Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The what is today? 04/09/2026 Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. We'll begin with a roll call.

Chair Melhaven? Here. Vice Chair Hernandez?

Here.

Commissioner Lawrence? Commissioner Rock Wallach? Here. Commissioner Layton? Here. Commissioner Finter?

Here.

Commissioner Dan Zeissen? Commissioner Lindblom?

Here.

Commissioner Whitney?

Here.

And Commissioner Toma? Here. Good morning. This We have a quorum.

Thank you. Thank you. This meeting has been noticed in accordance with open meeting law, ARS thirty eight thousand four thirty one. Agendas are available within twenty four hours of each meeting in the Maricopa County Planning and Development Office and are also available on the planning and development website one week prior to hearing at www.maricopa.gov/planning. The staff reports prepared for each agenda item shall become a part of the permanent record for each case.

With respect to hearing process, cases will be considered in the order they appear on the agenda unless otherwise agreed to by the commission. For each case, the applicant will be given a set amount of time to present. Anyone wishing to speak in a particular case shall fill out a speaker's card in person attendance or raise your hand within GoToWebinar. The amount of time allowed for speaking shall be at the discretion of the commission chair. Staff will provide the chair with the names of persons who have registered and noted desire to comment and those registered participants who have raised their hand.

The chair shall call on each named participant one at a time. The chair will conduct the hybrid in person and virtual public hearing according to the bylaws and according to the rules established by the chair regarding public comment. Votes will be done by roll call vote only. The chair will verbally identify the specific members responsible for all motions and seconds. First order of business is minutes of 03/05/2026.

Are there any comments or questions from the board? Hearing none, the minutes are accepted. Moving on to the continuance agenda. Thank you. Moving on to the consent agenda.

I see we have consent agenda items. And then on case number five is on the regular agenda. I have no cards to speak. Is anyone present here to speak on item number five, which is SU200SU250007Off17NorthStorage. Is there anyone here to speak on that? Anyone online to speak?

Nobody online.

If there are no objections from the board, we'll move that to the consent agenda.

And madam chair, if I may, item number 4Z250045, is withdrawn by the applicant. So there's no action on that case.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Hearing no objection, then we'll move, item number five to consent. Mr. Gerard?

Yes. Madam Chair, commissioners, we have three items now on consent. MCP twenty five zero zero zero one known as Domres 90 in District 4. It's a military compatibility permit with the plan of development for outdoor industrial storage in the rural 43 M A A M F zoning district for 92 and a half acres west of 109th Avenue along Frontier Drive in the Whitman area. There's no known opposition.

The recommendation paragraph 13 is for approval. Subject conditions a through g, z twenty five zero zero four four known as Solomay Village shops. District 4 is a c two rezoning of 4.4 acres, North Of Solomay Highway, West Of Wintersburg Road in the Tonopah area. There's no known opposition. One letter support the recommendation of paragraph 13 is for approval subject to conditions a through I, and you've moved s u 250007 off 17 North Storage onto consent.

That's in District 4. It's a special use permit for commercial storage and outdoor parking of RVs, boats, travel trailers in the rural 43 zoning district on 40 acres in the Daisy Mountain Drive I 17 area. There is one letter of opposition. I don't believe there's anyone here today.

I, you know, I should have asked the applicant if they were agreeable to move this to consent.

My understanding, the applicant's here, and they wish to give a presentation. Okay.

So did you want to We'll leave it on regular. So

on consent, we have items two and three.

Thank you. I'll entertain a motion for the consent agenda.

So moved.

Second. Okay.

Motion made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Rockwalla.

Commissioner Fincher? Yes. Vice Chair Hernandez?

Yes.

Commissioner Leighton?

Yes.

Commissioner Lindblom?

Yes.

Chair Mulhavn? Yes. Commissioner Rockwallick?

Yes.

Commissioner Thoma?

Yes.

Commissioner Whitney?

Yes.

Chair, we have a motion recommending approval of the consent agenda by a vote of eight to zero. Thank you. Moving on

to the regular agenda, have Item five, case SU two five zero zero zero seven off 17 North Storage.

