feet and some that are more. Mr. camera.

Yes. Could I ask the presenter to pull the microphone a little closer? Yes. Thank you. I'll try to get closer. Is that better? I'll talk louder. That's so much better. Thank you. All right. Good. So, thank you.

This is where the 500 ft's coming from. Um, as it went out for public review, we have heard a lot from the industry itself about what that appropriate level is. We've gone out and we've done uh research on what some of the best practices have been throughout Arizona and throughout the country. The 500 ft recommendation um primarily is coming from what the Arizona Fire and Medical Authority and and other fire districts such as Rural Metro have recommended to us as an appropriate distance between an occupied residents in case of of some type of emergent event. um the th the 100 feet from the property line is there for um a separation of that property that allows a staging area for for the ability to um respond to that event itself. Um we haven't received um opposition or much opposition to the 100 ft. It's that 500 foot that is has been the um the brunt of the discussion. What our what our intent from the staff standpoint was to have that starting point that we have typically for the past couple of years used when somebody comes forward on a best with a best operation. We'll start with this 500 foot separation and then through the zoning process we have been able to determine you know what would be appropriate measures to put in place to either be closer or maybe farther away from that. So, in an attempt to make this a use by right, if you were to reszone to industrial at 500 feet, that's where we were comfortable recommending it to this commission and to the board. Um, we've received um several communication from the industry that there there be a different standard inside that industry. Thank you. So, as this moves forward, our recommendation as we move forward is that we we codify this at 500 feet.

However, this is something that's still ongoing. Um, and so with the board and the communication today where what we're looking for today is a recommendation to the board of supervisors on the overall zoning ordinance update. This would be part of that recommendation. And I know that we have people here to discuss this particular um topic. If the commission doesn't feel comfortable making that recommendation, we would ask that any recommendation moving forward to the board of supervisors would exclude this with the direction to come back with further information, further discussion that we could give you a more informed um a more informed discussion that you can make a more informed recommendation to the board on this specific section to the zoning code update. So, Mr. Chairman, with that, I could pause my pause my um presentation here and we can talk about that issue or I could finish my presentation. Let's go through it and then we'll because I don't know who's here for what and we'll hear from folks and then we'll

dive into it. Okay.

So, let's move on to the next slide. Uh well, as we go through this, these are letters from the fire marshals. Every fire marshall we heard from was supporting the 500 foot separation. Next slide. Um the analysis of the best. This is this is um we searched nationwide and specifically um within Arizona on what are those best practices. The 500 ft has showed up in several different locations across the country specifically in the valley and in Arizona. This is under under discussion in multiple jurisdictions right now and it's it's across the board of where that line is. U Mesa for instance is at 400 ft whereas we've heard that in the city surprise in their discussions right now they're at about 1500 feet. So it's there's a spectrum and so we are we are trying to find a compromise within our within our within our code. Next slide. Wikcinberg highway we as soon as we in our attempt to simplify the code reduce redundancy we were looking at the we have two scenic corridors that were that are identified within the zoning ordinance. One is Highway 74 for the Carefree Highway between Morristown and I17 and the Carefree Highway between or the Wikcinberg Highway between Wikcinberg and and Sun City. When you read that code, it it identifies um what's the term um categories um between the um or classes class one, two, three, and four. And as you read those, there was really no differentiation between the two, between three and four. We've tried to combine those to simplify the code. We've also were recommending removal of that they needed to comply with the the scenic corridor study or plan, which is inherent because that's a separate policy document. So our attempt was to just simplify that. But in in reality, what happened is that as the document

and the draft hit the public, there was some discussion and question about what we were doing in touching this Wikcinberg corridor. This is something that was generated through staff's review of the code to reduce that redundancy and to make it simple. This wasn't something that had come through the task force. Um, in light of the discussions that are currently happening, staff's recommendation would be that we recommend that we remove those sections from the scenic corridors that we come back to this commission onto the board as we have those further discussions with those communities about what that effect would be. Um, so just to simplify moving forward at this point. Next slide. Next slide. And next slide. I I went through quite a bit. All right. The third item is there's not a slide for this. So, we went through that um through the the redline version with staff. There were there were things that we put in there as things that were possibilities. One of those things got through and that is the addition of a the possibility for an additional occupant in a community resident. They're also known as group homes within 55 plus communities. Um our intent was to not bring that forward. we need to remove that from the draft document. And so we're recommending to the commission that the recommendation moving forward today would to be directing staff to remove that from the document itself. It would be granting just in 55 plus the ability or allowing options for an additional occupant primarily as a caregiver. But what that does is it it only in those communities would it allow 11 occupants versus our standard of 10. So, we we intended to not bring that forward and we're asking that we remove that from the draft. I wanted to make that aware because it's in there now. Why we're removing it from the draft or

I mean it makes sense to make special allowances for 55. So, why are you

has as group homes come through especially in in the uh age restricted communities in the valley? Um there's already a hesitancy for the number that we already allow. Um, so when we have tech uh temporary use permits in Sun City, for example, anything that increases the number of occupants, we typically hear from those communities that they're they don't want any more of those type those those uses in their community. And so what this did was it increases the intensity and specifically in in those age restricted communities. And so without having those specific discussions with that community to put this in the code, I'd be hesitant to do that at this point.

So where what we're that's concludes my discussion for my questions. The timeline of this is that we are looking for recommendation today to proceed forward to the December 12th board of supervisors hearing for the board to consider the update and the modernization of the zoning ordinance. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, any questions at this time for staff before we open it up for public comment? Okay, Commissioner Milhaven,

this doesn't relate to anything you mentioned, but relates to the plan and um I've spent a lot of time around family housing was always curious why multif family because the argument can be made that multif family housing as a commercial use and was wondering would it be or what what would prohibit us from defining multifamily housing as a commercial use which would make it by right allowable in commercially zone districts.

So that is a great point is something that we had discussions with through our task force. One of the things that is fairly unique about the existing ordinance, um, it is an incremental ordinance as it exists and we've kept it that way. All all commercial zoning ordinances also allow all uses by right in the in the multifamily zoning districts. So currently today, you can build an apartment complex on a commercially zone property. Correct. Mr. Chair, go ahead. I have a question about the um permitting of short-term rentals in the ADUs or the limiting of um does the county have a permit process for short-term rentals like the cities of Phoenix and Scottdale have set in place?

