Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Good morning, and welcome to Maricopa County Board of Supervisors formal meeting of 05/06/2026. We thank you all for coming. First, let's find out who's here. Madam clerk, will you please call the roll?

Thank you. Good morning. Supervisor Stewart?

Here.

Supervisor Galvin?

Here.

Vice chair Lesko? Here. Supervisor Gallanto?

Here.

Chair Brophy McGee? Here.

We will now proceed with the invocation and pledge of allegiance. Supervisor Galvin, would you please introduce your guests who will lead us in the invocation and pledge?

Madam chair, good morning. Absolutely. Thank you very much. We actually have two distinguished guests here today for the invocation and the pledge of allegiance. Madam chair, I'd like to welcome pastor David Wade of Mount Calvary Baptist Church of Mesa and the Mesa Police Chief, Dan Butler. And if I may, madam chair, I'd like to make remarks about each of them afterwards. Thank you. Please rise.

Now we pray. God our father, how we thank you for a new day. And our city, our state, and our nation need your guidance, your direction. Thank you for the time that we spend together as a community, citizens of Arizona. And I pray for this board, from the chair to every member, that they would lead and guide our city to where you will for it to be.

We thank you that you have given us a new opportunity to get something straight, that we remember our children and our seasoned adults. Bless each and every one of us today. In Jesus' name, amen. Amen.

Good morning. Please of the The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank

you. Supervisor Galvin.

Madam chair, thank you. I am proud to represent Mesa on the county board of supervisors. Supervisors. And I always love to say, and I really mean it, that Mesa, I believe, is the most dynamic city in the valley. So it is really special for me to not have one, but two special guests today.

And I'd like to point out that pastor David Wade and chief Butler have a great relationship with each other, both in a personal terms and professional terms, each of them working together on a daily basis for the betterment of the city. Police chief Dan Butler, madam chair, is an accomplished law enforcement leader who began his career of distinguished service with the Mesa Police Department in the year 2000. He has served in most areas of the department and in every rank leading up to most recent appointment as chief of police. Throughout his career, Dan Butler has demonstrated exceptional leadership ensuring operational excellence and the well-being of the department and its officers. Dan has displayed a key role in managing over $100,000,000 in three major capital improvement projects, enhancing the department's infrastructure and public safety capabilities.

His strategic leadership ensured these initiatives were completed on time, within budget, and with lasting value for the community. A highly educated professional, chief Butler holds a master of administration degree from Northern Arizona University

with a focus on leadership. In addition, he

has completed several prestigious law enforcement leadership programs. With his extensive experience, dedication to operational excellence, and commitment to public safety, chief Butler is poised to continue driving positive change and reinforcing the Mesa Police Department's mission of policing excellence. And for a point of personal knowledge on my part, I am really appreciative of chief Butler who appointed a couple of years ago to our public safety committee, and he is consistently always seeing what he can do to not only help Mesa, but to help the Valley and Maricopa County. And chief Butler, thank you for your service to that very important public safety committee. Pastor Wade, good morning.

Pastor Wade is proud to be a third generation proclaimer of the gospel. He joined Mount Calvary Baptist Church on 03/30/1999. Pastor Wade serves as treasurer of the minister's division and his past co chair for the late night board of the National Baptist Convention USA. Pastor Wade is a United Wade board member, and he also serves as a board member for First Things First, which is the foundation developing quality early childcare. Evangelism and discipleship have been pastor Wade's passion, and he makes certain that the congregation of Mount Calvary knows how to share Jesus with joy.

And madam chair, not only does pastor Wade serve his community and serve his church, but he has served the state of Arizona in a wide variety of ways. And I know pastor Wade that your name is well known throughout every corner of the state, and I know that you do everything you can when you wake up to help your fellow brothers and sisters in Jesus. And so I just wanna everyone here to show appreciation for chief Butler and pastor Wade for their service to our community, to our county, to our state. Thank you both. And also wanna highlight, madam chair, that the chief brought a couple of other guests with him, including someone who's visiting us from Dallas, Texas. So I wanna say welcome as well. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, supervisor Galvin, and welcome to

the

county. We will now proceed to the pet showcase by Maricopa County Animal Care and Control. Kim. Good

morning. Today I have Funfetti with me. She is one years old and her breed well, honestly, your guess is as good as ours. Possibly part cattle dog, pity, Australian shepherd. There might be some red panda in there from what it looks like as well. She arrived at the shelter about a week ago. She was actually found tied to a pole outside of a gas station by Phoenix police, so they brought her to us. But she does seem like she was well loved and well trained for at at some point. She does have some high energy. As you can imagine with the name Funfetti, she got that for a reason.

She is very fun. She does have that puppy like energy. She's only a year old, so she still has that that that energy about her. She does pull on the leash quite a bit, I won't lie, but that is something that can easily be trained trained out of her. So just someone who can work with her would be best. But she does sit for treats. She can also catch them in the air. So she she's already on her way to being a really great dog and she's very loving as well and apparently really itchy with this harness on. Her adoption fee is waived until May 17, thanks to the Bissell Pet Foundation.

Thank you, Kim, and thank you, Funfetti. We appreciate your addition to this meeting. There's a home there for you somewhere.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Madam clerk, are there any announcements or corrections to

the agenda? Madam chair, I do have one announcement. Please. On page 20 item 13 d, that is road file six zero three three, and it was set to be heard today. That item is being withdrawn. That's item number 13 d. 13 d. Page 20.

Thank you very much. So if board members would note that when we get to that part of the agenda, I'd appreciate it. Okay. Now we will proceed to the presentation of the twenty twenty six Maricopa County storm water pollution prevention poster contest. Say that fast 18 times. But, no, this is a wonderful event. And Andy Linton, I will turn this over to you. Please introduce yourself or the audience.

Madam Chair, members of the board, my name is Andy Linton. I'm director for Maricopa County's Environmental Services Department. And I'm very excited and pleased to present the winners of this year's storm water pollution prevention contest. This is the seventeenth year that we've held this contest, so many of our early participants are now adults, hopefully spreading the knowledge of storm water pollution prevention. This year's theme is Clean Water for Arizona Wildlife.

The contest is open to students third through sixth grade all across Maricopa County. The winners are chosen in two categories, third and fourth graders, and fifth and sixth graders. County staff then vote on the posters based on style, originality, and how they've represented the theme. Winners are featured in the annual calendar and receive prizes from our sponsors. Next slide, please.

And next slide. This year, we've we've received over 500 entries from 22 schools. I'd like to recognize our manager of our storm water program, Autumn Martinez, and our outreach specialist, Kristen Homieff, who do a fantastic job raising awareness about and promoting participation in this contest. And now, the most exciting part of my presentation today is announcement of our winners. In our first category, our third and fourth graders, in first place, we have Tapasui Sridam from a fourth grader from CTA Independence.

In second place, we have Margo Martin, a fourth grader from North Ranch Elementary. And I appreciate Margo reminding me that the t in Margo is silent. So I that's one name that I'll I get right correct today. In third place, we have Kabir Chohan, a fourth grader from CTA Independence. And in our next category of fifth and sixth graders, our first place winner is Stella Kate Viejski, a fifth grader from Palm Valley Elementary.

In second place, Gabriel Jiao, a fifth grader from CTA Independence. And in third place, Lindsey Essman, a sixth grader from Lumos Arts Academy. We want to give a huge congratulations to our winners. And express our thanks to our sponsors who provided some of the prizes, including the Phoenix Herpetological Sanctuary, the Phoenix Art Museum, the Desert Botanical Garden, Bearizona, the Maricopa County Library District, Maricopa County Parks and Recreation, Arizona State Parks and Trails, Wildlife World Zoo Aquarium and Safari Park, and Liberty Wildlife. Thanks you once again to everyone who contributed to making this year's contest a tremendous success.

And madam chair, we would like to the winners to come down with your permission to take a photo with the board.

Thank you very much. Winners, please come forward and congratulations.

Alright.

Good

job. Good morning. Good morning.

So thank you to all the families, students, these wonderful artists who entered this contest and who came here today to see their to to be honored. And we so appreciate you. I will open the floor for comments from individual board members.

Madam chair.

Mister Galvin.

I've been doing this now for five years and I'm always amazed and impressed by the posters that I see, the originality and the creativity from the kids. But these posters this year really blew me away and all of the winners are deserving. But there were frankly many other great posters that we saw here in the hallway right here behind us in the building for Maricopa County. I just wanna congratulate and thank all of the students participated and spent time working on their posters. And also just really good that we're raising awareness of this issue, raising awareness of taking care of our community, taking care of our environment.

It's a cliche, but children are the future. But it's really good that we make children think about and learn about their surroundings and being good and kind to one another and being good and kind to our town and to our planet. And I just wanna thank you kids. You guys did the hard work and you deserve the accolades that you received today. But I also wanna congratulate your parents for coming in here. I can tell everyone here is bursting with pride and you should be. And really wanna see and know that we're gonna see your kids do great and amazing things in this world and maybe one of them will be sitting here one day as well. So thank you very much, madam chair.

Thank you, supervisor. Supervisor Lisk.

Thank you, madam chair. First, I wanna say thank you to our environmental services department, specifically Amanda Bond and her team for for sponsoring this and hosting this, storm water poster contest. I I really am proud to recognize, Stella Viejski, a fifth grader from from Palm Valley Elementary, which is located in Goodyear, which is in my district, the West Valley, for earning first place among the fifth and sixth grade students. To Stella's parents, congratulations on raising raising a talented young daughter. I also had two other students from my district whose artwork will be featured in this year's calendar.

Everly Faith Groff, a sixth grader from Freedom Traditional Academy, and Rita Lynn, a fourth grader from Sierra Verde. Congratulations to both of you, and thank you to our staff. I think we had 500 students that tried to win this competition, and so you guys are among the elite that are the winners, and our staff went through 500, and we also voted on it. All of the board members voted on it and then the other day we had 300 students that participated in an essay contest. So thank you to our staff for really getting the community and students involved.

Thank you. Supervisor Gallardo?

Thank you Madam Chair. Yeah, just of echoing comments made by my fellow colleagues. Just a big congratulations to all our students that participated. Any time that we can partner our own big collaborator, I believe in collaborating on everything, but any time we're able to collaborate with our educational systems out there, let it be our public schools, our academies, all of them, to be able to do something that is not only fun, but educational, to really talk about what pollution is and why we take it serious. So anytime you can do something that's educational and fun, it's a big plus.

And to be able to have our honorees come before us is always big. And so, just congratulations to not only the students, all the teachers that work together. I know all the hard work the teachers put in, the love and passion they have in educating our young people, and when you're looking at an issue that's so serious, like pollution, and really to have our young minds thinking about it is always a big plus. So, you to all our winners and teachers, and great job, everyone. Good job.

Thank you. Supervisor Stewart.

Thank you, madam chair. Wow. I remember when we were looking at all the posters down in the hallway, and the talent that's coming up in this generation is amazing. But I'm absolutely impressed by the young people that are here today. The the the politeness and the the the firm handshakes, that was impressive. So I wanna thank the parents and the teachers for getting your kids ready, not only for their jobs in the future, but also giving exposure to the arts. That's so important for creativity. So great job, kids, and and thanks for being here.

And thank you. And I would like to give a shout out to Margo Tia Silent, Margo Martin and Jensen Keegan's from my district. And we are so appreciative of everyone's participating today. This is an outstanding contest, and I it's only my second time through, but I look forward to it. Thank you.

So our next we will now proceed with the business of the county, kind of through with the fun stuff. And those of you who would like to can leave, we'd love for you to stay if you so choose. Thank you. I will start with the rules of decorum for public meetings and constructive participation in the process. Please understand it's the intent of the members of the Board of Supervisors to follow orderly procedures for conducting business.

The chair of the Board of Supervisors has the authority to maintain order and professional standards during open meetings and may enforce the following rules and remembering that those disregarding the rules will be subject to removal. Attendees should remain seated during an open meeting. This minimizes minimizes distractions to the board or other attendees. And no person attending an open meeting shall engage in disorderly or boisterous conduct, including but not limited to applause, whistling, stamping a feed, booing, or making any loud, threatening, profane, abusive, personal, impertinent, or slanderings utterances that disturbs, disrupts, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting. No disparaging other speakers.

We want to hear from you. We want to know what your opinion is, not your opinion of the person who spoke before. We want to hear from you. So with that, we will proceed then to the planning and zoning part of the agenda, items six, seven, and eight. This is the consent agenda. Supervisors, do any of you wish to remove any of these items off the consent agenda for further discussion? Hearing none.

Madam chair. Please. Just wanna make sure on item number 52

I'm sorry. I'm I'm just referencing seven and eight.

The planning and zoning. Got it. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. So you're good? Okay. Madam vice chair, is is there a motion, please?