Madam chair, members commission, agenda item five, especially is permit for commercial outdoor storage and parking of recreational vehicles, boats, and travel trailers on a nearly 40 acre rural 43 parcel in the Anthem area about 3,000 feet Northwest of I-seventeen and Daisy Mountain Drive in Supervisory District 4. Next slide. The applicant is proposing 1994 parking spaces for RV, boat and trailer storage. Facility would be remotely operated with no permanent on-site staff with security cameras and regular management visits. Access would be via 41st Drive, an existing unimproved dirt road that runs through ASLD property.

The applicant is committed to working with ASLD to establish legal access and will surface both the access road and storage areas with compacted asphalt millings. The site is County Island surrounded by ASLD property previously supported sand and gravel extraction and has an existing residence on it from the nineteen eighties. Next slide. The site is in the Daisy Mountain, New River area plan, scenic corridor designation, but the site is not visible from I 17. It sits up on a hill, and the storage area is screened from highway views.

ASLD did comment on this case in early twenty twenty five. They requested the base zoning standards be maintained where possible in case surrounding state trust land develops in the future and the no vehicles taller than six feet be stored within the modified setback area and SAP has incorporated those requests into the conditions. Next slide. The staff is recommending approval on the site primarily on the basis of the site isolation at this point. There are no adjacent neighbors to impact because of the surrounding vacancy trust land. The conditions do address the ASL these concerns include standard revocation expiration language therefore staff recommending approval with conditions A through I as outlined in staff report with a ten year validity period expiring 05/06/2036. With that, I'm happy to answer the questions.

Thank you. Any questions from the board? All right. We'll hear from the applicant. Thank you.

Good morning. For the record, Shane Allaman with Tiffany and Bosco, 1850 Central Avenue in Phoenix. Grateful to to take some time, and I I apologize for a little bit of confusion. We were supposed to be on consent. We received one of the stipulations out of the many that we received.

There was one that we wanted to bring before the the commission for discussion and and to request a modification. Since we began the application, we've been consistent about showing a a perimeter standard of of a minimum six foot chain link fence. Purpose of that chain link fence is has been for security, of course. And when we received the, staff report last week, there was a a request as part of the condition f three to have a minimum eight foot CMU wall block wall. As you could imagine, a a block wall around this site is is gonna be, about $1,200,000 in cost.

And I I think more importantly, the reason that, let's see if this is working here. I'm gonna move you to the reason why staff asked us to have this stipulation is because of these guidelines. Again, these are guidelines. These are not regulatory in nature, and so a guideline is looked at at the context of the site to determine if we are meeting the vision of that guideline. And under this I 17 Senate Corridor guidelines, there is a screening guideline under 4.3.

We are considered outdoor storage, which is under four point three point four. And so if you look at that guideline, it says that outdoor storage should be screened from view from I 17 Freeway. There's also four point three point three, which says parking screening may consist of berms. We're we're technically considered outdoor storage, but we are parking vehicles and boats out there for the storage. And so if you look at the intent of and the vision for these guidelines, the intent is to to screen any of these types of uses from the I 17 Freeway.

We have driven down starting from the north way past Anthem all the way down north on the I 17. You cannot see this site, and that's been the reason why we've asked for the the six foot screening just for the security. If you look at this picture, this is the view directly west from the I 17 Freeway standing on the side of the freeway. You probably can't see it, but right up in the kind of in the to the left of the middle on the screen, there's a little bit of a ridge of a building that you can see if you look really close. That is the existing home that was put on there in 1980.

That is a 22 foot peak that you see peeking out there. So, essentially, the screening that you're seeing from the side of the freeway there is a 20 foot screen berm. You cannot see this site. You will not see any of the outdoor storage that's going to be part of that. So we feel that we're meeting the intent of the I 17 corridor, scenic corridor guidelines, and and feel that the the eight foot screen wall or CMU wall is overkill, and it's not needed to meet the intent that we have upon us being within a half mile of the freeway.

So what we're respectfully requesting is that there be a motion for approval with a modification of step number f three to be a minimum of chain link fence of and we can go with eight feet instead of six feet that we have in there, but we can have an eight foot chain link fence. And so that's the request that I'm putting before you today and happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Commissioners have any questions? Madam chair. Yes. Commissioner Rockwalla.

You indicated that a chain link fence, which is your request, would be for security purposes. Initially, you requested six feet, but you're willing to go up to eight feet on that chain link. Would a block wall not be more secure than a chain link fence? Chain link fence can be cut or climbed. Block wall makes it a lot more difficult to break.