So, that's a great question. Uh Mr. Chairman, member Aqualik, um we currently do not have a registration process. One of the differences between the county and the um municipalities is that ability to institute a a business license or institute a further bed tax on that property. So the ability of creating that registration all what it the what it does is gives us a little bit uh further punitive damages towards towards um things that we already have in our zoning in our code. So, in the municipalities, this acts more as a business license and and and it allows you to monitor where those are. We currently have a um third party system where we can monitor where all the short-term rentals are in Maropa County. Um and as we receive complaints regarding those, we can respond in that regard. Um so, right now, we currently do not have a registration. So h how does the third party system monitor where all of the

So it's a great question. Uh it's a system that's utilized by most of the municipalities in the state now as they as they rectify their own registrations. What it does is it scrapes the internet for all um for all um listings across the Airbnb and VBO and it it rectifies those against your jurisdiction to where you can then see who where those registers are, which ones have active um active um rentals in place and um you can then so say you got a noise complaint, you could then re see if they actually had a rental that day and you and you can actually verify whether or not that was occurring at that time.

But if if we don't if the county doesn't have a registration system and there is a noise, excuse me, and there is a noise complaint and that is and one of the STR or one of the ADUs is being used as a short-term rental that's permitted. It's okay. We don't have a registration system. So, it's not like they're out of compliance. But how do we ensure that somebody doesn't buy a 1 acre, 5 acre, you know, plot of land and put forward, you know, four dwelling units, one of them they live in, but three of them are just, you know, money makers on short-term rentals. So that who who's monitoring that to make sure that people are in compliance?

Well, that's a great question. It comes to the point of why we're limiting um short-term rentals to one per per property. So, I understand that, but who who's making sure that that is

So, we'll we'll monitor that through the um through the um permitting process, the building permitting process. If we were to receive a complaint that there were multiple ADUs on a property, not ultimately ADUs, STRs on a property, we would then go back into that registration or that third party to monitor. If I and if if my code officers were able to see that there were two um registration or two rentals on that property, um we would issue a violation to the zoning code. Also, we can regularly go in and look at that today and it they we can have them identify for us which which properties might have multiple multiple rentals happening on them today. So, when somebody comes to permit for one or more ADUs, they have to indicate whether they intend to use one of them as a short-term rental.

No. Okay. Not necessarily. So, what we're going to be looking at for the ADUs is the location of that ADU in relation to the size of the primary dwelling unit and the number of ADUs on the property. As it relates to short-term rentals, the zoning code would then say you can then have a short-term rental on your property. one and if you have an ADU on the property, you have to then reside on the property as well. Then we get into some enforce that's that that is in compliance with state statute and then we're going to have to get creative on enforcement on how we actually gather that evidence, but we're putting that in the code to comply with the state statute. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Darren H. Thank you, Commissioner Rock.

Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rockwallik, uh, from a code enforcement perspective are historically our are our problems with short-term rentals haven't been a short-term rental themselves, but the fact that they're being used as party houses and those uh we enforce not through any type of registry. We simply uh look for advertisements and site visits can usually uh prove that out.

Thank you. Any other questions at this time for staff? All right. Um hearing none, we'll um go to public comment. I have six. We'll give two minutes each. We'll run the timer. Um ask questions and we'll go from there. Do we have lines? Just out of curiosity, how many? If we do, how many? We do. I don't have an exact number, but I'm just looking for one so far. All right, let's start with Andrew Yansy. Come on down.

That was a Price is Right joke, but went over everybody's head. Yeah,

thank you, Chair Limblum, and uh commissioners. And sorry, I forgot I had to walk the long way around for the prices where I walked down there. Um, you know, appreciate everybody's time on this. I know staff has been working very hard on the text amendment. I for the record I'm an attorney at Frank Small and Over Holtzer. We're at 4343 East Camelback Road in Phoenix. We represent a number of clients who have uh land use cases before the county. Um, two of the approaches that Mr. Ellsworth mentioned in his uh presentation today were that that this text was intended to have some consolidation and to have some flexibility. Well, I think that binder is going to get a lot shorter now. So, I think that was very effective on the consolidation. Um we certainly appreciate that. Um I've just got a couple of suggestions to add a little bit more flexibility into the code on a couple of items that we've seen uh occurring elsewhere. We appreciate being able to be part of this process and to have some comments and work with staff on this. Um the two items I I'm going to address, one are pod expiration timelines and the other is perimeter treatment for solar projects. Um I have some suggested language. It was in a memo that uh staff sent out. I'm not sure if it was yesterday, but should be part of the packet. I've got some copies of it, hard copies here as well if you'd like to see it. Uh just very briefly on the POD expiration, we are suggesting lengthening the time period from two years to three years and allowing for an unlimited number of extensions to be approved by staff. In addition, we're suggesting that when an applicant comes in for a pod that at the outset they can ask for a longer time period. Um I think in general we're seeing jurisdictions move to longer longer time frames on site plans and pods. I know on solar projects in particular, some of those can have a long time frame and they know

at the outset that they're going to need additional time. So why wait and do the extension later if you know at the outset you're going to need additional time. The other is um I know there's been some expansion on solar projects being able to be in the IND2 and IND3 district. There are industrial development standards that apply. Those include some wall and landscaping provisions on the perimeter treatment. I know you've seen many solar projects come before you. Uh many of them are in remote areas. Many of them are very large. So they have a lot of perimeter to do irrigated landscaping and walls around that entire perimeter would one be very costly. Two, in the locations they're at is not just that it wouldn't necessarily be necessary for screening, but it'd actually stick out in a lot of the remote areas where you see these projects. So, what we're asking for is not to do away with those standards, but to allow staff as part of the POD process to approve an alternative if it's appropriate for the location, for the character of that area. Um, both of of these provisions that I'm talking about today were part of the language we're we're proposing was part of the city of Buckeye's code that they just updated in the last month. So, they looked at these particular items as well. I know that lots of times that perimeter treatment on solar project is addressed through the UPD zoning process. So I know you've seen those come through on the case byase basis. What we're asking for is just to allow that little extra extra flexibility at the POD process for staff to say, okay, there's a there's a different type of perimeter treatment that makes sense in this location. Um so it doesn't necessarily have to be part of the UPD process. Um, again, I've got hard copies of our proposed language if you'd like them. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Um, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Perfect.