Thank you, madam chair. I move that we approve items six through eight.

Second. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor will say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. We will now move to the regular agenda for planning and zoning, a zoning project Becara, which is I I understand, madam clerk, we have speaker forms.

Madam chair, yes, we do have speaker forms for this item number nine.

Okay. And with that, I'd like to ask mister Ellsworth and mister Gerard to come forward and make a brief presentation and answer any questions from board members. And if you would be so kind when you get to the microphone, eventually, and please introduce yourself to the audience.

Madam Chair, members of the board, I'm Tom Ellsworth. I'm the director for the plan development department at Maricopa County. And I have with me Darren Gerard, who is our planning manager within our department.

Okay. Please proceed.

Alright. Madam chair, this this request is MCP250007. It's known as project Pecara. This request is specifically for a military compatibility permit for approximately a 160 acres located North Of Olive Avenue about one half mile west of Litchfield Road in the West Glendale area. The request is specifically to allow industrial land uses including natural gas power generation facility, data center buildings, a substation, fuel storage, parking and screening, and security improvements.

The site is currently zoned Industrial 3 within the military airport and ancillary military facility overlay district. Specifically, it is also within Luke Air Force Base's high noise area, including the 75 to 80 LDN noise contours. Within this overlay area, new residential development is prohibited, and any non residential development does require the approval of a military compatibility permit. This request does not approve a final site plan or construction plans. It is limited to establishing the permitted land uses and related development standards.

The compatibility review is governed by state statute and the and the Maricopa County zoning ordinance. Both these sections are intended to ensure that the development near Luke Air Force Base is compatible with ongoing military operations. Specifically in ARS section twenty eight eight four eight one, there's a land use compatibility table. The statute also includes a footnote within that section that says items that are not listed are are presumed to be incompatible. However, if the if the county and the military airport mutually agree that an individual use is compatible and consistent consistent with the high noise or accident potential of the military airport, that use is considered is presumed to be compatible.

That's the process that was used here. Through coordination and multiple meetings with Luke Air Force Base, staff and the applicant worked together through the issues that would need to be addressed for this use to be considered compatible with the operations of the Air Force Base. Although Luke Air Force Base is not the final approval authority, its review is central to the county's compatibility determination. In a in a letter from the air force base dated 03/13/2026, the the proposed development they stated that the proposed development is not compatible and consistent with Luke's operations unless listed conditions are met. Luke identified mission related conditions that must be addressed to preserve compatibility with the base operations.

This statement's important. It means compatibility is conditional. The project must satisfy Luke's requirements, and staff has incorporated those requirements into the conditions of approval. Those conditions include related items related to electromagnetic and radio frequency interference, airspace and communications, lighting and glare, exhaust plume impacts, air quality, fire protection, fuel system design, and a few others. Staff has included those requirements as conditions of approval.

Specifically, there's a condition of approval requiring the submittal of a military compatibility compliance report with a specific plan of development. It's important to note that the military compatibility permit approves the land uses and the design standards. The plan of the specific plan of development with the details of that plan are subject to these conditions and would be subject to future review by the planning commission and this board if the project were to continue on through Maricopa County. It should be noted that at the current time, the applicant is in discussions with a pre annexation development agreement with the city of Glendale and has intention to develop the project and construct the project within Glendale. However, if it stays in Maricopa County, these conditions would apply.

The military compatibility compliance report would be a required item as far as that review far as the review of the plan of development. As far as the MCP, the applicant also is proposing development standards tailored to the use. That includes a maximum 72 foot high height limit for the turbine stacks, a 150 foot setback from the property lines for the turbines, 75 foot minimum building setbacks, modified parking ratios screening requirements. Skipping through what I've already gone through. Let's see.

There's been significant amount of public outreach and comment on this project. As of last night, we have received unique comments from five fifty three individuals in opposition and five comments in support. That count does not include the change.org petition that include thousands of signatures. We did prepare staff did prepare the opposition maps on April 30. At that time, there were 226 in opposition, and so these maps that are do not include the update from last night's count of an additional 205 opposition.

Most of the opposition is coming from the surprise area from the neighbors to half mile, two mile to the north. The concerns that were were cited are air quality, noise, water use, visual impacts, health concerns, and compatibility with Luke Air Force Base. There was no opposition within the 300 foot site limitations, so there is no requirement for a supermajority vote. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard the case on April 9 and voted seven to zero to recommend approval subject to the conditions. They state their findings stated the site is already designated for heavy industrial use.

It is adjacent to existing industrial development. It's an area where new residential development is prohibited, and it is subject to the Luke Air Force Base compatibility conditions. So with that, the commission was recommending approval with a vote of seven to zero, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. And before we proceed to questions from the board, mister McNealy, if you would please come forward, he will address any questions as relates to air quality. And my apologies for not calling you forward with mister Ellsworth and company. Can you please introduce yourself for the audience?

Madam Gotcha. And madam chair, this I'm Philip McNeely, the director of the Maricopa County Air Quality Department.

Thank you, sir, and welcome. Questions from for staff from the board. Vice chair Lesko. Thank you, madam chair. When this project was first brought before me, I by the applicant, I asked them, Is the Luke Air Force Base okay with this?

Because that's what we're here to talk about today, military compatibility. And I told them, if Luke is against it, I'll be against it. And so my understanding is they spoke with with Luke Air Force Base. The conditions can can you go through some of the conditions that Luke Air Force Base has requested and said that it would be compatible compatible if if these these conditions conditions are are

met.

Met?

You know, you don't have to say all of it, but the the the headlines of what Luke was concerned about. I'm trying to find

the has exact condition. Mister Ellsworth. So in the conditions of approval, madam chair, vice chair, let's go. Condition number h outlines the specific conditions that the Luke Luke Air Force Base was involved in through their comments and ensuring that we're part of those conditions. Again, they they they're requiring a technical analysis on electromagnetic interference.

Airspace communications, specifically an analysis requiring a spectrum analysis and any FCC authorizations demonstrating compliance, anything to do with visibility, lighting, and exhaust exhaust plume impacts, compliance with air quality, fire protection and hazard mitigation, fuel system design, review by the Department of Defense site Siting Clearing House, and sound attenuation and notification measures. All of these were stipulated to be in condition, and they were further stipulated that they would be part of that military compatibility compliance report to ensure compatibility. So as that comes in, staff will be looking for that report. We will review the report for compliance with these conditions in coordination with Luke Air Force Base to their satisfaction before we were to bring that plan of development forward to this body.

And, madam chair and, mister Ellsworth, is it your understanding that Luke, it's my understanding that the applicant responded to all these Luke's conditions with answers of how they're going to fulfill the conditions. In your talking with Luke Air Force Base, do you believe they are satisfied that the conditions will be met?

In the many meetings we've had with Luke and with the applicant, we've gone over each of these conditions. We've gone over their response and reply to us. They are satisfied that in working with the applicant, they could meet these conditions.

And it's my understanding, madam chair and mister Ellsworth, that the city of Glendale recently voted unanimously to for a pre annexation of this property, which would take this property into their city limits. So can you tell me how this works? So let's say they annex it. Is the city of Glendale then the one that determines that all of these conditions that Luke Air Force Base ones will be met?

Correct. So as part of the, entitlement of the property, the zoning or currently, the property is in unincorporated Maricopa County. So as property is zoned, we're looking for the infrastructure improvements and the conditions that would be required for development to occur. Part of those conditions require some of the utilities coming from the city of Glendale. So they're working on that preliminary development and preliminary annexation development agreement with Glendale.

When an annexation occurs, a municipality is required by state statute to adopt zoning that is not more intense than what is, permissible within the county immediately prior to annexation. As part of those comparable zoning, requirements, typically what a municipality will do is adopt exactly what was approved within Maricopa County. So, as part of that, the entitlement that goes with this from the County to the city would include these conditions and compatibility with Luke Air Force Base would still be a requirement there. I'm also aware that the city of Glendale has compatibility requirements themselves with the Air Force.

Thank you for that answer. I do have a question on the air quality conditions.

Nice chair.

Is that something that our department would make sure that those conditions are met even if it was annexed by Glendale?

Madam chair, McGee and vice chair, let's go. That's correct. The Maricopa County Air Quality Department will retain authority over the air permit no matter where the jurisdiction goes, with the planning and development of Orlando.

Thank you very much. And madam chair, I have another question for mister Ellsworth. Is the current zoning on the majority of this property? My understanding is it's heavy industrial, is the current zoning. And what other types of projects would be allowed to go in heavy industrial?

Madam chair, vice madam chair, vice chair, let's go. That's correct. The current zoning on probably 95% of the property is industrial three. There's some 43 underlying zoning that's along the rail edge and along the immediate corners, but it's primarily heavy industrial uses, specifically IND3, which is the most intense industrial zoning you can have in Maricopa County. So items that we typically see in an IND3 zoning would include manufacturing, warehousing.

It would include items such as data centers. It would include power generation. Power generation is actually allowed by right on the site. So the interesting thing to note about the existing zoning is if the Air Force Base weren't in existence requiring the military compatibility permit, the IND three zoning does allow the data center and the and the power generation facility currently today.

Yeah. And and thank you, madam chair. And I think that's important for for the public to understand is that it's already zoned heavy industrial, and that because Luke Air Force Base is there, that's why we're going through this to see if it's compatible with the military base. I guess my question, and I know that it's subjective, is do you believe it's realistic to think that this is gonna continue to be vacant land or farmland considering that there's industrial basically surrounding this property?

Madam chair, vice chair, Lesko, that's correct. A non subjective view of it is surrounded by industrial development. It is in the in the air force based noise and accident or the high noise contour areas. This would not be a site that would develop towards residential uses or even high occupancy type uses. The only with the surrounding and the context of the surrounding industrial zoning that's already occurred on the site, it would be reasonable to assume that any that it would not remain vacant and would ultimately develop with some type of industrial use.

Thank you. That's all the questions I have for now.

Thank you. Do other supervisor Galvin.

Thank you, madam chair. A couple of questions through the chair. Mister Ellsworth, this is not a rezoning case. Correct?

Madam chair, supervisor Galva. That's correct. This is a it's a zoning request for a military compatibility permit. So it follows that same entitlement process. It so it in the essence, it is an entitlement and that it is approving compatible land uses.

Okay. So if someone argued, let's say, that there would be different or more appropriate uses for this site including residential, residential would not be allowed to be built here. Correct?

That is correct.

What about small commercial? Small commercial in the industrial three zoning. Small commercial as long as it was it would still have to go through the military compatibility permit process. As long as it was deemed compatible through use and compatibility determination from the Air Force Base, they would follow the same process.

Okay. And could you please walk me through why residential would not be allowed here within this zone that requires a military compatibility permit?

Yes. So per state statute, there's a land use compatibility table, in statute twenty eight eighty four eighty one. I got it right. Eighty four eighty one that we have also adopted into our zoning ordinance. Within that, it would list certain land uses per noise contour. So the noise contours are the day night average noise levels experienced by the overflights from the air force base. Specifically in this area, is between the seventy five and eighty decibel range. Within that range, it's clearly stating that there is no permissible residential use with inside this noise contour. So per statute, this would not be admissible for any residential development.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, supervisor Galvin. Any Do the other board members have questions? Supervisor Gallardo.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And just so I know, I'm very familiar with the West Valley, and particularly Luke and the protections we have around the base and so on. Help me understand. There was the March 13 letter that addressed, and I get it. Luke is not going to weigh in and support our opposition.

Neutral. I get that. But they're gonna lay out concerns, and I think it was the March 13 letter that says, here here are our thoughts. Correct me if I'm wrong, there has been been conversations that the county has had directly with LUC in regards to this. Have they submitted, not in support or opposition, anything in writing that says their concerns have been addressed?

In writing? Has there been anything? I mean, because what I heard at the beginning is that because of statute, and I get it, there are statutory requirements we have follow, that as long as we address the concerns, we're operating under the assumption that they're okay. Is that correct?

So, Madam Chair, Supervisor Gallardo, So there has been significant amount of communication back and forth with Luke going back to the fall with the initial review of this. And a lot of discussion about the term utility versus power generation. And as that came forward and as there was many meetings discussing what the actual use was, how it was related, how it relates to state statute, It was formulated into what the statute's required, what is it considered utility, what are the specific things that the air force would need to deem necessary to deem it compatible. So, through all of that, there were at least three different iterations of the use of compatibility determination letter that came back with corrections. The latest version that we had from March 13 where they're saying that they would consider this a utility and incompatible unless they meet certain conditions as Luke putting it in writing the conditions that would be necessary for them to accept it compatibility.