Yeah. I appreciate the question, Commissioner Rochwalek. Yeah. I mean, the fence can there are certain things that you can do to prohibit people from going up the fence. We are going to have full perimeter screening with the or eyes on the the site with cameras and also security that could be out there. And so we we don't feel that that's that that block wall fence is is needed for the security. We are sufficient. We have other sites that are similar to this where

we use the screening or the the chaining fence and have no issues whatsoever with security. You said security could be out there. Will there be manned security on-site?

There will be security that that goes out to the site. There will be people that go I don't believe it'll be twenty four seven, and that's the purpose of the cameras that will be out there. So we'll have the cameras that will always have eyes on the the Property 247.

Do you think considering the growth in that area that a chain link fence might not provide the necessary screening for that view corridor, not just the I 17, but as Pioneer Road continues to develop, and you've got Anthem West to the North, you've got the Benavry Shooting Range to the South, and actually, you have the Pioneer Village community directly to your south. Yes. You feel a chain link fence is adequate enough to screen the site?

Commissioner Rochepalak, yes. We do. We've done some analysis in looking at the the growth of this area and the development. In fact, prior to us coming forward with the special use permit, there was some proposal to do multifamily on the site, and they ran into major issues because looking at the the utilities that have to come to the site, it's about a $7,000,000 cost. So anybody coming to this site or to this area has a large burden for utility coming forward.

When you look at TSMC and what's going on down there, I know there's a lot of growth that's about eight to 10 miles south of us. When you look at the growth analysis that's happening, we are on the very fringe or past the fringe of of that growth. There's a wall or a a mountain in between TSMC and us. But the analysis that we've looked at, it's going to be at least maybe ten years, but it could be twenty years for any future growth coming forward there. So with the proposal that we're bringing forth as a special use permit instead of rezoning it, hard zoning it, it it does have a ten year cap on that.

If at the end of the ten years, there's growth that we can see that's starting to come from the South, I know my client's gonna wanna be the first one to say, we will sell this property because it'll be more valuable at that point. But we don't believe with the parameters of the special use permit that we have right now that there is any foreseeable growth that's going to be happening coming north from Pioneer Road up to this site.

Okay.

Thank you. Commissioner Tuchu. Thank

you, Madam Chair. So I share a similar concern. Ten years is a long time, and this is based on what I was reading going to be either the largest or the second largest RV park in in the city. So I think it's gonna be visible for for some people, and it is in a scenic corridor. And I think the economics on it are pretty good today, which is great for your client, and they'll probably be better in the future.

So I'm I'm just not convinced that the you guys aren't gonna go in for another SUP in ten years. And I think at at at that point, you know, you definitely should have a block wall. But I think even at this point, given you're going in for a ten year, you should have a block wall. K? Let's bring in.

And commissioner Tomah, I appreciate the the comment. Yeah. We we believe that the that screening or that chain link fence. And if we need to put some screening on that chain link fence, we can do that. That would be a significant lower cost than a block wall.

The other thing with a block wall, when you're spending that expense, it this this property will likely change uses. That's the the purpose of a special use permit is to look at an interim temporary use that can be used. When you look at this property right now, it is extremely limited with what uses you can have on it because of the utilities, because of the water, not only just water services, but potable water for drinking. If you have more than 10 people on the site, my understanding with the policy is you have to you have water potable water here. That's not happening.

So it really limits the type of uses that can happen. And what we're trying to do with the special use permit is to allow some value, for a property owner to utilize the use with the handful of uses that can be done for a period of time. And like I said, at that time, if there is growth coming, my client's gonna be the first one that's gonna sell it because that value of that property will go up, and there's no reason to to have a storage. I mean, you're gonna get more value out of that by by selling for a high density residential or for another residential type of use. And so we would just respectfully request that we recognize the context and recognize the situation that's going on and ask under the special use permit and to allow for a eight foot chain link fence.

And if we have to have the requirement attitude for screening for the interim while we're doing the use, we can add that to that, and we we have no problem. But the chain the the block wall, the cost up front, and then to tear that down in the future is another expense when you have another use coming in. So we feel like the the chain link fence goes along with what the ask is for a temporary interim use.