Go to Amanda Curtis. Hi, excuse me. My name is Amanda Curtis and I am representing Mormon Women for Ethical Government or Mweg. Mweg is a nonpartisan grassroots organization with members throughout the state of Arizona. As women of faith, we believe in our responsibility to be good citizens in our communities and good stewards of the earth's resources. We applaud the commission for updating and modernizing the Maricopa County zoning ordinance. We appreciate the thorough research, transparent process, and citizen participation the commission is undertaking to make the ordinance more accessible, readable, and userfriendly. We are grateful for the consideration given to expanding housing needs in the county. We are especially interested in the management of new and emerging industries and technologies in the ordinance, such as battery energy storage systems. best. We believe families and local businesses should have access to reliable and affordable electricity, especially at a time when residents are seeing their monthly energy bills continue to rise. We are concerned that the 500 ft minimum separation requirement in the current draft would eliminate significant portions of the county for best um of the county for best sighting. This is unfortunate since best can play a vital role in ensuring the stability and affordability of the county's electric grid. We suggest aligning the separation with the National Fire Protection Association standard 855, a standard applied to other sensitive receptors. A larger separation is mainly driven by safety concerns from fires caused by past generations of best technology that would not comply with today's NFPA standard. or the state of the industry and

technology. The modern state of best technology and the comprehensive package of safety measures in NFPA 855 is reassuring. Furthermore, Maricopa County is a model for other counties throughout the state when it comes to renewable energy ordinances and we are concerned the separation requirement might set a precedent for similar restrictions that would limit Arizonans's ability to benefit from best technology. Additionally, Arizona's fast population growth paired with new data centers is putting extra pressure on our power grid. With a 40% increase in demand expected over the next 15 years, without careful planning, Maricopa County families and businesses could end up paying even higher electric bills. Best is an important part of the solution. Its pivotal technology enables increased use of affordable renewable energy sources. We have submitted more detailed comments in writing. Thank you for the opportunity to comment today and thank you for your service to our county.

Thank you. Appreciate your comments. I share a lot of the same thoughts. So, thank you. Um, we'll go to Julie Moore. I should have asked anyone ask questions. Members of the planning,

if you'll speak close to that mic, it will help those that are online. Thank you. Members of the planning and zoning commission, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm Julie Moore. I'm a retired battalion chief um from the city of Surprise Fire Medical Department. I'm here to talk about how Maricopa County zoning changes will impact battery energy storage systems best. Allow me to speak about safety. I was there in Surprise and I have firsthand experience with what can go wrong. There's no disputing that Surprise was a tragedy. The event was extremely unfortunate, but it served as a driver for battery safety improvements. Those improvements have made today's battery project safer and fire departments better prepared. Beyond code changes to NFPA 855 and International Fire Code Chapter 12, we've also seen big safety changes. Battery systems used to come without proper ventilation. They had walking enclosures and lacked comprehensive emergency response plans. Now, many have been replaced by modern installations with advanced venting systems and remote shutdown capabilities that run 24/7. Modern battery projects also have smart thermal management systems and early detection sensors. All of these systems make best safer. Lastly, I'd like to talk about setbacks in their impact on energy infrastructure. This 500 setback distance is on the high side. Buckeye determined 150 ft is safe for major infrastructure and as mentioned earlier, Mesa is considering a 400 ft separation distance. The National Fire Protection Agency NFPA 855 calls for a separation distance of 150 ft. Many of the battery storage projects that fall on Maricopa County land will be in rural areas, so restrictive setbacks are unnecessary. I urge the commission to adopt no less than a 100 foot separation distance for battery projects. That number aligns

with local precedent and national fire safety standards. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Any questions for this applicant or this person? Appreciate it. Appreciate your thoughts. Let's go to um Candly Alazada. You can tell me if I slaughtered that.

Good morning everyone. Uh Sepand Alazada. All right.

All good. with the uh Arizona Technology Council 2800 North Central Avenue suite 1530 and uh I'm here to discuss the updates to uh the BES and also the setback requirements and separation requirements. So Arizona Technology Council is a trade association of nearly 800 tech companies and many of our members are solar companies. Uh and these institutions, these businesses are are thriving in Arizona. Now, when it comes to best facilities, they are rigorously tested, rigorously permitted uh before any dirt is turned on any project. Uh also, a lot of the many of these facilities, if not all, follow the International Fire Code and the N National Fire Protection Association standards. And these standards that have been mentioned by the pri uh previous speakers are developed after thousands of hours of research and feedback from fire safety professionals, insurance specialists, maintenance technicians, uh PE manufacturers. So these are these standards that have been mentioned are very very rigorous and very very well tested. Now we understand the concerns about safety with best facilities. We understand the need for setbacks and uh separation requirements but the 100 foot setback and the 500 ft separation requirement from residences are just way too rigorous, way too cons. It's they're they're too restrictive. Uh and that's going to impact where these are built in Maricopa County. And when that happens, jobs are affected,

economic benefits are affected, um permitting fees, tax revenue, etc. that can all be lost if these projects are not cited or they don't move forward. Um so we are requesting that you all move forward with what the NFPA 855 recommends. Uh and another reason why I am here today is because Maricopa County is a standard bearer in this state. Uh whether we like it or not, uh whatever the county proposes or moves forward with becomes a standard that other cities and towns throughout the state throughout the county will follow. So yes, some may be like the city of Buckeye and go with 150 ft, but some may become even more restrictive than what the county is proposing. So let's be conscientious with what we are proposing. Let's go forward with you know tested datadriven separation requirements and setbacks. Let's move the county forward in a smart way. Uh thank you all very much. Appreciate the time. Thank you for all your service.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Uh we will go to Stephen Anderson. He's got some like skipping coming down like he's won the prices right. I like it. Mr. Chairman, good morning.