And then we worked with them on the wording of the conditions of what would we need for the applicant to show us as they come forward with their specific plans that would guarantee that we are reviewing against compliance with those. So the direct answer to your question is no, there is not a direct letter of response, but there's been many conversations that lead to the direct response that Luke is aware of the conditions and has been satisfied that they would result in compatibility. Madam Chair, hypothetically,

if let's say it is a give and a go today, they move forward, and if those requirements are not met, what happens? Mean, we're talking about national defense here. We're talking Luke, I'm not talking about a neighborhood. We're talking national defense. That's why I really want to look at this really seriously. What happens and what's the recourse if those are not met?

So, madam chair, supervisor Gallardo, the recourse would be that the met that this is a condition of approval of the of the military compatibility permit through the review of the plan of development or the construction documents themselves, they would be deemed not in compliance with the MCP, and they would not receive building permits. So they would not be able to construct it. Throughout the course of the the life of the project, if they were to be deemed not in compliance, they would be in violation of the zoning of the property and would be subject to legal

By the county or by

If it stays in the county, it would be through the county or through Glendale, whichever the jurisdiction is at the time.

Madam Chair, one other question. Go on air quality. Help me understand this. For air quality, these are two different processes, correct? I'm getting that? They're two different processes. Have we completed quality side of this whole project? Has that been addressed?

Madam chair, supervisor Yaurudo, we received a permit on 08/07/2025 for this project. We had a a draft permit issued on March 4 and we had public comment which ended on April 8 and we had a public hearing. So currently, we are preparing a responsive summary and we anticipate in a couple weeks to be submitting this to EPA, and they have a forty five day review. But we anticipate EPA approving the permit because they've met all of the applicable regulations.

And and madam madam chair, once again, because this we're talking Luke here now too. Once again, what happens if EPA if they come out and say deny this or or have concerns or whatever? I I'm not even that familiar with the EPA process, to be honest. What happens in that case?

Madam Chair, Supervisor Gary Aldro, EPA can have comments and then we would be asked to address those comments if EPA has them. But typically, we work them through, eventually, unless it's completely a permit doesn't follow the regulations, which this one does, it eventually will get approved.

Okay. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, supervisor. Supervisor Stewart? Mister Ellsworth.

Madam chair, mister Gerard, just remind me that the attorney general's off office also gets involved with the enforcement of the state statute under compatibility for the military airport.

Supervisor Cayato.

And and madam chair, let me because I I did listen to the PNC hearing. A long hearing, but I listen. It was good. It was it was I mean, I'm getting educated here. I mean, because this is this is this is pretty pretty technical, and I'm I'm learning as well. There was a comment, and maybe it's by by one of the speakers that they intended to file a complaint with the attorney general's office. Do we know if that ever happened in violation of the statute and the compliance stuff?

So, madam chair, supervisor, I am not aware of any complaint filed with the attorney general's office.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you. Please remain seated. In the event there are more questions, gentlemen, I will now ask madam clerk about speaker forms received for this item. And is the applicant represented here? Thank you. We will start with a summary from you. It will be four minutes, sir. And then you will have also four minutes for any rebuttal or clarification following public testimony. Please introduce yourself for the record.

Thank you, madam madam chair, members of the board. Ed Bull, 1850 North Central Avenue. I'm here representing Beccarra Eagle Land. That's really made up of Monterra. Here from Monterra is Craig Pennington, who's their chief technical officer, and others.

Also, it's made up of Takanic. Hear from Tucanic as their COO, Kevin Kroll, and a number of others. We also have, if needed, in response to questions, a variety of engineering experts and scientific experts dealing with air and other kinds of issues. As you know from from this slide, we very much appreciate your planning commission's seven o for approval. Your That's backstopped by Luke's letter of compatibility.

There's stipulations a through p. We accept every one of them and request that your board approve subject to conditions a through p. Next slide. When we look at this particular slide, the Bukhara site is the approximately 160 acres that's baby blue. You'll see that it is predominantly all but the very edges, as mister Ellsworth indicated, is within the 80 noise contour.

It's the noisiest non noise contour around Luke. The accident potential zones are colored red, orange, and yellow. We're not in an APZ. To the right hand side of this slide shows the basic land use bubble plan for the 160 acres. The green area is the data center acreage.

The yellow is the electrical generation acreage, and the blue is the future APS substation. Next slide, please. One of the things that staff stressed in their report and was discussed quite a bit at the planning commission is what is the land use plan for this area. As you'll see through not only the county, but surprise, Glendale, El Mirage, all have recognized for twenty five years or so that this area is most strongly influenced by Luke Air Force Base, and in their own terminology, have limited land uses to what's deemed compatible with Luke. That's exactly where we fit.

As staff report indicates, no new residential can be built in the area. A variety of other high population type retail uses and so on couldn't be built in the area. As you know, as some of you may recall, when we came in a few years ago and worked with you on a military compatibility permit and ultimately then zoning, same process as this for for Wolf Logistics Center to the immediately West, to Reams Ranch to the South and Southwest. All these went through the same process to determine loop compatibility. The next slide, please.

This is just a graphic that touches on what mister Wellsworth indicated. This site's been zoned industrial 3 for twenty five years. It's not just industrial 3. It has an IUPD that allows up to a 180 feet in height. Our tallest improvement is 72 feet.

We also are agreeing to set those improvements back 50 feet from any property line 50 feet from any property line, 150 feet for the turbines. Next slide, please. This one shows some of the development in the area. If you're there with any frequency, you've seen a tremendous amount of industrial development occur in the area. Next slide, please. A massive amount of neighborhood outreach was done with various mailings, meetings, and so on and so forth over the course of the last year or so. Want me to stop?

Would you care to summarize, sir?

Can we skip forward to slide 10, please, which simply touches on, in addition to this process, it also went through the line sighting committee and was found to be received a certificate of environmental compatibility. If you skip to 11, you'll see a whole number of things that's summarized from your staff report about why this is the right use in the right location. If we can jump to slide 12, please, which is the conclusion slide. This is the right use. It is deemed compatible with Luke.

We received Luke's conditions, and the CEO immediately responded in writing, accepting all of those stipulations. It's a huge investment in the county. It is a part of what we need to not only operate as citizens, but operate as a part of our country's economy and and national defense and so on and so forth. We request your approval subject to stipulations a through p.

Thank you, sir. And you will have an additional four minutes following public participation.

Thank you.

Madam clerk oh, are there any questions for mister Bull? Please, vice chair.

Thank you, madam chair. Mister Bull, I do have some questions. How is your client going to ensure that all of Luke Air Force Base concerns that they spelled out are going to be met and as well as the conditions in this permit?

A number of layers of protection. As you know, the conditions, as mister Ellsworth indicated, say, essentially, if we're not in compliance with those conditions and requirements, we don't get a building permit. If we have a building permit and we build it and we're operating and we're not in con compliance with those conditions and requirements, that's deemed a violation, and we get shut down. That's on the county level or the Glendale level, and I expect the same would be true on the air quality control district level where they too have enforcement abilities. If we're not abiding by what we need, what we've agreed to, and what's set forth in your staff report, I anticipate that Luke would say, you're not getting a permit.

The county would say, you're not getting a permit. Glendale would say, you're not getting a permit. So there's laminated layers of protection to make sure that we not just put it in a letter signed by one of our CEOs, but that we, in fact, have to honor those conditions and requirements to build the facility and to operate the facility.

And, madam chair and Vice chair. So I think I hear you saying that, let's say, after the energy plant is built, and if there's emissions that somehow cause problems with the Air Force pilots, which was one of the concerns that was brought forth by Luke Air Force Base, that then the project would be shut down?

It'd go through. I I think, really, what would occur would Luke would say to the county or Glendale or to project Carra, we have a problem. What is it? And it would be, cure the problem, figure it out, take care of it, or we're shutting you down. K. I do believe there'd be an opportunity for notice and cure.

Thank you. The other question I had, madam chair Please. Is you've been involved in zoning for a long time, and so I want to pick your brain, your expertise. This is already zoned, for the most part, industrial three, heavy industrial. I've talked to some of the people that live in that area and then they've been there, and they said that in the past, there was some type of post grain company was gonna buy the property and put in rails and something also about an ethanol plant being put in.

And so I guess what I wanna hear and for the public to hear are what are other things that could be put in this place? Because a lot of the people that I've read their letters, they're concerned about different things. Correct? But I would assume that most of them just want the land to stay the way that it is. But I want to understand what could be put in there now. What other things? What is there anything more egregious that could be put in there right now with heavy industrial?

Madam chair, vice chair, could I ask to pull up two or three slides to help answer If that we could go first, please, to slide 26. As mister Ellsworth indicated and as we've discussed, the site in is zoned Industrial 3 with an IUPD. It's been zoned that way since 1999. This slide 26 there

you go. Madam chair, we don't have these slides on our on our screens right here in front of us.

Oh, there we go back to the first one? Thank

you. So this slide simply includes some representative examples of types of uses that can be included in Industrial 3, just straight Industrial 3 without getting into the IUPD. As mister Ellsworth indicated, Industrial 3 is the most intense zoning district that exists anywhere in Maricopa County. So you can see things like experimental and proving grounds. Those tend to be pretty active and pretty noisy.

Truck terminals, warehousing, storage, meat processing, general industrial, so on and so forth. And you come down to the very bottom. Last item is public utilities and generating plants. As mister Ellsworth indicated, it's because of the proximity that Luke Air Force Base that were going through this process because of the phrase utility. But for the proximity of Luke, a utility could occur on this site as of right without rezoning.

I'd like to also, if I may, go to slide 14. This is one that mister Ellsworth and I've and and mister Gerard and I have talked about, and that slide 14 is this table straight out of the state statute, the eighty four eighty one table that people talk about. And it can be a little confusing. Reading across the top, you'll see various noise contours were in the one we've highlighted yellow, which is 80 to 84. You go down that column toward the bottom, and you'll see utilities is not permitted in the 80 noise contour unless, as mister Ellsworth indicated, Luke Air Force Base and the county, based upon the particular characteristics of that particular use on that particular site, make a determination that it will be compatible.

That's where these additional conditions and requirements come in. What is an absolute mystery to me is if you drop down another column down there to the bottom where we've highlighted a couple things, baby blue, it says other utilities are permitted in this same noise contour that we're in. I don't know what that means other than it seems like the legislative drafters were thinking there's some kind of an utility that would be appropriate in this con in in this contour. But to further mystify this table, if you go up one and you see utilities and you see what we've highlighted in green, the yes, yes, yes, I can't speak for where every opponent lives, but I believe that most people, who are anywhere approximate to the site live in the 75 or 70, maybe 65 noise contour. What this table says is that a utility could be built in those noise contours without question and without additional conditions and without additional requirements.

So, I'm sure that someone twenty five years ago could explain this table better than I can try to explain it looking back on it, but I find it telling that that utilities are permitted essentially as a matter of right in the neighborhoods as we go further out from Luke Air Force Base. There's other things I could go into in some of these slides if you want, but I hope that paints a general picture of what normally is allowed under industrial three. On this particular site, because it's industrial three IUPD that allows up to through that IUPD, and this is on slide five, it allowed up to a 180 feet in building height. And that was for grain silos to be used in conjunction with the then proposed ethanol plant. Our highest height is 72 feet, which is only 40% of the height that's permitted on this site today.

Thank you, madam chair. I I have no questions right now.

Thank you. Do any of the board members have questions for mister Bolt?

Madam chair.

Supervisor Gayatri. Thank you.

And and you you've probably been asked this question a million times, but I gotta ask it. I mean, I I understand the intent is to be annexed through the city of Glendale. Why not go through that annexation first before moving forward?

Madam chair, supervisor, to begin with, military compatibility permit is available only through the county's processes. It's not available in any city that I'm aware of. Secondly, I I think I mentioned that we've had the opportunity to work on Leighton Logistics Park, which is immediately west of us that has all kinds of industrial developments occurred in the last few years and much more to come. We went through this same exact process there where we went through the military compatibility permit. The county went to Glendale to process the site plan, plans review, building permits, inspections, all of that kind of stuff.

We did the same exact thing for Reams Ranch, which is a 300 or so acre industrial development to the South Southwest. It's a process that we could get into a legal discussion, I suppose, if you wanted about what would we do if we were already annexed into Glendale. Well, we'd just process a zoning case through Glendale. But we're in the county, so we need to go through the military compatibility process. We don't absolutely have to annex into Glendale, but because of various services and other kinds of things available through a city that's not available through the county.

That's the best option to proceed under. We know that process works because we've done it multiple times. County staff knows it works because they've done it multiple times, and the city of Glendale knows it works because they've done it multiple times.

Thank you.

Thank you. Stand by mister mister Bull. I think that concludes your initial testimony. We will now proceed to public comment.

Thank you.