Yeah, I understand that. But temporary screening doesn't usually hold up very well over a long period of time. And the utilities might be there in five years, six years, seven years, nine years. Who knows what's going to happen to the land around the I-seventeen. So that's just my personal position on it. I appreciate your response.

Thank you. Commissioner Rod Wallach. You mentioned a special use permit, ten years. You guys will come back in ten years, and maybe there'll be a higher and better use for it in ten years than there is now, hence the desire to not make the investment in a block wall. What sort of investment are you making on the ground as far as asphalt pouring, maybe decomposition granite to prevent dust control. Is that not an investment that is being made for a temporary use that will then have to be tore up in potentially ten years from now? Why the use why the special use permit and not a full rezone?

Yeah. Appreciate that, commissioner Rajpolik. So we specifically am working with staff. We've done this on many other sites. It is crushed asphalt, so it's not a paving that's on there. We recognize that paving is another significant cost. It's another thing that gets torn up. So the improvements that we have to do are associated with having the crushed asphalt on the site, which is a significantly lower cost than a paving. It's also easy to remove at the point. It's easy to maintain and keep the dust control down of the regulations that we'll have for that. And then, of course, for we have to have drainage areas that will be part of the site, but it's it's very minimal improvements on-site in association with the interim temporary special use permit that we're asking for.

So I guess then to your point, you're just putting down, I guess, topped up granite for dust control. I mean, I appreciate your statistic. You said in your readings, this is potentially the second largest RV storage or the largest RV storage in the county. I'm not sure the the lack of investment that y'all are making in this site warrants the largest or the second largest RV outdoor storage in the county. That is concerning, for this North Phoenix region considering the the the rapid growth that is happening.

Yeah.

Yeah. I I appreciate the comment, and the input there. Think, again, as far as the the growth from everything we've seen, it's I know there's a lot of growth that's happening with t m TSMC from the analysis we've done. We feel like that that growth timeline is is still very far out there, especially because of the utility issues. Whoever's coming in first has to have us has to pay a very significant investment for the utilities for any use outside of what can be done right now with the uses under the the parameters with water, sewer, potable water, those types of things.

Okay. Anyone online have any questions or comments? I have a question for staff. So the character area plan says the screening needs to be between the property and 17, and yet it appears that you're requesting the entire perimeter. The block wall, could you explain why?

Madam chair, there would be if this was solid zoning, there would certainly be a requirement for the solid screening along the entire perimeter, because it's adjacent to rural and our residential zoning. Also, it's my understanding state land has asked for maintenance of, underlying base, standards in the event that they dispose of their land for development, which would be a south wall. Okay. I I something you may wish to consider. It may be hard to visualize how 40 acres of lined up RVs can be screened, but it may be possible to do photo simulations or something along those lines that may help you visualize this site a little better as it's viewed from the freeway and or from Anthem, you know, if you were wanted to consider continuing this item so that the applicant could provide that type of information for your consideration.

Mr. My thinking is it's not area that the character plan is about protecting the scenic corridor along I-seventeen. You can't see the house that's the closest to I-seventeen on the property. And then they've got height limitations, so it can't be taller than a certain amount. New residential developments that I've seen usually have block walls that would screen themselves from this property that wouldn't be would would make their wall redundant.

And I I understand. I agree with the question I had too was, you know, there's so much growth in this part of our community. How quickly will it catch up? Maybe I'm wondering if the board and the applicant be interested if we were to do a chain link fence with a permit for five years instead of ten might address some of the concerns about being able to respond to the rapid growth.

Madam Chair, my thought on it is I think the state land around the property will become less attractive with an RV park that large. Also, road runs through the middle of the property. So it's going to be visible to there's no way you're going to miss it, 40 acres of RVs and boats. So I understand it's a need in the area to put RVs and boat storage, but I think we should stick to the guidelines because we just can't predict what five years or nine years or ten years will look like in that area.

Despite the staff's answer, I'm still not clear. The guidelines are to shield 17. We're sort of stepping beyond that. We're asking for more than the guidelines are requesting or requiring.

One thing I don't know if I don't think this is discussed in the staff report, but there has been ongoing community concerns about the amount of RV storage in the area, particularly Carefree Highway. I think there's an argument for consideration that a large facility, if it is not visual, may help mitigate the need for further RV storage along Carrebury Highway.