Uh Stephen Anderson, Gam Chernum, 40 North Central, 20th floor in Phoenix. I was a member of the task force. Uh I'm not sure I agree with the director's characterization of great minds, but uh I was happy to contribute a little bit of my time along with a lot of uh very capable people in what I thought was a very freewheing and open discussion. I appreciated the staff's uh willingness to uh check with us and uh and collect input from a broad cross-section uh of the development community. Um and I just wanted to say that the process to me uh was very well done by staff. Uh I'm pleased by what the staff and consulting team have produced for you today as an initial draft. Uh and congratulate them on their efforts. Um and I think that what you're seeing in the substantive discussion today is reflective of that. uh thousand different items have been reduced to a handful. Um so again uh my compliments to the staff uh and I appreciate the commission uh working with the staff to make sure that we get this across the goal line.

Thank you and thanks for being a part of it. It was I got on a few of those calls and it was a lot of great minds and I felt like I didn't know anything as a result of all the expertise there. So thank you. Um, we'll go to our last person, Ben Graph on behalf of APS.

Thank you, chairman. Uh, my name is Ben Graph with Corals and Brady at 2 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona. I am here today on behalf of APS uh and our specific comments uh and feedback on the proposed ordinance. I do a lot of work with text amendments. A lot of times I'm up here first talking about a complaint about the process or communication. It couldn't be more the opposite uh with this process. I really do want to point out uh through uh Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Gerard's leadership, um the communication and process has been phenomenal. Um down to just personal responses on questions with the ordinance. So APS's concerns today have nothing to do with with the process in general. Um and we do want to compliment on the process. It's a kind of a paramount example of how it should be done. Uh so our concern is and and and and thank you by the way. Earlier on your agenda today, you expanded the SUP for the Red Hawk uh APS generation facility which will eventually uh with that expansion be able to provide many many many more megawws um to Arizona and to our citizens. And there's the catch. We are on a mad rush to increase power generation in Arizona and Maricopa County. And battery energy storage is just as important as the generation. It is directly linked to how that energy is stored, how it's not wasted, and how the grid is stabilized. And we need more, not fewer parcels within Maricopa County that qualify for battery energy storage. And that's where my precise point on the 500 feet comes in today. Um the 500 foot requirement to date has been uh pushed forward by county staff as a preference and it's been a good discussion because we've been able to look at each site case by case. Some meet the 500 feet maybe on one side on another side maybe

they only hit 200 feet. Um it's been a loose discussion to figure out what's best on a case-byase basis. You compare that to a hard and fast 500 foot rule. The consequence that hasn't been brought up today is APS, we're the ones that are putting out the RFPs to battery energy storage developers. Those developers are coming to the county to find the parcels. With a 500 ft requirement, you will reduce the number of parcels exponentially that our FR RFP responders can identify. That's the rub. What I would recommend instead, because the National Fire Protection Association has already done the studies, they've already looked at what the separations are. We have a national uh study and standard of 100 ft. I would recommend that the code is amended to refer to the NFPA standards in terms of what the county mirrors, but let me take staff's side for one moment. Your IUPD overlay is a phenomenal zoning tool. It allows this commission and staff to increase and decrease development standards on a case-byase basis. Why I'm saying that is if you are referring to the 100 foot as the standard in the ordinance, you still have the opportunity on a case-byase basis to look at a battery energy storage facility and say, you know, with this one on this one side, we'd like the applicant to increase the separation. that still is in your discretion because of the IUPD overlay. So that would be my recommendation so this commission so the board can look at it a case- by case basis and I do want to thank staff because you know we've been having discussions on these best projects all throughout Maroba County for many many years and the team has been phenomenal to work with. So we appreciate it.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Yeah go ahead commissioner Rockwell please. um you're here on behalf of APS, so hopefully you you've got an answer to this. If not, then I will defer to staff. But in looking through this uh these changes, um there's notations of public utilities and public utilities also refers to substations. Um and substations are found throughout all types of zoning from residential to industrial to commercial. Um, do you happen to know the setback requirements for a substation? I do not offand chairman and member rockallik

zoning are a substation is usually a public utility and there we're not aware of any setback for the substation. So, thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Graph. Thank you, Mr. Graph. Thank you. Uh, we had someone online. Yeah. Was there anyone else in the audience that wished to speak that has not I don't have any other cards. Okay, we'll go to online. Okay. So, I have Autumn Johnson online and I've enabled her mic. Autumn, if you're there, we'd like to hear from you. Good morning, chairman, commissioners, and staff. Are you able to hear me? We are.

My name is Autumn Johnson. I'm the executive director of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association or ARISA. My comments are directed towards the best component of the ordinance. We work on energy policy statewide at every level of government in Arizona and Arisa has been involved in similar solar and battery storage ordinances in Buckeye, Eloy, Mesa, Surprise, Mojave County, Navajo County, Apache County, Yavapai County, Chino Valley, and Hila Bend. Uh first, thank you for the work that has gone into these updates. We submitted detailed written comments on October 17th and today I just want to highlight um a few additional points and I apologize in advance. I expected the time limit to be three minutes and so I might slightly go over our goal is um not to oppose regulation. We understand the need to develop reasonable, clear and defensible ordinances for utility scale solar and battery storage. We only ask that clean energy projects not be treated more ownorously than other land uses and that zoning rules do not unintentionally block or penalize renewable development. We appreciate the progress staff has made, including improved clarity to the definition of battery energy storage systems. We support distinguishing utility scale systems from smaller behindthe-ter systems. Homeowners and businesses installing storage primarily for their own use should not be subject to the same standards as a grid level project. We encourage the county to apply the same clarity to the definition for solar. There are currently multiple solar definitions um within the text and none clearly exempt distributed generation. Just as you separated best by scale and purpose, solar needs the same distinctions. So that ordinate the ordinance applies only to utility scale development. Uh next is the setback issue and I agree with the other speakers. We support requiring nationally recognized standards such as NFPA 855 and UL9540.