Those individuals who signed up for public comment will have two minutes to express their concern. Please, for the sake of everyone's time, I would ask that if your concern has already been said, please reference it and say, you know, I share that concern. Madam clerk, do we have any emails email emails regarding this item?

Madam chair, our office did receive approximately 440 emails in opposition, and all of these emails have been shared with the board offices. In front of me, I do have 19 speaker requests to speak in opposition. I have five that only wish to register their position in opposition, and three wish to speak in favor.

Okay. Let's start with the 19. And when your name is called, please come up to the lectern and state your name for the record and your comments will follow. Thank you. First up, Todd Tandy followed by Holly Tomachoff.

Welcome.

Hello. My name is Todd Tandy. I am a former council member and vice mayor of City Of Surprise. Chair Brophy McGee, vice chair Alesco, and supervisors, thank you for having me. This decision turns on whether the board has a complete and legally supportable basis to approve this project today.

Under ARS 28 dash eighty four sixty one, the the 80 one's been referenced a lot. I'm referencing 61, utilities are generally not permissible in high noise and accident potential zones near military airports. The Luke Air Force Base commanding general has already identified this site as a critical flight corridor, described project Beccarra using the applicant's own language as a utility. That alone creates a direct statutory conflict that has not been resolved on the record. That alone creates the general's letter also goes further.

He outlines multiple required conditions for compatibility, stating they are essential to sustain the mission and explicitly reserves the right to provide further comment as plans evolve. That is significant. It means key safety and operational issues are not fully resolved today. The project is still subject to change, and Luke Air Force Base has not provided a final unconditional compatibility position. So the board is being asked to approve a project where the legal classification is in dispute, the military has identified ongoing risk, and the final design and mitigation measures are not complete.

Vice chair Alesco and supervisors, you did the right thing for BNSF. You didn't have you had to have full accountability and full fully informed decision.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. I I'm requesting denial. And Thank you

very

much. And at the very least, continuance until these other issues are resolved, the legal issues are resolved.

Thank you. Madam chair.

Mister Gavin.

Is it okay right now if we ask questions to staff if something was raised by public comment, or should we wait after?

Good idea. Let's let's do it as the issues are raised.

Okay. Madam chair, I have a question for mister Ellsworth regarding those apparently legal impediments that were just raised.

Madam chair, supervisor Galvin, I I was looking up a s r ARS eighty four sixty one. It's the definition section of the same section. And eighty four eighty one is what governs the, land use compatibility table. I'm not sure what reference in eighty four sixty one was being brought up as far as the legal challenge.

Okay.

Because it would be it would be one of the definitions.

Okay. Maybe someone else can help with with that answer before we move on.

Supervisor Stewart.

Madam chair, thank you. I think I have a similar question as it relates to this is a zoning issue, whereas the PAD or the actual final project, that's still being baked right right now. And so that's when these issues would be addressed is when the actual project is being presented to you of what's what they're actually going to build. Right?

Correct. Madam chair, supervisor Stewart. That's absolutely correct. In the letter from from the Air Force Base, the the general has indicated that they they reserve that right for further review. That's exactly why the stipulation is written the way it is. That military compatibility report will be given at the time of POD. It will be reviewed by planning and zoning staff, county staff, and the air force in coordination, and it to find that it is compliant with those specific conditions. So that's where that further review comes in. I so the

I think what I heard you say is that the general can still say this particular project doesn't work. That's not what this is about today. That comes later when they put the project forward.

Madam chair, supervisor Stewart, that's correct. There's opposition.

And, madam chair, I

have a follow-up.

Supervisor Gellman.

Have you heard from any attorneys raising these legal questions that were just brought up by this public commenter?

As far as related to 8461, not so specific Thank Thank

you, sir.

Would I would I be able to summarize that then real quick?

No, sir. We're gonna proceed to the next. Thank you. Thank

you. Next speaker in opposition, Holly Tomat Tomachoff, Beth Mortensen, followed by Paul Singh.

Good morning. My name is Holly Tomachoff. My family of six lives less than a half mile from the proposed project Bakura site, making up the closest residents. This is where we're raising our full children, running our business, and building our lives. This decision is not just about zoning.

It's about whether the law will be applied consistently and whether existing residents will be protected. Arizona revised statute two eight dash eight four six one clearly restricts incompatible land uses, including utilities within military flight paths. Our neighborhood has already been impacted by this law when the state and Maricopa sued the state I'm sorry. When the state sued Maricopa County for violating it, and now at least 12 families who bought land in good faith are no longer allowed to build their homes. How can the county restrict families from building homes under the statute but approve a 744 megawatt industrial utility project in the exact same flight path?

This is not consistent application of the law and demonstrates selective enforcement, opening the county up to real legal risk.

Please put the sign down. Thank you.

This is not a small project. It includes 18 combustion turbines, industrial missions, and non attainment air quality area and is located within a known military danger zone tied to Luke Orfe air force based operations. It's been stated in this meeting multiple times that the land was owned industrial too in the nineties, but this area is no longer what it was thirty years ago. Since then, thousands of homes, dozens of schools, major retail centers, churches, and community spaces have been built around the site. Expecting existing residents to simply accept this project because the land was historically zoned industrial or because we could potentially face an even worse use in the future is not reasonable public policy.

At the same time, long term Arizona residents, taxpayers, voters, families are being deprioritized in favor of an out of state company with no proven track record. It puts the mission of Luke Air Force Base and the health and safety of its existence existing residents at risk. There's over 8,000 people in opposition, and we're just asking for

the same treatment as everyone else.

Thank you very much.

Madam Clerk. Next, Beth Mortensen, Paul Singh, Lexiri Coronado.

Thank you. And please state your name for the record.

Morning. My name is Beth Mortensen and I live half a mile from the proposed project site. As many many concerns have been addressed this morning, the one I wish to talk about is the one that I feel has been overlooked and that is from the March 13 letter. The air force made it clear that a catastrophic incident such as fire or explosives caused by aviation accident or terrorism could pose threats to both base operations and surrounding community. Because of that, the base is requiring careful mitigation of those risks.

However, in the developer's response, they do not address the scale of proposed propane backup storage. They address the primary fuel source being stated as no natural gas will be stored on-site, but Tucanic misleads the base by minimizing the secondary fuel storage of propane by stating it is, quote, limited storage. That is not clearly what is not clearly stated to the base is the scale. This project includes eight forty five thousand gallon propane tanks, approximately 360,000 gallons stored on-site. That is not minimal.

We know how this goes. After our remarks, their attorney and their presenters will stand up here and make claims and try to minimize this large fact. They will say things like, we will be storing it mostly underground and there will be six inch reinforced concrete lids, but the explosive risk is not determined by the wall thickness alone. This volume of propane safety depends on multiple factors such as distance, system design, and real world conditions. While developer states that it will meet those fire and safety codes, I read the letter from the base and I do not feel that this was properly addressed or understood.

I feel that it is in answering these questions, it is irresponsible at this time to pass this, and I ask for a continuance. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Clerk. Paul Singh, Lexiri Coronado, Mark Camarena.

Welcome, sir. Please state your name for the record.

Hi. My name is Paul Singh. I'm a concerned citizen of the state of this nation and most importantly, a father of five year old who will inherit whatever we leave behind. Earlier this meeting, two of you said words yourself, children are the future and pollution is serious. I wrote it down. So I'll ask directly, if you vote to approve Baraka Data Center today, what do you call that? Because I call it hypocrisy, and I hope the two members who have the integrity to vote accordingly. Every day, look at my son, and I feel the weight of the decisions being made in rooms just like this. He doesn't get a vote. He doesn't get a seat at this table, but he will live with every choice made here.

Data centers are not neutral issue. They are accelerating rising temperatures in in Arizona. They're consuming water in a region already in crisis, and they are delivering minimal return to the people of Arizona while enriching a small group of corporate corporations and their and their enable enablers. That is not development that is extraction. This board was elected to serve the people, not to acts act as the procurement arm of tech tech industries.

But what we have witnessed meeting after meeting is blind allegiance corporate interest and study studied negligence of the communities you were trusted to protect. You said at the start of the meeting that you want to hear from us our opinions. So hear this, if if our voices continue to be ignored, people will respond, they will refuse to support the services these data centers are powering, they will organize, they will remember who made these decisions and why. I refuse to be complicit in this, I refuse to let my son grow up and ask me what what were you doing whether to future. So I ask you reject Baraka. Do your job. Serve the community.

Thank you. Madam clerk. Please do not disrupt the meeting with applause or any other sounds.

Madam clerk. Lexiri Coronado, Mark Camarena, Dana Duran.

Welcome, and please state your name for the record. Hello.

My name is Lexeri Coronado. I am a part of project Beccarra opposition coalition, which is a diverse coalition of residents and community members who are here to stand in opposition to project Beccarra. Supervisors, I am asking you today to deny project Beccarra. Most conditions rely on future compliance, not on enforceable protections for residents today. As the residents know best, there have been incidents of planes landing and equipment being dropped out of the sky.

This project would put not only our residents, but our pilots at Luke Air Force Base in danger. The question should not be whether it would be realistic for this lot to remain vacant. The question should be, what will the impact on our community be? This process prioritizes military compatibility over, the safety of our residents, the safety of our people. The residents living closest to the this project are here to say that we do not want this project built in this area. So we're asking you today, please vote no. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam clerk. Mark Camarena, Dana Duran, Shadow Lynn McLaughlin.

Welcome, sir, and please state your name for the record.

Good morning, supervisors. My name is Mark Camarena. I'm a resident of Phoenix, and I'm here today to say no to project Beccara and to urge you to also vote no on project Beccara. Project Beccara is being sold to us like it is just another development, but it is not. This is a 160 acre industrial complex with two giant data center buildings and a 700 megawatt natural gas power plant, the largest being built in the state of Arizona.

And it will be built within feet of thousands of homes, and schools, and community centers, and parks, and it is a shame that this is being done without it being taken to a vote, without the people of surprise having a real say in this matter. When the Colorado River is at its absolute lowest and the town of Kearny in Pinal County is headed on a collision course for zero water by September, this project will consume millions of gallons of water, fresh drinking water every single year. It's working people that are always the ones told to accept the trade offs. We are told to conserve. We are told to be realistic.

We alter we are told that there is no alternative. But when the rich corporations like Tekkenik get to come in here and want our land, our water, our tax breaks, suddenly everything becomes possible for them, and that is unacceptable. This project creates dangerous conditions for the pilots of Luke Air Force Base. I am an electrical engineer, and I have experience in avionic software. Project Beccarra's 72 foot tall exhaust stacks release massive amounts of toxic gas that will introduce unpredictable turbulence, will obstruct flight paths, and will degrade radar performance.

The West Valley has seen enough of these fatal plane crashes, and we do not need more trauma. We do not need to choke in our own communities. I can't already breathe with the brazen fires in Buckeye or the landfill fires in Surprise. Enough is enough. Please, I urge you to vote no. The future depends on your vote today. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Madam Clerk. Dana Duran.

Shadow Lynn McLaughlin. Roy Dunbar.

Welcome. Please state your name for the record.

Yeah. Hi, everyone. My name is Dania Duran. I am a member of the party for socialism and liberation, a West Valley resident, an educator, and also an engineer with a background in radar performance. I am here today to speak in opposition to project Pacara.

As we know, Phoenix already has a 165 data centers in existence, and all of these data centers consume enough power to power entire cities, use of millions of gallons of water daily, and release thousands of pollutants in the air. And need I remind everyone that we are in Arizona? We already experienced high pollution because of the heavy industrial scene here, and our water is already scarce because we live in a desert. But I did wanna mention that Project Pacara is a behemoth of a data center. It's the size of Disneyland.

It has 18 stack turbines that are releasing thousands of pollutants into the air, and this is more dangerous than any other data center that we've seen here in Arizona. It is a data center and a gaspowercom gas power plant combo situated right next to the Luke Air Force Base, which is a site that has been used to train new pilots. Like I said, I have a background in radar performance. As many have already mentioned, the the smoke stacks that we will see will release heat plumes that will affect the radar performance. And for any new pilot, this this poses an unnecessary risk to each of these pilots who are just still learning and they're still trying.

And we've already seen the effects of planes go down, equipment coming off, and this is just gonna pose an unnecessary risk to the community nearby as well as the military base. The nearest resident is 400 feet away from this project, so we can already imagine that this is going to present an unnecessary risk to them. The question we should be asking is if we were to put this data center right next to the military base, it wouldn't be a matter of if this thing will go off and explode, but a matter of when. This is a ticking time bomb that is just being placed in the West Valley. The West Valley has already experienced so much pain and trauma, and we do not need another tech billionaire coming in and ruining it even more. Thank you.

Madam clerk. Next, Shadow Lynn McLaughlin, Roy Dunbar, April

Butler. Welcome. Please state your name for the record.