You're saying if it's not visible? You're saying if the if If it's successful and it's not visible

If it's successful, it may cut it cut down the need for additional proliferation of RV storage along the other casino corridor, which is Carrapate Highway.

And then, commissioner, tell my I'm going to get clear. You're not just objecting you're not just insisting they do the block wall, but you're sounding like you don't want to approve the COP at all?

Oh, no. I'm in favor of the

Okay. When you say we have I

just I think we should mandate the block wall, given it's large. I did some minimal projections on the revenue for it, and it's pretty significant. So I think the applicant can afford to put the improvements in.

All right. Any other comments or questions? Alright. I'll entertain a motion.

Commissioner Tom, I motion we approve the should I have this up? The SU250007 as circulated.

Second, motion made by commissioner Thomas seconded by commissioner label.

Commissioner Finter

yes.

Commissioner Rockwallick?

Madam Chair, can I explain?

Sure.

I'm going to be voting no on this, not because of the chain link versus the block wall. I think the block wall is appropriate. I'm voting no on this because of the rapid growth in the region. And I appreciate the five year request, but it was still a chain link fence. The five year request, I think ten years is too long. I think a storage, outdoor storage facility that large in this area is not good for the rapid growth coming. So I'm going to be a no on this.

COMMISSIONER TOMAL?

Yes.

Lost in my agenda.

Madam chair, members commission, agenda item six is especially used for for an interim industrial use, specifically outdoor storage of empty refuse bins and maintenance vehicles for J and S dumpster service. So you have the southwest corner of Desert Mirage Road and 217th Avenue in Whitman on a five acre rural 43 parcel. Special use permit covers only 1.19 acres on the eastern portion of the site. The rest of the property continues in agricultural and equine use under an existing agricultural exemption. Next slide.

The property has been in the owners possession since '14 and was used for equine purposes until around 2024 when a code violation was verified for operating a commercial business without zoning entitlement. The owners entered a compliance agreement with the county in October 2024 which has since lapsed. This SVP is part of the path to compliance with the existing violation. The operation runs dumpsters to local businesses. No waste is stored on the site. Only empty clean bins and no bin cleaning would occur on the site either. They're going to store up to 23 dumpsters. It would be stored in 15 by 30 foot stalls. Truck traffic will be limited to 6AM to 5PM Monday through Saturday. The business will employ the owners plus one full time employee and up to two seasonal workers.

Seasonal excuse me the screening would be just got a six foot sealed pipe in quarry and middle fence along Northeast partial lines. Next slide. It's designated single family role under the White Tank Grand Avenue area plan calls for zero to one dwelling per acre and industrial primary use is not technically consistent with the designation. However, the proposal is small just over an acre and is structured as an interim use for five years only. Home based businesses are common in this area and the conditions are designed to keep the operation scaled and screened appropriately.

If at the end of five years, the surrounding area has developed in a way that makes us use incompatible, the SUP can be reconsidered. At this time, staff finds the scale duration and conditions justify approval. Next slide. Therefore, staff is recommending approval with conditions a through k is outlined in the staff report the five year ability period expiring 05/06/2031 at this time. Happy to answer your questions.

Thank you. The applicant like to speak.

Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Morgan Busby with Busby Permits. I'm here today representing the property owner and the business owner, mister Stoney Fred. To be clear, this request for a special use permit is to allow a dumpster storage in the rural 43 zoning. This is a low intensity use.

There's no public activity on-site. There's no office and no industrial processing. Simply put, it's a storage yard for dumpsters when they are not on job sites. And as mister Joel said, we believe that this proposed use goes well because it reflects the reality of living in rural Maricopa County where small scale businesses coexist well with residential uses. As he stated, our operations are straightforward.

We have established business hours, which we intend to follow. Site maintenance is maintained daily through mandatory housekeeping. It includes trash pickup, site inspections, and general cleanliness checks. All of this is to ensure the property remains orderly and well kept. Let me see where I am here.

We talked about some scale. As we mentioned, there's a maximum capacity of 23 dumpsters, although no more than 10 are usually on-site due to ongoing rentals. At this time, there's no intention to expand. The 1.1 acres is part of a larger parcel. The remaining of the parcel is actively being used for a successful agriculture operation that is focused on horse training and boarding. So there's no plans to expand the storage yard or to reduce the remaining residents for the agricultural use.