We also recommend that setbacks be measured from the equipment and not the property line. In addition, we urge the county to adopt the city of Buckeye standard of 150 ft. This distance is consistent with NFPA, the American Planning Association's stated national setback average and the Phoenix regional standard operating procedures best policy. The national average is 50 to 150 feet. If Maricopa County were to adopt 500 feet, it would be the largest setback that's been adopted in Arizona that I am aware of. Surprise gets mentioned lots by by different jurisdictions and that ordinance has not moved forward and is an extreme outlier. We strongly support inclusion of a waiver provision. The city of Elo uses this tool effectively. A waiver does not reduce safety. It simply gives the county flexibility when a specific site has unique attributes that justify an alternative approach while still meeting the intent of the ordinance. Then two final points. Uh first, uh expiration timelines. Solar development frequently takes longer than two years due to utility and transmission coordination and the expiration period should be lengthened or allow multiple extensions so that projects are not forced to start over through no fault of the applicant. And second, regarding landscaping, industrial landscaping and buffering standards are not appropriate for solar projects which are large in area and use minimal water. We ask that solar be exempt from those industrial landscaping requirements or that staff be allowed to administratively approve alternatives. Thank you again for the progress already made and for considering these refinements. We want to ensure that any ordinance the county adopts is fair, predictable, and does not place clean energy at a disadvantage compared to other land uses. We look forward to continuing to be a resource for the county and we also support staff's proposal to hold the best component of the update um to spend more time on it as we really believe that the 500 ft um is not appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else? Nobody else. All right. All right. Good stuff. Let's dive into this. Uh, props to staff because you made a ton of changes and there's really just a couple little topics that got brought up. Yes, Mr. Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, as you discuss the best issues today, uh, as it's written, there is a proposal for 100 foot minimum setbacks. Chairman, we can't hear online. Thank you.

The prop as presented today, the 100 foot minimum setback is from the best unit to the subject lot line. The 500 foot minimum separation is from the best unit to an off-site residential dwelling unit that exists today. Okay. Uh so if a site u is in an isolated location and there's no existing residential there, that's not going to be applicable. Okay? So just keep that in mind as you discuss that today. Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Milhaven. So if I don't know why anybody would want to do this, but if somebody bought the adjoining lot and wanted to buy a residence, would they be required to be 500 feet from the best?

No, it's written as existing residential. It's a separation from existing residential, not residential zoning, not future residential. So if I came in and built a house, I could build it whatever the setback is 10 ft and I'd be good. So now I'm 110 ft from the best because it's new construction. That's correct. And and if you built your best, you could build it as long as you meet the 100 foot setback. If there's no existing residential anywhere, that's not going to apply. Thank you. All right, Commissioner Hernandez.

Yes. So on this uh on the best language now, I know we've had a couple cases recently where um there was an existing residential unit, but the applicant spoke with the resident and they were completely okay with the project. And the way that it's written now, is there still an opportunity for um you know a case by case scenario if you know a neighborhood that's there, hey, we're fine with it that they can go ahead and do it.

So what the attempt in the our regulation is this to set a byite type distance. So what we're trying to avoid is needing to come in case by case on every every instance. Um what what we have right now is almost every instance they need to reszone to industrial first and with that they ask for the IUPD as Mr. Graph mentioned. The difference is if so if you meet it you wouldn't need to even come in front of the commission to have that discussion if you have the zoning. Um the difference is if you don't meet it then you would need the IUPD and we could have that case by case if you wanted to go less than that distance um to that existing. So, yes, the way it's written, there's still the option for the case by case. Um, I was going to say the way Mr. Graph brought it up is almost opposite of the way we're viewing the IUPD. The the IUPD is there for the greater standard to be reduced. We can't increase a lesser standard. So, if we set it at 100 ft, there's no mechanism that becomes the entitled distance. There's no mechanism for the county to say, "Hey, we think it needs to be greater because it's already codified in our zoning orders that you can have it at that distance." So the overlay always reduces a standard. It never really increases that standard unless the unless it's brought up. So we couldn't what's it?

Unless the applicant agrees to that. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Because we've had cases where we've well in the past we had no standard. Correct. Correct. Okay. Thank you.

We just had a recommendation. I can think on one case in off of uh Olive and Cotton Lane where we did impose the 500 ft, but in the last five years, I can't hardly think of any that have been less than 500 ft from a residential. Uh we did have the one um over off of uh Aenddale Boulevard and the applicant or the sub the people next door were absolutely fine with it. So, it was a non-issue. So, I guess what I'm leaning towards is I I'm 100% okay with the way that it's written right now.

Mr. Chairman, to what Commissioner Hernandez is speaking to, we've probably I don't want to exaggerate, but at least a dozen cases over the last year for with best units with the recommendation of an IUPD for 500 foot separation. Uh we had the one in Aendale and there's been a couple a handful of others that were reduced, but it wasn't just the neighbors agreeing. It was local fire marshall uh giving the thumbs up to a lesser standard. Correct. We've only had one project that was actually denied based upon the question of a 500 foot separation. That was the one on Olive Avenue and they came back redesigned and got it approved. They bought more land, didn't they? If I remember right, but

I believe they may have he owned all the everything there. He just moved it. Had to get more land. Um I they acquired land in one dimension and had to redesign to meet that dimension. They didn't acquire land the other way.

Thank you for clarity. This is where I stand on this. Um we we have seen a lot of cases that have been out in the outskirts. Um we I have seen municipalities start to use this easement uh this setback as a way to pro essentially um make it where they preclude the the use uh because they didn't want any more of them. Um and uh I I I work with a group that uh is focused on energy um being able to supply. It's a business coalition that really focuses on the future and the changes that are going to be needed to meet the 50% more in the next 10 years. I mean literally what we have produced in 100 years, we've got to do in four or five years. And the technologies will change. And where I'm at is we're at a time period where we should be looking to create the least amount of restriction to anything that's has to do with transmission missission and generation unless there's a compelling reason. And for me, I have not heard a compelling reason why we have to go to 500 ft. There was, as Miss Julie Moore indicated, I think she might have left, but um there was a really tragic accident many years ago that one of our former commissioners, it was his nephew, and that's why this has had a lot of heated discussion in the past, too. And um the design standards are totally different and and to for example, there was a best fire in on an SRP facility last month. um in the city of I believe it was Surprise and um I'll read this. Let me find it. This was a report on it. Find it. Give me a second.