Good morning. My name is Shadow Lynn McLaughlin. I live in the West Valley, less than a mile and a half from the proposed data center. Please take in heart that that these things give out so many bad chemicals in the water. We already recycle our water. We drink poo poo water, people. It's in our tap. Now you're asking for us to put more chemicals and more things that are going to cause our children to have the problem. You will outlive this situation. Our children will not.

They have to live with the problems that you are going to cause with the chemicals that come from this, the catalyst that they use to cool these towers is ridiculous. It literally puts so many things in the water that you will literally start losing your hair, you start losing things, and start having cancer. Do you wanna be the reason that our children have cancer? Do you wanna be the reason that the rest of our state loses all the water that it has? We're already in stage two water restrictions.

This particular data plant will take more than what Phoenix uses in water, and you wanna take that from us, which we already do not have. That is not okay. Think of the future. Think about your grandchildren, not yourself and your pocketbooks. Cause that's what this is coming down to is that our state is looking to fill its pockets instead of saving our people. Our people deserve a future and you are taking it away from them. It is not okay. Luke Air Force Base has already been busted for contaminating our water. Do you think they care? You should.

You should not be okay with the water situation that's coming from this group. I used to work for McCarthy. I understand what is going to happen. I walked away from a lucrative career because of the torture and the ideas that are coming from this company. You need to rethink your situation with this. Oppose it.

Thank you. Please. Madam clerk.

Next, Roy Dunbar, April Butler, Kimberly Dunbar.

Good morning. I'm Roy Dunbar. I live one mile from the proposed project Pecora site. So I'd like to give you a quick summary in the two minutes that we're allowed. This power plant will have 18 natural gas turbines, essentially jet engines.

16 will be used continuously during hot months. Depending on just to give you an idea how big this power plant is going to be, it is estimated that a power plant of this size can supply 350,000 to 500,000 homes. This will be located within a half mile of hundreds of surprise homes. We also hold that project Beccarra is in direct violation of ARS twenty eight eighty four sixty one, which states utilities are not permissible land use within the accident potential zone of Luke Air Force Base. I don't think this can be waived by Luke Air Force Base or even this committee.

It's a state statute and will be a subject of litigation. Project b project Beccarra chose this site because it gives them cheaper access to existing infrastructure. They will make more money, but their savings and increased profits will be borne on the backs of nearby residents who will be subject to increased public safety risks posed by daily fighter aircraft overflights with the potential for aircraft mishaps, increased air pollution in an area that is all rated an f by the American Lung Association for ozone and particulates. There will be added industrial noise and the inevitable decreased property values. Can this really happen in Maricopa County?

There are thousands of Maricopa County residents who oppose this project. We respectfully urge this board to listen to the voice of the people and reject project Beccarra as totally inappropriate for adjacent to high density residential surprise neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam clerk. April Butler, Kimberly Dunbar, Audrey Bridges.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record.

My name is April Butler. I live just less than a mile away from the project. My family's been out there for many, many years. I've actually watched a plane go down from Luke, landing just north of the property where this site is proposed to be built. Why anybody would think that this would be a good site so close to homes, so close to the end of a runway?

Why was there never a study done on the flight history there, on wrecks, on incidents? Nobody brings that up. It was never done. Their studies are very questionable. The studies that Takanek themselves did, they had control over using records from the nineteen thirties, using records from the nineteen seventies, using records that have planes that Luke isn't even flying anymore. Why are these studies not updated? This is what we're basing these decisions on. Luke clearly says that they are utility. In plain simple language, they are utility. They also say that they are not the authority.

I want it on record today. Who is the authority? Who makes that decision? We've been going to all these meetings. We've been asking these questions. We cannot get answers. We would like to know who is that authority. Is that decision being made today in regards to the law? It should be clarified in regards to the law before that decision is made, not after the fact. We are completely taking Tekanek's word for it as they restate things and state things in their favor.

They're in control. They've got the cards. We only have two minutes to try and give you all the information. The exhaust coming from these turbines, 875 feet from 72 feet in the air. How can they guarantee that that's not going to affect a pilot? They are using tier two generators rather than tier two four generators even though Luke tells them to do the best and keep stringent

Thank you.

Conditions for the families

Thank you.

For everybody out there. Thank you.

Madam clerk. Kimberly Dunbar, Audrey Bridges. I'm sorry. Jacqueline Wearing.

Please state your name for the record.

Good morning. I am Kimberly Dunbar, and I live approximately a mile from this proposed site. And I'm just here to address this committee because as you can see on the national news, it's reporting that many states, many cities, many communities are opposing the exact same thing that we stand here before you and oppose. Some states are even banning them altogether for all of the reasons that we stand here before you. The US Senate is even asking questions about the impact of the safety and healthy health of its citizens.

MAHA has done its studies of what the effect of pollution can have on the most vulnerable, and it isn't good. Let me quote the American Lung Association. Air pollution can harm anyone, but it can be especially dangerous for many people including children, teens, people with asthma, lung diseases, anyone 65, people who have diabetes or cardiovascular disease, and those who are pregnant. That is all of surprise. Maricopa County ranks high overall in air pollution in this count country.

How many lives with these various conditions with asthma, valley fever, respiratory, lung diseases, and cancer are are we willing to jeopardize just by adding more toxins to this problem? The facts are out there, the real detrimental effects to the cities citizens of Surprise and El Mirage and Sun City. However you pronounce it, wants you to believe that this planet's center is a benefit to Surprise and the surrounding areas. In truth, Surprise gets nothing from it except all the lasting effects of the toxins it will spew, the inescapable noise it will emit, and the loss of precious water table. The desert cannot sustain the loss of water, and he said he our cities cannot sustain this pollution.

Takanuk is a Michigan based company, they care nothing about Arizonans. I have one last question for you. If any of you approve this Thank

you. Excuse me.

Madam Clark. Audrey Bridges followed by Jacqueline. I'm sorry. Cannot pronounce your last name. And Donna Cook. Thank you. Please state

your name for the record.

My name is Audrey Bridges, and I'm here to speak in opposition of project Cara. I'd like to open by reminding our supervisors of the serious comments they spoke just moments ago about our children and their dedication to our environment. Our family moved to our home in Copper Canyon Ranch in 2020. Since then, we've been slowly working to turn it into our own little peaceful Oasis. Our kids come over for Sunday family dinners, and we are working on building a play area for our granddaughters.

Our home sits just one mile from the proposed project Pikara site. We are hoping to make this our forever home, but if we find ourselves in the position of needing to downsize, we take comfort in knowing that the equity we've built will help carry us through our retirement. Project Beccarra threatens to destroy all of this. It will no longer be peaceful, and we'll worry about the environmental effects on our grandchildren. Not only that, but if we decided to sell even tomorrow, we were told that we will have to disclose this threat to potential buyers.

That's what it is, a threat. The noise and environmental factors alone will destroy our peaceful neighborhoods, and the estimated 25% decrease in property values will destroy our hard earned investment into our futures. Would you vote to approve of this going in so close to your home? Now is your chance to do for us what we vote for you to do. Protect us. Protect the thousands of us living in the community. Protect our children, our grandchildren, grandchildren, and our futures. Vote no on project Makara and send Takanaka somewhere else.

Thank you. Thank you. Madam clerk? Jacqueline followed by Donna Cook and Patricia Wolf. And welcome Jacqueline. And if you please state your last name for the record, please.

Yeah. Hi. My name is Jacqueline Oweedingiemann.

Okay. Thank you.

This project will not only it's already been stated that this project will be affecting the environment that we already live in Maricopa already having bad air quality. This only making it worse for the children that were stated to be the future. This near schools as well, so it'll also be destructive to the learning environment that they are in. The question is how will this affect the students? They are not being thought of.

There are the future voices and this will affect them heavily. With so many people against this, why go forward with it? The community has actively spoken out against it. They will continue to actively speak out against this. This company is only wanting to help themselves, a company that isn't even in the state that's being affected with it has already been said and it'll continue to be said, the community has come out to speak against this and I ask you guys to hold their voices dear and art. And yeah. That is it.

Thank you so much.

Donna Cook, Patricia Wolf, Debbie Harmansen Harmansen.

Welcome. Please state your name for the record.

My name is Donna Cook, and I'm a City of Surprise residents. I am opposed to project Baccarra for many of the reasons that have already been stated here today. The environmental impact of this project and the negative the negative impact overall is detrimental to our city, our county, and our state. I urge you to deny this project. Don't let it go any further. Enough is enough. We cannot withstand something else negative in our area. We want surprise in Maricopa County and the state of Arizona to be a beautiful and welcoming place to live. This project will negate all of that. Please don't allow it to happen.

We beg of you for the safety of ourselves, those of our children and our grandchildren, and the many others yet to come. This project has no place in our area. For the safety of all of us, please vote no on project Bakara.

Thank you. Thank you.

Madam clerk. Patricia Wolf. Debbie Harmanson. Mara Zgarich. Please state your name for the record.

Good morning. My name is Patricia Wolf. I'm a resident of Surprise in the area that will be highly impacted by project Cara. I'm gonna go a little different route here. When we purchased our home in Surprise, we had to sign a document acknowledging that we were in the flight area of Luke Air Force Base and there would be noise from that.

We're a military family and we support that and we're good with that noise, but we have to compare apples to apples. I didn't sign a document agreeing to noise from a utility and knowing that that will bring down the values of our home as well. I concur with the other speakers on all the different points that they have stated this morning. And I I urge you all to vote no against this. This is not something that we need. We can't drink data. We need water. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Madam clerk.

Debbie Harmansen. Mara Zgarich. Tammy Weaver.

Welcome, and please state your name for the record.

My name is Debbie Harmansen. I live an hour about a mile and half away from Surprise or in Surprise from the actual site that the is proposing. Utilities will go up. Quality of life goes down. We're talking twenty four seven noise.

I appreciate the planes, the the the jets that fly over us every day. I thank God that they're there to protect us. But this this utility is gonna go 24 There are cities that actually have this around them right now, and they're being impacted not only are their utilities going up 200%, but their their quality of life, they have noise constantly twenty four seven. Also, the lights that are emanated from this building will be probably twenty four seven because they have to have them in order to run for a data center. A data center does not make my quality of life better.

What makes my quality of life better is the safety from Luke Air Force Base and the safety of knowing that my kids and the kids, my children and grandchildren and so forth will have a better quality of life because we don't have a data center. We live with phones twenty four seven. Do we really need more social media? Do we really need more of the stuff that we get? Because that's what the data centers are actually proposing. Do we need to be hooked on those anymore long or any longer than we already are are doing? So please do not support this zoning vote. Just if if you think of the future for our children.

Thank you. Would you please remain? And supervisor Galvin has a quick question for you.

Sure. No. Sorry, madam chair. I don't have a question for the public comment speaker. I have a question for staff on a point raised by the speaker. Thank you. She said that there would be an issue right regarding lights being on twenty four seven. Do does the county have statues or ordinances concerning lighting for facilities like this? And then secondly, what is the plan for lighting at this proposed facility? Thank you.

Madam chair supervisor Galvin oh, I'm sorry. Madam chair supervisor Galvin, that's correct. There's ordinance in Maricopa County. They would be required to meet that lighting statute. The light plan would be approved or reviewed for compliance with our lighting ordinance at the time of the plan of development.

Thank you.

Follow-up? No. Thank you. Madam clerk. Next, Mara

Tammy Weaver, Hillary Weber.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record.

My name is Mara Zegarik. I am a resident of the Phoenix area for twenty nine years. Currently in Phoenix, I grew up in Glendale. I just wanna reiterate that in regards to the public comments, there were 550 some in opposition, five in support, 440 emails in opposition, no emails mentioned in favor, and 19 speaker requests in opposition and three speaking in favor. So approximately a thousand in opposition versus eight in support.

My primary concern is water usage. According to The US drought monitor, 99.34% of Arizona is currently in a drought, and we expect a stage two drought by the end of the year. So water consumption is imperative, to the future. There are currently a 176 data centers in Maricopa County, And I water crisis was not on my mind until I learned of Corpus Christi, Texas, which I believe is the first city in The US currently facing a water crisis. The city's water supply could fall short of demand by early twenty twenty seven, and that's concerning to me since most of the state is currently in a drought.

According to Tocanic, which is a Michigan based company, with proposed and existing data centers in Virginia, Indiana, and Arizona. They have specified on their own website that a hundred hundred acre feet is needed each year for power generation. That is 32,585,142 gallons of water or 89,274 gallons per day in exchange for a 100 permanent jobs. I don't think the value is there, and I urge you to vote no on this.

Thank you.

Thank you. Madam clerk?