Just to touch base on some

of the environmental things, there's no waste processing, no compacting, and no cleaning of the dumpsters on-site. As he spoke about, they come to the site empty and clean before returning to the property. Some site improvements to help with the neighborhood compatibility have been incorporated into the special use narrative to specifically minimize impacts. Asphalt millings will be set down in the in the yard to reduce dust. There's a clearly defined yard, both with controlled access to limit unnecessary movement and noise.

Installation of an eight foot privacy fence along the east and the north boundaries is proposed to be installed to provide visual screening, act as a windbreak, and further reduce noise impacts to adjacent properties. As a part of our public participation plan, outreach was conducted per the Maricopa County requirements. During this time, we received multiple letters of support showing that there is community backing for this. Within my exhibit here, I show properties that are adjacent to the SUP location that are in support of this. In addition to these four, we've received two more letters of support on the Northern Side of Desert Mirage.

Basically, everybody around them wants to see this happen, thinks it's a good use for the area and fits the neighborhood nicely. We did understand that there was one letter of opposition, and we have taken those concerns seriously by incorporating operational limits and implementing physical improvements to address them. In closing, we believe that this this request represents a low impact, well managed use. It's consistent with the realities of rural Maricopa County, and it's limited in scale, heavily conditioned, and designed with mitigation measures in mind. All of this to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area.

Additionally, approval of this SUP brings this property into compliance and provides the county with enforceable standards moving forward. For these reasons, we ask for your approval. Thank you.

Thank you. We have several people who've requested to speak. When you come, you'll have two minutes. When you come to the podium, please state your name and address. So the first speaker is Morgan Busby.

That was me. I apologize. Okay.

And mister Story had a card too. Okay. Yeah. Barney Peralta does not wish to speak but wants us to know that he supports the project. This is my card.

Sean Small does not wish to speak but is in support. And Jennifer Fred, that's your wife.

That's my wife. Yes.

Does not wish to speak but is Okay. In Do we have anyone online who would like to speak? Nobody online. Alrighty. Commissioners, any comments or questions?

Hearing none, we'll entertain a motion.

I move that we pass the SUP for SU 250,039 as written.

I'll second.

Motion by Commissioner Layton, seconded by Commissioner Toma.

Commissioner Finter?

Yes.

Vice chair Hernandez?

Yes.

Commissioner Layton?

Yes.

Commissioner Lindblom?

Yes.

Chair Millhaven? Yes. Commissioner Rockwallick?

Yes.

Commissioner Thoma?

Yes.

Commissioner Whitney?

Yes.

Good morning, madam chair, members of the commission. MCP two five zero zero seven is a request for military compatibility permit without a plan of development for utility utility land uses to include a gas power jet pass gas power generation facility and data center on a 160 acre site located North of Olive Road and approximately half a mile west of Litchfield Road in the West Glendale area. The underlying zoning is I n d three, IUPD, MAAMF, and rural 43 MAAMF zoning districts and within the statutorily defined high noise or accident potential zone of Luke Air Force Base, specifically within the seventy five and eighty LDN noise contours. The applicant is currently in discussions with city of Glendale to process a site plan design or a plan of development and construction permitting through the city after annexation. The property is under a wastewater agreement with the city of Glendale and is in process of developing a preannexation development agreement.

This application is only to establish entitlement for the utility land uses with amendment development standards. Legislative approval of an MCP is required for nonresidential development within the MAAMF zoning. The MCP has prerequisites for use consistency and compatibility determination by both Luke Air Force Base and the county. The uses proposed include a natural gas power generation facility with turbines, backup power with propane and diesel, field electrical substation at data center buildings and opportunities, screening, parking, and security. The proposed zoning district regulations are requested.

A turbine stack height of 72 feet setback at least 150 feet from all lot lines, a minimum setback of 75 feet for structures except ancillary facilities from all lot lines, a minimum eight foot high solid wall along the north and east perimeter of the use, and anticlimb fence along the west and south perimeter of use. For data center uses, parking reduced to one per one to 110,000 square foot of data center floor space. For the turbine yard, one parking space to 1,500 square foot of turbine yard building floor space and one loading space per 150,000 square foot of floor area. Luke Air Force Base issued a compatibility determination conditioned upon compliance with specific requirements. Staff have incorporated those conditions into the recommended conditions of approval.