Essentially, the batteries burned in a manner consistent with design specifications, enabling responders to anticipate and manage the event safely and effectively. The gas concentration dissipated to levels that did not pose a risk to public safety. The Poria Fire Department monitored on-site air quality during the incident, did not raise any public health concerns. Um the existing facility continued to operate um due to the controlled nature of the incident. Um no evacuations were necessary. Adjacent containers were actively cooled with water to prevent thermal runway or ignition. Um and they didn't spread to to the ex to the neighboring modules, right? Or whatever they call them. I I just I have yet to hear someone in this room and every time we've had best come up why we got to go to 500 feet. And I agree with Mr. Graph that by putting this restriction on, we limit the number of parcels that this could potentially impact in the future. It may not impact a current SRP or APS uh plan, but it could in the future. And why are we adding extra barriers when there's not a compelling reason? That's where I'm at. And and there's a national standard which was cited like, you know, 10 times in this room today that says 100 feet after they've done all the testing, all of that. I think the the local fire that we've gotten input from have said they're okay with the 500 feet. They're probably great with a,000 feet, too. I don't know if they're great with 100 feet and 100 feet instead of 10500. I was trying I was going to call one of them on the way here, but I did not get to it. Um, and so that's that's where I'm at. We currently allow people to put these in their home in a smaller scale, on a residential scale. They put battery systems in their homes. We allow

it. And so I that's where I get really jumpy about the 100 500 is I don't understand why if there is a compelling reason then let people come down here talk to us but by right I feel like we should go to less and that is my personal opinion. I would like to adopt the national standard. Um, I'm certainly not going to hold up this whole all this work of the great county to like do that if but um but I really struggle with the 500 ft. Mr. Chair, I guess Commissioner Rockwalk. Uh I see you did you have been able to pronounce it. I I got it. I got you down now. Yeah, I got you.

Uh I I would agree with you. I think going to the national standards makes the most sense. Um again um I think oftent times and certainly throughout today um we have voted on um to recommend projects um in the far reaches of the valley. Um I think the last I was not here for the olive um battery storage but um I was here I think a couple weeks ago there was one off of about 190 something Avenue in Happy Valley. Um, but I think we often forget about the county islands that exist throughout the county. Uh, my parents live in one of them. Um, just two blocks away from the border of Scottsdale, about 10 blocks away from the border of Phoenix. Um and when these types of of uses um can help bring um the the the type of power that is needed and the storage that is required so that when we do have uh the next you know knockout of power um those residents in those county islands and quite frankly anywhere uh in the in the valley um or the the county at large um maintain keep their lights on and um keep their ice frozen in the freezer. Um I think is important. Um I I found it very interesting um that we do not have setback requirements uh for substations when substations are um also pose um a hazard uh and a fire risk. Um I had an opportunity to tour a substation. Um some time ago we were not even allowed to get within certain amount of feet of the um of the the the electrical components inside the substation. So clearly there's a danger there, but there are no sub there are no setback requirements set for those. Um, and we said that that is because we consider them to be a public utility. I don't know about my fellow commissioners, but

I would consider the battery storage uh facilities also a public utility. Um, I'm not encouraging I'm encouraging to to follow the uh the national standards for sure, but certainly don't want to hold up the amazing work that you guys have done. Um, I think there's nothing I love more than being able to remove page counts. So, thank you guys for your hard work. I have more questions, but not related to battery storage. Okay, let's jump to um I was told Chief Diamond were with Rural Metros on has Rose's hand to speak and so I'm going to allow that to I think he might come up with a reason why this is a bad idea or he might support this. I don't know. We're going to find out. So, we'd love to hear from him. Yes, I've enabled his mic so if he wants

Chief Diamond, are you there? Yes. Good morning, Board of Supervisors. Thank you for allowing me to speak on this. Good morning.

I have worked with several of these um sites so far in the county areas. I am the uh fire marshall for the Royal Metro Fire Department and I oversee unincorporated areas in Maricopa County and Panal County. I've worked very closely with the the BESS sites. Um, their safety and uh fire suppression systems are amazing and I personally as a fire marshal I agree with the 100 ft separation. Um, everything I've seen with them shows that uh they're top-notch and I wouldn't have any issues uh recommending that you go with the national standards on that.

Do you feel that that answer would change if it's farther away from services or closer? I I I'm just I liked what he said, but I'm going to give I'm gonna just ask a question that, you know, goes against maybe what I would want. I'm sorry. Can you ask that question again, please?

Would your opinion change if the if the emergency services were farther away like in rural settings in the county? Um, does it I what I'm getting at is I'm trying to find harm to the resident in the case of a fire. Like I just I've struggled to find how a residential unit's going to be at risk. Is there does your opinion change if it's you know it takes 10 minutes for the fire truck to get there versus three minutes? That kind of question. Okay. Not with their safety systems that they have in play and the distances they have between each one.

Um also as I stated, you know, they work very closely with all the local fire departments uh with their safety standards and their response guidelines. Um, and a lot of times with the response guidelines is we will respond and just monitor if there's a fire. So, no, it it would not change for that for me personally. Thank Thank you. That wasn't planned. I don't know, Chief Diamond. So, I didn't I've been I've been on for um with the Ro Fire Department fire prevention for 32 years now.

Great. Thank you. So, anything I can do to help, I appreciate and I appreciate you're letting me uh speak on this. And thank you, board supervisors. I appreciate it. Thank you for calling in. Mr. Gerard, did you miss Mr. Chairman? To clarify, I believe what was just spoken to was uh the need to maintain the recommended 100 foot minimum setback, but you could consider removing uh the proposed 500 foot minimum separation. Oh, yes, correct. I'm all for that. Yeah, thank you clarifying that. All right. Thank you, Chief Diamond. I have a quick question for staff. Yeah, let's go.

In relation to these setbacks, I know one of your in the conversation that we're having and and whether national standards or to just remove the 500 as as you had just mentioned, um one of the requests that you had made, I I think anticipating that this was going to be a topic of conversation was to pull this out um as for further discussion while the rest goes on. Are we not capable of making an amendment today? Mr. Chairman, member Rakwag, you you have options. One of those options is to make you're making your recommendation. So, if the if the commission's comfortable making a recommendation towards the standard to place into this zoning code update, we can go with that to it's your recommendation to the board of supervisors of what goes into the code today. So if you wanted further discussion before making that decision and that recommendation, we could pull this out and send the whole code to them without it and come back and have that discussion or we've had a lot of discussion today and if you feel comfortable making the recommendation as proposed or with a modification, you can send it with that modification. It's your perview.