Madam chair, before we get to the last two speakers in opposition, I did want to let you know that I have an additional five that came in. These speakers wish to speak in opposition. They were waiting in line before they were able to get in the door. Okay. Three wish to three wish to speak and two only register their positions. So I will add them to this.

I will allow. Thank you

so much. Next, Tammy Weaver, Hillary Weber, Nora McNeary.

Welcome. Please state your name for the record.

Hi. My name is Tammy Weaver. I live in Far North Phoenix, actually, in your district, Kate. Last year, my community fought TSMC rezoning. I made calls to your office, and none of my calls were returned.

Since then, I've connected with others in the community, those that fought Amcor, those that opposed BNSF, those that have opposed Bacara and other data centers. I want people to understand in the audience that your fight isn't over after today. We as a community can come together and right these injustices that have been done to our communities. In my community, they won't even tell us what is being put north of us as far as the amount of chemicals and the exact makeup of them. It is very concerning to us that p that profits are being prioritized over people.

It this is just an absolute miscarriage of justice and loss of community trust. It's shameful what we are seeing across Maricopa County with all these projects and incompatible uses being put near residential. There will be over a 100,000 car trips per day through my neighborhood as a result of the TSMC project growth north of my community. None of you spoke to assist us with representation, nor did any of our congressional leaders or our senators, and we were railroaded by the City Of Phoenix leaders as well. We see this happening in other communities with other projects.

Again, to the community, let's connect. Let's right these injustices together.

Thank you.

Madam clerk. Hillary Weber. Nora McNearney. Caleb Demeter.

Welcome. Please state your name for the record.

Hello. My name is Hillary Weber. I live in Surprise, about two miles away from this project. I also wanted to personally thank councilman Gallardo for speaking to me yesterday. He's the only council member that anyone from the opposition coalition, which is a community based, diverse, apolitical group, was able to reach and speak to yesterday. Yesterday. As he mentioned earlier, this is a very technical project, and it takes a long time to understand the nuances and complications of the project. We have not been allowed to speak to those, and it's been a very frustrating thing. I'm the mother of three children. I have one child with type one diabetes.

I will do anything in my power to protect my children. But I wanted to actually read to you from the EPA's website regarding particulate matter, which is what we are in nonattainment for in Maricopa County is particulate matter PM 10, PM 2.5. The EPA's Clean Air Act requires areas to meet national ambient air quality standards. Maricopa County has failed these standards for decades, particularly with ozone and particulate matter compliance. Particulate matter contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small they can be inhaled and cause serious health problems.

These particles can get deep into your lungs and bloodstream. Particles, also known as PM 10 and PM 2.5, pose the greatest risk to health. Decades worth of scientific studies have linked particle pollution exposure to a variety of problems, including premature death in people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, increased respiratory systems such as coughing or difficulty breathing. And also, the EPA recommends a three mile buffer from power plants to residential areas, and that's on their EG mapping tool. The World Health Organization also states there is no safe amount of air pollution.

We are already over the limit.

Thank

you. Anything is bad for us. Thank you.

Supervisor Galvin, question for staff.

Madam chair, I have a question for mister McNeely, if that's okay. Since the topic of air quality was raised, and also in terms of the EPA and Maricopa County. First of all, Maricopa County is responsible for air quality regulation. And secondly, can you please address all of the measures that your office has to contend with, deal with to make sure that all 4,600,000 of us folks here in Maricopa County are kept safe? We all have to breathe the same air.

And then third, if you can address any of the specific items regarding, regulation of air quality for power plants within a site like this or in Maricopa County. So it's a a compound question, mister McNeely. I apologize, but I think you kinda get what I'm seeing to try to answer and also address the concerns raised by the last speaker. Thank you, madam chair.

Madam chair and supervisor Gopman, that was a a long question. So I'll try to answer it. We have authority from EPA, delegated authority to implement the Clean Air Act. So we have authority over all of Maricopa County, not just County Islands. We have the entire state.

And part of that authority is monitoring. We have a monitoring network, and we monitor all the criteria airplanes, which is the PM 10, PM 2.5, which is the smoke, ozone, and n o two, and CO. So we do monitor that. Our air quality over the last thirty years has gotten much better. I mean, really, we've shown that with smart and reasonable technology and regulations, we can actually have growth and better air quality.

So our NO2 has gone down. Every time we do a three year emissions inventory, our NO2, which is NOx, has been decreased really for the last thirty years. So as our VOCs, our volatile organic compounds. So we are reducing air contaminants as we grow. So that is but we do the speaker is correct.

We are in non attainment for PM 10, and we are in non attainment for ozone currently. We have I don't have the exact measures, but we have about 70 something measures for PM 10. All of the construction permits, all the streets have certified street sweepers. There's a whole assortment of no burn days. We have regulations galore on PM 10, and our PM 10 is much better than it used to be.

And and the for facilities, when they if they're gonna emit PM 10 or you don't emit ozone, but you you emit NOx or BOC, you have to model that. So this facility has modeled to make sure that operating at the worst case scenario, that they're not going to exceed the ambient air quality standards at their property boundary and beyond. So we've verified that model, and they're going to comply with it. This facility has also taken limits on how much they can operate, and we'll enforce those limits. So is is that what you're asking for?

Yeah, madam chair. Please.

Madam chair, have one quick follow-up and also a a commentary, and thank you for that information. That was very detailed, I appreciate that. You know, we're heavily regulated by the federal government and federal legislation. Correct?

Chairman McGee and supervising mean, yes, that is correct.

Okay. So you made a reference to the Clean Air Act. And I heard a little bit of murmuring when you said, hey, air quality is much better than it was thirty or forty years ago. I wasn't born at the time that the Clean Air Act was enacted, but I think that there's been a lot of people at the federal level and through many administrations and through many thousands of employees who've been working at the EPA. Remember seeing pictures of the nineteen fifties, sixties, and seventies when there was significant smog and pollution in the air.

And the reason why we have the Clean Air Act was that people from around the country came together to pass federal legislation to make sure that air quality was an improvement. So if anyone thinks air quality is not better today than it was thirty or forty years ago, then they're saying that all the people that work for that are a failure, and all that federal legislation is a failure. So I would believe and suspect that you are under significant oversight with

the federal government to answer into account for the air quality in Maricopa County? Yeah. Madam chair and supervisor Govman, that's correct. We have delegated authority, but we report all of our data to them on an annual basis. They review all of our major source permits, get a forty five day review. All of our rules are approved by the EPA.

Okay. Have madam chair, final question. Have you come across proposed projects or projects that you consider to be either dangerous or to raise questions for you or concerns regarding air quality and your tenure in this position?

Chairman McGee and Supervisor Galvin, always make sure that the proposal matches complies with our regulations. So sometimes there are projects that are asking for and we negotiate it out where they comply. So like in this case, this facility has taken limits on how long they can operate. So that's why that's how we make sure they comply. We we make sure they have the limits and the controls in place to comply with our air quality standards.

Thank you. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you. Madam chair? Supervisor Gallardo.

Quick follow-up, I'm not sure if it's to you or maybe the applicant, because I'm just trying to understand the process here. I really am. What role, if any, does ADEQ play in all this? Is there something that they I know I know they work they have worked with CORCOMM, but is there a role for them in terms of moving forward, permitting? I have no idea.

Yeah. Madam chair and supervisor Gallardo, in terms of air quality, they do not have a role with air quality.

That is strictly Maricopa or the local counties.

Yes. The Clean Air Act does allow for air districts to have direct authority from EPA. So Maricopa County, Pinal County, and Pima County have direct authority from EPA to operate the air program, and DEQ does not issue permits within Maricopa County or they don't do enforcement or monitoring. It's basically we have the authority from EPA.

Thank you. Thank you. And before we proceed to our next speaker, I did want to correct the record. TSMC was not rezoned last year. It was rezoned in prior years before I took office. And they work closely with our air quality folks. The individual who said we never responded, in fact, we have. And to the best of my knowledge, that individual is working with our ombudsman. If that is not the case, please reach out, and we will reconnect you. Thank you.

Madam clerk. Next, Nora McInerney, Caleb Demeter, Zach Miller. Welcome. Please state your name for the record.

Hi. I'm Nora McInerney. I'm a resident of Central Phoenix. You don't need to live near one of these proposed data centers to oppose them. You need only to have the slightest amount of critical thinking and intelligence. These data centers provide no demonstrable economic benefit no matter what they are promising you. The 100 permanent jobs are paltry compared to the ways that this project will further enrich an out of state company that will leave us and our children to deal with the effects after they cash the check. The cost of these projects are vast, and they have been measured. They raise the temperatures of surrounding neighborhoods. They poison the air, and they suck up the water supply.

And I'm sure you know, Arizona doesn't have any water. We're running out of water. And the problem is not the length of my children's showers. It's data centers like this. Every data center in Arizona is a tragedy, and it is a travesty. Like the AI they power, these data centers are made to extract value. They add no value. The water use alone should make the approval of this project an automatic no. The outcry from your constituents should underline that, bold it, and highlight it in red. The choices that you make in this chamber will reverberate throughout our state.

They will be your legacy. I beg you to consider not only the incompatibility with our military base or our zoning laws, but the incompatibility with the survival of our state and with life itself. Thank you.

Thank you, madam clerk. Please, Caleb Demeter, Zach Miller.

Welcome. Please state your name for the record.

Hello. My name is Caleb Demeter. Councilwoman and counsel, thank you for letting me speak. There are many reasons that I could list for why I'm opposed to project Beccarra, but I will stick to one. It is projected to use 59,000,000 gallons of water per year.

And as Arizona is about to enter an even more serious water shortage, as our access to the Colorado River is about to be curtailed even further, and conservation cap capabilities are reaching a hard limit as our population continues to increase. These this is the wrong time for a data center that will use 50,000,059 gallons of water per year. I'm not against development or industry. My objection is that this is the wrong time to be adding yet another data center that will use 59,000,000 gallons of water per year. Closed loop cooling methods are not really closed.

Through evaporation, they bleed water, and they increase the amount of toxic chemicals that are returned to our water supply and to the ground. I agree with the residents of Buckeye and Chandler who recently halted constructions of other data centers and that 59 millions of gallons of water per year is better spent on our families and on our farms. Farms. We, the people, elected you, and we, the people, will be watching the way that you decide. We will vote for those who serve our interests. Thank you.

Madam clerk.

Last speaker in opposition, Zach Miller.

Welcome. Please state your name for the record.

Zach Miller. I live over in Surprise, only a few miles away from where they want to build this data center. And as a citizen of Surprise who has asthma and will have to actually deal with the consequences daily from this outcome, I want to say please stand up, use your power, and be a leader, and say no to project PACCARA or any others like it. We need clean water. We need clean air.

We need clean food. We already have over a 163 Arizona, we don't need any more data centers in Arizona, polluting our environment and leaching off of our resources that we all depend on to survive. Please do what is right. Right. Stand up for our environment, the animals, and for the citizens who are counting on you. Or resign permanently if you are no longer willing to fight for We the People. We need leaders, and this goes for everyone over up in front of me. We need leaders, not a bunch of corporate ass kissers. Thank you.

Your final remarks are out of order and will not be considered. Madam clerk.

We leaders got corporal Astor.

Please remove him from the room now. Madam clerk. Madam chair, if I may read the names of those that registered in op I'm sorry. Wish to register their position only in opposition. Amy Felder Doolittle, Jennifer g, Linda Larkin, Richard Bridges, Sheila Shaver, Zoe Garns, Terren Richardson. Next, I have three that wish to speak in favor. Please. Sipand Alizaida, Allen Hutchinson, Lisa Everett.

Welcome. Please state your name for the record.

Good morning, madam chair, vice chair. My name is Sapan Dallizada. I'm here on behalf of the Arizona Technology Council to speak in support of the board of supervisors granting the military permit for project Pacara. In my comments today, I'm not gonna focus on how in July 2024, a data center saved my life after a horrific car accident. Excuse me.

I'm not going to touch on how data center availability has helped drive the relocation of businesses in industries such as national defense, health care, and financial technology to our great state. I'm not even gonna talk about how project Becara is bringing its own power in order to reduce the likelihood that residents will have to pay to power this facility, which is truly a game changer. I am here to talk about the Maricopa County Community Colleges. As you all know, the Maricopa County Community Colleges are the crown jewel of our nation's community college system. This is due to the hard work and care you all have put in while serving on this board and in prior roles as a member of a city council, as a member of the state senate, and and in the halls of congress in Washington DC.

Two of these colleges, Glendale Community College and Estrella Mountain Community College, offer data center academies where students can learn the necessary digital skills and can get certified to work as data center technicians in two years. The data center positions are not only well paying jobs, but they are careers that offer health insurance benefits and retirement benefits, things that many of us take for granted in our daily lives. So I am proud to hear proud to stand here and say that project PACCAR is not just another data center in the Far West Valley. It represents opportunity. It represents a prospect to work in a role that would only grow in importance in the next ten years.