With these conditions in place, the proposed land use is considered compatible with LA, with Luke Air Force Base operations pursuant to state statute, which supports staff's recommendation of approval. The underlying I n d three IUPD zoning would indicate the site is otherwise appropriate for heavy industrial uses, including vertical structures. Therefore, the application is being presented for consideration as a compatible land use. Site design and construction permitting are anticipated to occur through the city of Glendale. If annexation does not occur, a plan of development will be required and subject to board of supervisors approval prior to construction permitting.

Although significant opposition has been received, the proposal is considered compatible with area land use and safeguards requested by ILOOK Air Force Base to ensure flight operations are not disturbed. Happy to

answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions for staff? No? We move I'm sorry, madam. Oh, yes. Commissioner Tomah.

We received a lot of opposition from the community related to air quality concerns because you guys address. I understand there's additional steps after this meeting that would be taken around air quality. So just wanted to hear from the staff on that.

Yes, Madam Chair, Commissioner Toma, Commissioners. There's a separate and independent air quality permitting and licensing processes to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department. They've already had a public meeting, and it's ongoing. It's independent of this of this, whatever occurs today. Their their, their decisions and their reviews are not dependent upon any of our conditions, to my knowledge. Obviously, if the if, if the MCP is not approved, will prevent construction permitting. But that alone is the only correlation between the two processes.

Thank you.

Okay. We have some speakers. Again, you'll have two minutes. And please state your name and address for the record. The first speaker will be Roy Dunbar and followed by oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, mister Bull. I lost track there.

Good morning. Good morning. Ed Bull, 1850 North Central Avenue.

Let me

what am I doing?

Don't ask me.

I don't know what I'm doing.

Are you limited to two minutes? No. All

right. Thank you. As you know, I'm here on behalf of Taconic. To begin with, as you can probably see on your screen, we appreciate staff's recommendation. We appreciate Luke's determination. We appreciate the decisions made by the corporation commission in February. We accept stipulations a through p with no exceptions. We request your approval accordingly. As we look at the overall site, which, as you know from your packet, it's about 160 acres. It has rail and power lines along the south and east edges.

The land is located in a very industrial area. If we look at this slide, If we look at this general plan or comprehensive plan slide, the 160 acre site is outlined in black. Everything around it, irrespective of how it's actually developed, is planned for industrial and employment uses. That's based primarily on Luke and the Luke noise contours and what's determined compatible or not compatible with Luke and the mission of the base. The site is located immediately east of Wolf Logistics.

That's one that back in '19 on 2016, we processed through this commission board as a military compatibility permit. It's North of Reams Ranch, same process as we're going through here, military compatibility permit, ultimately into Glendale for site plan review and permits. The zoning that's around the site has brought forth, while there is residential further to the north. To the west, as many of you know, we have a variety of industrial uses that have occurred. We have a variety of industrial uses that are coming, all consistent with the general plans that have been placed here for years.

You may or may not have seen a letter in support provided late last night from the property owner immediately north, who's a fourth generation owner who pointed out some of the history in this area and how industrial is what's supposed to be here. When we look at this next exhibit, this is just a bubble plan of really the three components of the Bukara development. The green outlines the proposed data center on about 110 acres. The yellow outlines the proposed electric generation on about 32 acres. And then the blue outlines the proposed APS substation on about 12 acres.

The net effect of this is a data center development that's bringing its own power, bringing its own power to not only the data center but to the grid as well. That is something that is consistent with current day discussions as to what data center developers should consider doing to bring power to the area that they're providing their data center in. As we move on through it, asking and I could have, should have, but in the interest of time didn't make introductions of several people that are here from Tekonic and from Monterra, from KP Environmental and so on and so forth. And I can do that if you want because they may be helping me during Q and A. But importantly, Project Becara, as staff pointed out, it's a modern collated located facility.

It's part of what I was talking about if data centers have taken criticism about draining power from the grid and not contributing back to it. This is the exact opposite of that. We're generating power not only adequate to run the data centers but also that can contribute as a peaking facility into the grid when needed. The 18 turbines that are on the site are there where up to 16 of them would operate. Two of them are backup in case one of the 16 goes down.