Is there is there anybody that's uncomfortable with the recommendation of the national standard on this? Mr. I would say pull it out if there was. So, but if there's not hearing none, I mean, I would Oh, go ahead. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Yeah, this is uh Warren Whitney. Um, I just want to say I I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, and Commissioner Rockwallik, and I'm even more comfortable after hearing the fire chief. Um, you know, I had the similar concerns to to the comments that both of you made earlier after reading the a backup and and hearing the public comments, but if um if that's the way you want to proceed, I would fully support that. Thank you. Are there any are there other questions? I think you said you had some Go. No, I say I don't think there's I think we you had some on some other topics on topics. Let's let's hit through other topics. I think we're

uh or let's go where did you have a comment? Chairman. Sorry, we have one other person um that wanted to speak. Robert Olmstead. Okay. Um I I'd closed public comment, but he's also a fire chief and I'm going to let him come on. So um we because I don't want to reopen this if we don't need to, but um let's And I know he his recommendation was um I I had questions for him, so this is great. Okay. Uh, let's let him on. Okay. You don't need to be formal here. You just get the right answer. I've enabled his mic, so he should be able to. Chief Olmstead, welcome to the commission.

Are you there? We still can't hear you. If you're there, you might be muted on your end. Chief Alson said your mic is enabled. So if you can unmute please. I think we hear you. Are you members of the council hear me? We can.

I apologize. I'm driving from one meeting to another. I appreciate the opportunity to comment. Uh my name is Robert Olmstead. I'm the fire marshal for the Arizona Fire and Medical Authority. Uh I I wanted to take the opportunity to comment because we have at at current uh 10 completed battery storage projects within the boundaries of the authority with another 13 under development. Um I do want to clarify a couple of things. When we talk about the national standard a as currently exists under the national standard there are two formats for setbacks. One is called a remote installation and the other is a non- remote installation. The 100 foot setback is for a remote installation. And the difference there is that with a remote installation it alleviates the need for a fire suppression system inside of the battery storage container. A non- remote installation has a set back of 10 ft and that requires a fire suppression system inside the storage container. Most of our installations in the Arizona Fire and Medical Authority are remote installations. Uh and frankly, I like them that way because that gives me some some setback. And the 100 foot setback is the generally accepted safe distance where there to be uh it's not really an explosion, but it's called a deflogration. uh less than 10,000 ft per second uh explosive event in the battery storage container. So that's why the 100 ft setback we have had and this is why I wanted to comment on the 500t set back. Uh you noted that I'd probably be happy with 1,000 ft. That's not really true. I'm I'm really comfortable with 500 ft. Uh the reason I want more than 100 feet is that we have had two fires and battery storage systems in our area and uh my concern is for the smoke that comes from that event.

Typically that smoke goes up and dissipates. The most recent testings that we have on the smoke from battery storage containers indicates that it it is very similar to that which comes from a house fire but there is some heavy metals in that as well. Uh and that's from recent UL testing. So I do want to see more than 100 ft setback because what I really don't want to start doing is evacuating houses if we has have a fire and a battery storage system. So the 100 ft setback is for explosive safety. That's not to say that there's no danger after 100 ft. I appreciate the opportunity to comment. Thank you.

Thank you. You say more foot footage. What what would your number be? Thousand. Well, my favorite phrase over over the course of my career has been that I'm paid to be paranoid.

Yeah. So, I you know, we there's not really anything in the in the National Fire Code that talks about setbacks to specifically to residential uh occupancies. So, I I've done a lot of when we had our events, our fire events, we did some uh had the hazardous materials come teams come in and meter for uh toxins and the smoke. And we didn't find anything in those two events at at 300 and 400 ft. But I'm also not going to tell you that there are no readings either. So I I'm always going to argue for more, not less. I know 500 is a lot of a lot of distance for a lot of people and I understand why they would like it to be closer. My job is to protect the public and I feel like we can absolutely do that at 500 ft.

Yeah, understood. Thank you. And I appreciate you calling in. I you were on my list to try to call before uh before this meeting. So u yeah certainly understand your job and appreciate your role and um we're trying to find the right right balance between keeping lights on and keeping people safe. So we'll we'll keep at it. Thank you for your time. Go ahead, Mr. Ellsworth. Mr. Chairman, one thing to point out as as I was listening to the fire marshals speak, um a zoning code requirement does not preclude the fire district from adopting their own fire codes. So if if within their fire districts they were looking for greater safety, they could adopt those codes as well. Thank you.

They Yeah, we don't when we get a permit, we submit to the fire district for a review. Perfect. Thank you. For their code. Thank you. All right, let's jump to some other questions. Commissioner Rockwallik, you have a list.

Uh, yeah, I just have a quick question. Um, well, a couple quick questions depending on how the the response is. Uh, the So, I noticed, uh, for data centers, battery, energy, storage, um, systems that they're allowed in industrials, uh, zones two and three, um, but subject to a POD. um in reading um about the the plan of development process. Um usually that is run concurrently with a a zoning or a zoning change, but um if a site already has the existing zoning um how does one achieve a pod? Okay, Mr. Chairman, me rock wall, that's a good question. Um right now currently as it sits plans of development, a lot of municipalities will call them a site plan review. Got it. Um, in Maricopa County, that's an administrative review process. Basically, it's it's a it's an application to us. We' review a site plan administratively up against what was what was approved through the zoning against the zoning, and that gives you that zoning clearance as you go through your permitting process. So, it's it's it's a the plan of development or site plan approval is administrative. If you're coming in prior to permits, you get that re review, then you could submit for your permit. um as it relates to the expiration date which came up. I don't know if you had a question on that but right now they currently expire after two years with the option to get an extension for another year. Um I have no opposition to continuing or an unlimited number of extensions because it is it's an administrative process. So currently in Maricopa County if your pod expires you're just submitting back to staff for an administrative review of your of your site plan. So if we wanted to add that we could.