So I'll repeat a phrase that I've said over and over again ever since I've been in front of the Arizona Corporation Commission. Let's educate the future data center workforce at Maricopa County Community Colleges. Let's employ them at project Lucara.

Thank you. Madam clerk.

Last two speakers in favor, Alan Hutchinson, Lisa Everett.

And may I please ask security to be prepared to remove any disruptive audience while our speakers express their valid opinion. Thank you. Please state your name for the record.

Yes. Thank you. Alan Hutchinson. Madam chairman, members of the board, thank you for your time this morning. Alan Hutchinson, I'm here representing SUNT Construction. I'm as a project executive. I'm a professional engineer in the state of Arizona. I have a master's from University of Arizona. I've been in industry for twenty one years, and I gladly, blessedly get to represent 4,500 employees with SUNT today. Mostly, those are in Arizona.

My purpose here today is to support project Pacara as a major community investment. It delivers local jobs, jobs, local growth, and responsible construction that supports communities the right way. I'll come right back to that. SUNS purpose statement is to build environments where our clients, our employee own employee owners, and our communities prosper. That last one's the big one.

That's important. Summit was founded in 1890. That's a hundred and thirty six years we've been doing this in the state of Arizona. We've been employee owned since 1972, and we're the one of the largest ESOPs in the nation. We have in in house craft training and apprentices apprenticeship programs where we train local resources, crafts and out of college, to fill that pipeline, jobs jobs and growth.

The total project is over $10,000,000,000 investment in the local area, but again, that is into those communities. Jobs, growth, community support. So, again, I respectfully ask that you vote in favor of the Bakar project, and I thank you guys for your time.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Madam clerk. Lisa Everett.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record.

Lisa Everett. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of project Baccarra. This proposal represents thoughtful, forward looking development, one that balances economic growth with reasonable plan responsible planning and community awareness. A key consideration to any project of this scale is compatibility with existing infrastructure and regional stakeholders. In this case, Luke Air Force Base has carefully reviewed project and provided specific stipulations to ensure continued operational safety and effectiveness.

What's important here is that Project Picard developers have demonstrated a clear willingness to meet those stipulations. That cooperation reflects the commitment to do the right thing the right way. Listening, adapting, and aligning with established standards rather than pushing against them. It shows respect for the base, for residents, and for long term sustainability in the area. Approving project Pacara means supporting the project that has already undergone meaningful scrutiny, emerged stronger because of it.

It means enabling economic investments while maintaining compatibility with one of the region's most important institutions. And it sends a message that responsible development, development that listens and responds, has a place community. I strongly support project Beccarra. It's going to provide jobs for our area, and it is making sure that it complies with everything needed. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Clerk, are there any other speakers? Madam Chair, no other speakers. Okay. Thank you. I would like to call the applicant. Question, please? No. What is we are done with public participation. The next item will be to hear from the applicant both for rebuttal and closing comments and also to answer questions.

Thank you, madam Madam chair. If our presentation could be pulled back up, I'd like to touch on a few issues. And I think in many cases, a picture is worth more than a thousand words. If you could pull up slide eight, please. Slide eight is a side by side comparison of Brigadier General Berkland's compatibility letter and our CEOs.

We agree to those conditions and regulations letter. I can't imagine anyone anyone in this room or elsewhere is a a better guardian of Luke Air Force Base and the mission of Luke Air Force Base than a brigadier general. I've been involved in a variety of these things. I've never seen a compatibility letter signed by top brass like this one was. It wasn't signed lightly.

There were a number of studies that were provided, discussions that occurred. It it was a very purposeful letter letter with very purposefully drafted conditions and additional requirements. The air force's mission is to protect our country, to protect our bases, bases, and so on. That's exactly what this brigadier general did. If we could go to slide 20 please, and this relates some to people talking about I think they're talking about if an f 35 came out of the air and hit propane storage, what would happen.

In addition to the information that was provided to Luke and after the compatibility letter was issued, we received this blast test, which it's you can read it if you want, but very conservative estimates. Bottom line, let's just assume an f 35 comes out of the air and hits atop the propane storage area, which is under six inches of reinforced concrete. Would that impact either the base or homes that are located to the north? In the far right hand side, you see the answer is under the worst case scenario, it will not cause potential harm to either the residential area to the north or to Luke Air Force Base. There was considerable discussion about water.

If we could go to slide 34, please. We forget sometimes that this is 160 acres is agricultural land. It has water rights that come with it. One of the things that people, I believe, compares to is old technology data centers and old technology power plants. That was yesterday.

This is modern technology, best practices, and so on. We will use approximately 1% of the water that would be used by an evaporative water cooled data center of similar size. 1% of what was traditionally done. If we look at this particular graphic, you'll see that the green line that runs left to right is our existing water rights. The purple at the bottom is our projected projected demand ramping up to full capacity of the facility.

Our projected demand, normally discussed in the context of acre feet, is substantially less than our existing water rights that exist today, and a whole lot less than would be used on this site if it resumed farming, and I believe a whole lot less than a number of the other uses that were on the industrial list that we looked at an hour or so ago. Industrial three, I'm sorry. There was talk about propane storage. If we can go to slide 18, please, just quickly. Please

continue. And the reason is you're answering at least you're answering my questions. So please continue, sir.

Okay. This is a an example. Obviously, this does not yet exist in the field, but you're looking down on the preliminarily designed propane storage facility. You're looking down on a concrete lid that's six inches of reinforced concrete over the top of essentially a bold out setting that will contain steel propane tanks. This is the one that was considered in the context of the blast study that I talked about a minute ago.

We talked about or hear about air quality. If we could go to slide 30, please, because in addition to the discussion that you've had with with staff here this morning about air quality and the processes, if you look at this, you'll see that this is designed with best available control technology. It is, as was acknowledged, Maricopa County Air Quality Control District's job to make sure, not through these processes, but through plans review and permitting and operations, to make sure that air quality standards are maintained. That is, to say the least, a highly scientific and regulated process. In addition to your department head, there are some folks here with us today that can speak to the specifics of that if you want, but it is a very detailed ongoing process, and very good people have been doing a very good job for as long as I've been in town, which is north of four decades.

Last, I would like to go to slide 24. And I hear this probably in every hearing, whether it's a home builder, a shopping center developer, a grocer, an industrial developer, whatever it may be, it's all always the accusations are corporate greed. And everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I, of course, respect those. A gentleman mentioned that this is a $10,000,000,000 investment in Maricopa County. That's a huge investment, and it's an investment that is taken very seriously by Project Pacara, and it's one that as you see on some of these, it's not just turning around and putting all profits in the pocket.

Obviously, there's a great deal of tax that's associated with it, and you'll see that if if we annex into Glendale, certainly Glendale gets municipal tax revenue projected to be about 208,000,000 over ten years. These aren't numbers that I made up or that Bacara made up. These numbers were provided in a fiscal impact report prepared by applied applied economics. A well known I don't know if the county uses them or not. Some municipalities do, but applied economics has been in this business a long time and makes projections that various governmental bodies need for various reasons.

Importantly, I believe is in here when we get down to the second blue box down, you'll see that about a 145,000,000 over ten years goes to the county, goes to schools and other districts. We all live here too. We all have kids or grandkids or others that take education in schools very seriously. We can't just print money to support schools. We need businesses.

We need investment investment in in the the county, we need jobs, we need other revenues to support schools and other services that you're probably every meeting has to provide services to someone for something. This is part of what comes in with a development like this, which is doing what we believe the federal government and others have encouraged, and that is we need to remain the world leader in some of the electronics and AI that's evolving. We need to remain sensitive to national defense. We're sitting right next to Luke Air Force Base. The reaction from some is what what better place could it go than right here in this location in the noisiest noise contour around the base and outside of the accident potential zones.

But we hire people. We hire people that are estimated to make north of a $100,000 a year because they're engineers and others dealing with the kind of equipment that we're talking about. We're expected to have about 5,500 construction jobs as well. It is something that, I guess, describe it out or how you want. Maybe all of our businesses are engaged in corporate greed, but I don't think so. I think many of us give back including project Makara.

We thank

And before I open the floor to other board members for quite like I said, you were answering my questions. I think you wrote them down. I would like to ask a few more on my behalf for my vote. And this may be for staff too. It was stated in one of the comments that we received an opposition that the closest residence is 400 feet away. Would anyone want to clarify how close the closest residence or residential neighborhood is?

We have a slight madam chair.

And that's either for you, sir, or mister Ellsworth or mister Gerard.

Madam chair, mister Gerard told me that that's correct. There's a grandfather grandfather's residential use within four feet.

Okay. How many homes are we talking about?

Less than a dozen.

I'm sorry. What?

Less than a dozen. I'm sorry.

Okay. Then wanted to go back to mister Boll and there was a statute reference, twenty eight eight four six one. Can you speak to that and the concerns that were raised?

That particular statute is a part of the family of statutes that we're talking about an hour or so ago that has the table in it that identifies different uses and whether they're deemed compatible or compatible subject to conditions and so on. That family of statutes is the one that not only your county staff, but Luke Air Force Base and others carefully scrutinized in going through the processes long before we came into your chambers chambers to to make make the the determination, determination as as Director Ellsworth talked about, of being a scenario where in this particular location for this particular use, Luke Air Force Base and your county staff made the determination that this use in this location, subject to these conditions and requirements, is deemed compatible.

Thank you. Any further comments to that question, mister Ellsworth?

Madam chair, yes. As as the applicant has pointed out, that section of the statute clearly shows a land use compatibility table that we utilize that the air force utilizes when we send them a use and compatibility determination letter within that as as was illustrated by the applicant with the table he showed there's there is not a defined term for utility It can be very broadly defined, but it also mentions utilities in a couple of different locations. So there was a little bit of discussion on on what utilities were meant. That then led to further discussions with the air force about if they were determining it was a utility under one section, that's what this their letter should be say stating to us. They then clarified that they would consider a utility unless it met these conditions, or a utility that was incompatible with their operations unless it met these conditions.

Therefore, was a conditioned approval from the Air Force through the use of compatibility determination. We proceeded forward with that. That was done under the same section of the statute. There's a footnote in that table that talks about if the statute if there is a use that I'm gonna paraphrase it. A use that's not clear or not defined, that it would be presumed to be incompatible unless it was determined through the air force and the county that it would be determined compatible with the operations the Air Force Base. Therefore, what we received from the Air Force Base was determined to be a letter of compatibility.

Thank you. Going back to you, mister Ellsworth. Could you re answer the questions regarding the lighting?

Yes. Madam chair, our lighting ordinance requirements. Right. Our lighting ordinance requirements are found within our zoning ordinance. It requires that all lighting would be shielded or down shielded so that it's not visible from off the side of the property. We would also it controls light bleed off of the property for commercial industrial developments, meaning that the ambient effect of that light wouldn't be extending outside of the property boundary. At the time of the plan of development, we'd be asking for a photometric study that would illustrate the the impact on the lighting at the property line and the details to the the lighting packs and the lighting fixtures that would be utilized for compliance.

Thank you. That helps. And going back to mister Boll, it was stated that this data center will use 59,000,000 gallons of water a year. You did put up that helpful chart. But I think you said it was old technology and that the usage was much less. But do you have a gallons per year estimate?

So what I was referring to when I was comparing this proposed this technology to old technology data centers, which you've probably worked on. Some of us have had opportunities to work on in different parts of the Valley where there was an old technology data center, where the old cooling towers like we sometimes had at colleges and other places where water's running over fence and that type of thing. This closed loop system technology is projected to use about 1% of the water that would be used at an old technology data center. Here in the slide that I that I put up that was slide 34, again, talking about acre feet and so on, this is projected to require about a 144 acre feet per year, which at full capacity because it gets built over time, it's determined on that same slide. As you can see, it has no impact on local wells, and it is it is substantially less than what would be used if the site were farmed, and I believe substantially less than what would be used if some of those other industrial uses that are permitted as of right were to occur on this property.

Thank you, sir. I'll open the floor to questions from board members.

Madam chair.

Mister Stewart.

Thank thank you very much, and thank you for the presentations and for the input from from the community. You know, much like Maricopa County residents that are here today, I have a deep concern about environmental impact, especially on our water. You know, we've had a great experience in Chandler in working with different applicants and and industry like Intel and other data centers. And in my term and city council, we worked closely with them to put together programs to where, for example, Intel pretreats their discharge, the water that they use. I know this is an air cold site and will use much less water than the data centers of old.

But, you know, one of the things and and maybe this comes after the zoning. I don't know how that vote will go today. But if this is approved, is your client committed to pretreating water before to to take care of PFAS and to take take care of the chemicals that are discharged into that water before it goes to, I think it surprises, water treatment plant for reuse. And are they willing to use non potable water similar to our golf course, etcetera, if we move forward, with the zoning process for the final approval? That's my that's my first question. If you can answer that, and I have a follow-up, madam chair.

Please.

With respect to the type of water that's being used and who is the who's it likely to be wheeled through and who is likely to be the wastewater

recipient

through old agreements between the city of Glendale and a company called Global Water, which its global successor is now EPCOR. So there's various environmental requirements put in place with respect to water, with respect to discharge of water into the wastewater treatment plant as well. Discussions have taken place. They're ongoing. Obviously, those discussions need to be completed, as you know, before building permits are pulled and so on.

I don't there may be others who can answer your question scientifically if you need more specifics than what I just said. You may recall a facility much smaller than this that we worked on when you were still on the Chandler City Council and efforts that were made there to bring about best practices and so on and so forth and the massive savings that occurred. That's being done on the front end of this city, of this facility. The

the

the possibility of reuse water is something that also is in what I would call preliminary discussions and that as a part of the large industrial development to the immediate west of us, which is I recall is 1,300 acres. There's a brewery in that development. There's been some that have suggested that some of their outflow water be used for this, that, or the other thing with project Becara being a possible user of that. That is subject to lots of discussion and all kinds of regulation which would also need to occur prior to those connections being made, but there is serious consideration by a variety of parties to look to see, can that water be reused? And if so, how and where is the best way to do it?

Thank you for that, madam chair.

Yes.

When we think about data centers and the proper use of this particular area, you know, compatibility is is a big issue. Right? It's a big issue for the neighbors, especially that live in that area. I'm gonna be I'll follow-up with you on some of those questions that I've got about pretreatment, PFAS, those things, as well as using non potable water in order to protect our water resources after this meeting, or I'll have one of my staff members do that. You know what? I'm gonna hold my questions for later when we go to vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other board members? Stand by. Okay. I'm going to ask supervisor Lesko, since this is in fact her district, if she has any closing comments and or would like to offer a motion.

Thank you, madam chair. First of all, I wanna thank everyone that came here today to speak on this. We've we've been here for several hours now, and so I appreciate that you drove all the way Downtown Phoenix. It's important to hear from you, and I listen to all of you. Every project that comes before the board is unique.

If you remember, there were quite a few residents from Surprise in the surrounding areas that were opposed to the BNSF project out in Whitman. And if you remember, I voted against the comprehensive plan amendment for the BNSF railway. And so I analyze each of these individually, and look at the pros and the cons. And I do read your emails, and I do listen to your comments. Today, we're here for a military compatibility permit.

And that's why I mentioned before that when I first met with the people promoting Project Pacara, I said, well, I'm not gonna vote for this thing if Luke Air Force Base is against it because I wanna protect Luke Air Force Base. And so they met with them. Luke Air Force Base wrote down all the conditions that they required in order for it to be compatible with them. And from the testimony we heard today and from me talking to the staff and myself talking to Luguier Air Force Base, because I did that too, I do believe that it is compatible with the military, use. We're not here today really to discuss, is this you know, should this remain vacant land?

We're here for this military compatibility permit. It's already zoned heavy industrial, and I assume I mean, I didn't know that before this project came before me, so I assume that most people didn't know that. Seems that there all already can be huge industrial developments here. And I think it's unrealistic to think that this is just gonna stay vacant land when it's basically surrounded by industrial. It's just not realistic.

And so I feel for the people that have lived there for a long time. They lived there before the Luke Air Force Base military compatibility permits need were needed. And they lived there before it became an area where you couldn't build any more residents. I understand. I too have shared concerns that you have with all different types of projects. But in this case, I'm going to be supportive of this agenda item. And with that, I yield back.

Thank you. Do you wish to make a motion to introduce

Thank you, madam chair. I move that we approve item number nine.

Thank you. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. I will ask for a roll call vote. And each supervisor, should they wish, as part of their vote, explain their vote. Madam clerk.

Supervisor Stewart.

Thank you, madam chair. I these are always challenging discussions to have about infrastructure as it really whether it's roads, whether it's utilities, whether it's data centers that support schools, military, industrial, know, the military, social media, whatever that may be. You know, we're in a race nationally for supremacy as it relates to data. It is no longer it's more like water and electricity, and it's what everything in this world runs on. And for The United States to be a forward leader in that space, we will need to support responsible data center growth in the right place with the right technology that protects our water resources, quality, and protects the residents that are around.

Supervisor or vice chair Lesko mentioned briefly, but this is about a compatibility vote. It's about whether or not the military is okay with this being next to the the air force base, and they are. And so for that reason, I will be voting aye. Thank you, madam chair.

Supervisor Galvin?

Aye.

Vice Chair Lasko? Aye. Supervisor Gallardo?

Thank you. Madam Chair, may I explain my vote? Please. Thank you. And and supervisor Stewart really hit him right on the head.

The issue is is is this particular project compatible to to the Luke Air Force Base area? And I I would never question. I know all five of us do everything we can to protect Luke Air Force Base. I served with both of you in the legislature, where the legislature really took firm step into making sure that we preserved the Luke Air Force Base surroundings, encroachment, all that good stuff that we made sure to protect. Nobody wants to hurt Luke Air Force Base, but the issue is, is this compatible, and is this the appropriate area for this type of project?

I think we have a statute that needs to be revisited. It really does, and redefined. When you have a statute that you're working on the assumption that this is compatible, I don't think it's appropriate. I do believe there are some and and I understand this. There's you have two separate rails here.

You have the air quality. It's a different track, and then we have the issue of is it compatible. That's what makes it kind of difficult too, because I think air quality is definitely something that needs to be taken strongly in consideration. Again, we're working on the assumption that the air quality standards are being met. I still question what EPA's thought process is going to be, and their actual decision, but to the question, is this compatible?

That's where I really struggle with. I really do not believe that this is the appropriate location for this project. There's so many outstanding questions, particularly statutorily. We can sit here and say, Luke Air Force Base will never take a position. They're never gonna take a position of yes or no on any project. They're not. They're gonna address their concerns, they're gonna make their concerns known publicly, and they did in a letter. They made it very clear, these are our concerns. Had they come back to say, Yeah, we're good now. No, they really haven't.

Conversations, perhaps developers and with some staff, but I don't anticipate. They're never gonna send a letter saying, yeah, we support this project. They're not. They're never gonna be in that position. But I do believe that again, back to the question, is this compatible for the Luke Air Force Base military area? And I have a hard time swallowing that, madam chair. I really do. So with that, with all due respect, I will be opposing the motion. I vote no.

Chair Brofamigi. Yes. I want to thank staff very much for being on hand to answer questions and also the applicant. There were many concerns that were raised during public participation relative to this permit or this case. I think those questions were answered in relationship to the Luke letter, the protection of the propane tanks, the air quality standards.

I cannot begin to tell you how much work our air quality folks have done over the years because we attract a lot of foreign pollution, not from within the valley, but from without. And thank you for your work. Every moment I spend here in the county, I realize more and more how important that is, and I know it'll continue. I know with the TSMC project up north, you work very closely with them. No quarter is given.

We're not allowed a planning and zoning attorney used to beat into my head when I was on the commission we can't regulate water. That's not part of our domain. But we sure as heck can ask questions. And those questions were raised, and they were answered. As a matter of fact, this project will use far less water than what that parcel is already entitled to.

They will actually be putting water back into the water table if built excuse me. If built and using the new technologies that they use. I agree with you, mister Gallardo. We need to revisit the statute because a lot has happened that needs updating. But I am comfortable in voting yes. Madam Clerk? Thank you, madam chair. The motion passes with four ayes and one no. Thank you. We will take a five minute recess.

For those of you who came, thank you for coming. Thank you for your participation. And, we will allow you to leave if you so wish. And if you wish to stay and continue, we'll welcome that too.

Madam chair, supervisor Oskal, that'd be a great question to ask. To me, a clean bin would be is has no refuse in it. It has no residue. Thank you. That's the word I was looking for. Residue in it. And it's very important that on this site, is clearly the storage of clean bins. Cleaning will not be allowed on the site. It's a matter of stipulation. Stipulation.

Okay. I'll reserve my question for the applicant if they're planning on washing them out or what does clean mean? Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here? And would would your representative please come forward and introduce yourself for the record.

Good afternoon. My name is Morgan Busby with Busby Permits. I'm here today representing the property and business owner, mister Stoney Fred. He's gonna be up here just to save some time when you guys have questions.

Thank you. I I you have four minutes.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you. So I just for the excuse me. So we're here today requesting the special use permit to allow for a dumpster storage in Rural 40 Rural 43 zoning. Next slide, please. I wanna be clear upfront that this is a low impact use. There's no public activity on-site, there's no office, and no industrial processing. This is simply put, this is a storage yard for clean dumpsters when they are not actively on jobs. And this proposed use reflects the reality of living in rural Maricopa County where small scale business operations and residential uses can coexist.

Next slide, please. The operations of the business are straightforward and controlled. The business operates Monday through Saturday with hours limited from 6AM or 7AM to 5PM. Most importantly, the site is maintained daily with routine housekeeping, including trash pickup, site inspections, and general cleanliness to ensure property remains orderly and well kept. Next slide.

Thank you. In terms of scale, the site is very limited. Maximum capacity is 23 dumpsters, but in reality, the site typically hold around 10 at any given time due to ongoing rentals. There is no intention to expand further than what is applied for in this application. Additionally, it is important to understand that this proposed use occupies 1.1 acre of a larger five acre parcel.

The remainder of the property is actively utilized for a successful agricultural operation that focuses on horse boarding and training. There is no intention to expand the storage yard or reduce the agricultural operation in which the partial shares with. Next slide, please. For environmental, the this operation does not function as a landfill or a transfer station. There is no waste processing, no compacting, and no cleaning of dumpsters on-site.

All dumpsters are emptied and cleaned at the landfill before returning to the property, and dust control is addressed through surface improvements and ongoing site maintenance. The majority of the materials that are stored in these dumpsters, it's important to know, are manure or roofing companies, things that are non sticky in their nature. And so when dumped at the at the transfer station or at a waste management, they slide right out leaving dumpsters like, you know, 98% clean. Site improvements. Several site improvements have been incorporated into the use narrative to, specifically minimize its impacts.

The site will be surfaced with asphalt millings to reduce dust. There is a clearly defined yard with controlled access and regulated internal circulation to limit unnecessary movement and noise, and a proposed eight foot privacy fence along the north and east boundaries will be installed to provide visual screening, act as a windbreak, and further reduce noise impacts to adjacent properties. Next slide. As a part of the public participation process, outreach was conducted in accordance to the county requirements. We received multiple letters of support from surrounding property owners, and many have come here today showing that there is backing real community backing for this request.

In closing, this request represents a low impact, well managed use that is consistent with the realities of rural Maricopa County. It is limited in scale, heavily conditioned, conditioned, and designed with mitigation measures in mind to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. Additionally, the approval of this SUP brings the property into compliance, provides and provides the county with enforceable standards moving forward. It is for these reasons we request fully we respectfully request your recommendation of approval. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant or their representative? Supervisor Lesko.

Thank you, madam chair. I do have a question for the applicant, and it's the same question I asked. You kind of mentioned about what's in there. My concern is, is it gonna smell? You know, These a whole bunch of containers, that are sitting there that used to have refuse in it.

Good morning. Yeah. All of our containers come back. Majority of our work is actually roofing material. So it does a very well job of you know, when we dump them, it actually almost cleans your container. It's like concrete tile coming out and scraping on metal. So there's we haven't had any of our neighbors complain about any smells or anything like that. And we're we're kind of you know, we don't want that on our place either. So so, yeah, that doesn't seem to be an issue that's that's ever come up for for that problem. So

yeah. That's it. Any other questions from board members? Seeing none, madam clerk, are there any speaker forms?

Madam chair, I did receive four registering their position in favor. I can read off the names. Stoney Fred, Charlotte Cooley, Jimmy Conley,

and Jennifer Fred. Okay. And they were signed in support, not wishing any In support. Thank you. Anything email wise? Nothing to share. Thank you. I think we're I think you may be excused. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Madam vice chair, is there a motion?

Madam chair, I move that we approve item number 10.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. We continue on to items eleven, twelve, and 13 a through c statutory hearings for the clerk of the board and transportations. Transportation members, please note that road file six zero three three is withdrawn from consideration. Madam clerk, do we have any speaker forms?

Madam chair, none on these items.

Thank you. The board will now consider items 11 a and b through 13 a through c. Is there a motion, please?

Thank you. Madam chair. I move that we approve, items 11 a through 13 c.