And if I could add, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rockwall, go ahead. The POD is not a a data center issue. All industrial all development in industrial zoning, commercial zoning requires a plan.

Thank you. Um I want to comment um on uh state land's comments. U state land as it relates to data centers, state land encouraged you to also allow them uh under C2. uh you do not allow them under C2 under this change. So I want to thank you for that. Um uh C2 is really for retail and services, not for uh the type of industrial usage that a data center is. Um, however, in the definition of data center, I I have a a pause for concern, but I don't I don't know if this is going to change the usage of such or the the ability for them to be developed. But when I hear uh APS's representative, Mr. graph say that APS is in a quote unquote mad rush uh to increase power availability and understanding the uh power draw that data centers have across the power grid uh for both of our providers EPS and SRP. Um, when our definition uh includes the ability for crypto mining or crypto processing, that kind of makes me a little angry as a rateayer. Um, that I would be uh paying potentially seeing an increase in in rates due to the energy draw of a data center that is used to mine cryptocurrency for somebody else's personal gain outside of a I guess their own business. Um, so I don't know if that removal would I don't know limit the ability for a crypto miner to to build a data center in the county or not, but but that is that's problematic for me. Um, but I'm one person,

Mr. Chairman, I believe it was just an example of things that occur within data centers. It wasn't it wasn't um an intent to to provide or or eliminate it. So, if we wanted to eliminate that reference, we could, but I don't know that it would eliminate the ability to use it that way. An example is an example. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. All right. Uh, Commissioner Hernandez, you had a couple questions or a question?

No, I just I from the way I understand it, there's a couple things that we need to address as a commission on whether we're going to allow the um Mr. Yansy's additional language on the POD expirations. Correct. and the uh solar project perimeter treatment. Right. We just need to say whether we accept his language if we want to send that up to the board of supervisors. Correct. Way it is. Okay. And Mr. Chairman, I I've tried to write a list for you.

All right. I believe what I've heard among your discussion is if you were to recommend approval of the ordinance as proposed but with removal of uh ability for an additional occupant at 55 plus community residences. Um removal of any changes related to scenic corridors.

Yep. uh removal of the 500 foot minimum separation for BETS, an addition of POD validity for three years with the ability for unlimited extensions and uh addition of uh of a wa of administrative waiver for uh solar uh utility scale solar perimeter landscape treatments and screening. So, let me ask on the perimeter solar screening. What do we currently require? Six foot solid wall, I believe. A six foot solid wall.

Uh six foot solid wall, minimum six foot solid wall and um and a 20 foot landscape set back in the front. Mr. Chairman, it's a routine on the IUPDS for those large solar that there is a condition of approval that usually eliminates that requirement. So it usually has to go through the zoning process to eliminate that requirement on the large scale. Okay. So to I I will say most of these proposals are in remote locations with rural zoning. They said they had they need a reasonzoning. There's going to be an IUPD overlay anyway to limit the entitled use to the solar power generation so that we don't end up with an auto manufacturing plant out there that needs water.

Mr. Chairman, that's correct. Typically with those large scale solars, they're they're the sole use that's being yeah approved and that is through the IUPD overlay and we usually remove that condition for those at that in that instance. Okay. So you don't have any heartburn over that removal. Okay. I don't either. All right. Anything else? I think I liked all that. I heard it. Did I hear a motion? Yeah. All right. Uh just for clarity on the on the best we're just removing the 500 foot. Is that I I feel even better knowing that the fire marshals can do their own codes if they want to. Yeah. Yeah, that actually made me feel even better.

That would be correct. Our understanding would be that we're keeping the 100 foot setback from the property line and removing that requirement of 500 feet from residential residential. Okay. Yep. All right. So, we have a motion uh from Commissioner Mil Haven. Do we have a sec? and a second by Commissioner Rockwallik. Let's go ahead and do a roll call vote. Commissioner Dan Zyson, yes. Commissioner Finter, yes. Commissioner Hernandez, yes. Commissioner Leighton, yes. Chairman Limlum, yes. Vice Chair Milhaven, yes. Commissioner Rockwallik,

yes. Commissioner Whitney. Yes. Chairman, we have a motion recommending approval by a vote of 8 to zero.

Thank you. Was there any other agenda items? All right. All right. I I will take I have a statement to make. Yeah. I I woke up early on this. Sorry being I was a little late. I was even thinking about this. So, um it's it's I'm really proud to be a part of this commission. Um the commission as it currently stands is really um a group of really highqualified individuals that um it's really fun right now to be on on this commission. Sometimes it hasn't been as fun, but um this group's really great. And um sometimes um you know, we come across difficult cases and um they require us to get into deep thought, research, working through with multiple parties and there's contention, right, that exists here. And um we work really hard as a group to get it right. And sometimes that means we disappoint um a property owner. Sorry, I got somebody calling me. All right. And um sometimes it means we disappoint the public, too. Uh but through um our discourse, I really feel like we get it right. And uh most of the time and um yesterday there was a vote um that kind of reversed um one of the things that we worked on. And um the board of supervisors who appoints us to this board certainly can always overturn us. that's their right and um it's in their purview to do it. But it also sends a dangerous message when this board is not um in alignment sometimes with the others and it s signals to the public that there's maybe not trust between us. And so um I'll be working with Chairman Galvin to work on what's appropriate for a meeting that I don't understand what happened yesterday. And

um and uh I just feel like for as as the chairman of this group what we spend four and a half hours on working on and to get comp and we have unan unanimous approval. We need to understand what what happened and why there was a reversal. So with that I'll work with him and I just want to build trust with the community. I don't want to lose that. Um, and I want us to be predictable and um, I just there's something I'm missing and I think what will probably happen is a meeting of public, it might even be public between us and them to just see how we work better together. So, I just wanted to say that I yesterday was really bizarre to me. It seemed very political and we're not political. So, thank you. Um, and with that, I'm gonna one, thank the staff for an amazing job on this ordinance change. Like, that should not be uh clouded at all by what I just said. You did awesome. Like, you killed it. And so, thank you. We love working with you. Appreciate you. And all of you for being here today and working with us to um to get it right. Uh, this was definitely done as a community. So, thank you. We're adjourned. Congratulations.