The 16 may never all run at the same time. We have limitations through Corporation Commission and other approvals to have a 30% annual hourly operating rate on the turbines. But until we're connected to the grid through the APS substation, which is anticipated in about eighteen months, more or less, up to 16 of the turbines would need to run-in order to power up the data centers and could also, as I indicated, be used to substitute once we're connected to the grid, substitute power that exists in the grid for uses that go far beyond us. Importantly, as staff touched on and as you know from your report, not only do we have comprehensive plan and general plans in the area calling for everything around this 160 acres, or way around this 160 acres to be loop compatible, which is essentially industrial employment uses. This site itself has been zoned industrial to IUPD for over twenty five years.

The IUPD approval allows far more height than what we're talking about. It allows 180 feet of height. It was for a grain facility. I believe a proposed ethanol plant. It is something that is the location within this highest noise contour that surrounds Luke.

It is a use that is with the conditions in the general's letter deemed compatible as staff have pointed out in the report. Lots of benefits come with this. It's not only the data center and the Peking plant but also we've provided considerable information to staff and can go into more detail as you want as to how the turbines are natural gas powered, which as you know is a clean burning of fuel. There's not natural gas storage on the site. And importantly, and I can go into more details if you want, but the Corporation Commission's five zero approval in February made determinations in their findings and conclusions that the Corporation Commission's approval through their hearing processes determined that the conditions they placed on it similar to some of the conditions that staff has recommended here, that that approval effectively minimizes its impact on environment and ecology.

And they really said that twice where it resolved matters that were raised and discussed in front of the Corporation Commission. Again, can go into more detail on that if you want. The existing entitlements I touched on, the colored area is, of course, associated with Luke and the APZs at each end of the runway. We're the blue site, the noise contour surrounding us. As I mentioned, we are in the noisiest contour surrounding loop.

When we look at a comparison of what was approved on the site today to what we're requesting, The yellow highlights the 180 foot maximum height allowed under the existing industrial three IUPD. Our proposed height is 72 feet. That's to the top of the stack. If we look to Wolf Logistics to the west, which again we worked on several years ago, their approved heights are 100 to 120 feet. Southwest of this site approved heights are 100 feet.

That coupled with other aspects of this make this use in many ways less intense than what the underlying industrial three would allow and less intense than what the approved IUPD would allow. When we look to development benefits, including economic benefits, the proposed investment is over $10,000,000,000 The jobs, both permanent jobs and construction jobs, is impressive. It's expected at build out. There'll be about three thirty permanent jobs on the site, average in excess of 100,000 a year. There's expected to be about 5,500 construction jobs.

And then you can get into like $145,000,000 in contributions to the tax contributions to schools and other districts and so on. We can go into more detail on that if you want. With respect to Luke compatibility, which is always a critical step in this process, I think it's significant that this Luke letter was signed by Brigadier General Berkland. This letter issued by Top Brass at Luke set forth five conditions of compatibility and four additional requirements, every one of which, as staff touched on, we agreed with. This letter is from Tekonic's CEO confirming in writing that we will abide by each of those conditions and requirements.

Even without this letter, staff's report in the conditions as was indicated requires compliance with these conditions and requirements. As I mentioned, the proposed development went through the line siding and Corporation Commission processes. It received, as I mentioned, unanimous approval from Corporation Commission with some critical findings having to do with environmental and ecology findings and so on. It also addressed, and we can get into more detail, limited water use particularly compared to what could be on the site, be it agricultural or other industrial uses, compliance with the noise standards that compliance with the noise study that was provided and we can get into that in more detail. And clearly we provide additional peaking power when needed to the West Valley.

This exhibit is a noise, comes out of the noise study, very difficult to read at this scale, but it shows the concentric rings of noise coming out from the facility keeping noise away from Peoria Avenue to the north. The maximum noise the noise ring that's on the outside furthers to the north is less than 45 LVN. That is something that is compared to like a refrigerator or a quiet office. Very different than the noise level that would have been created if developed pursuant to the current industrial three IUPD with grain rollers and other kinds of things associated with that. The air emissions, as was touched on a little bit ago, was not only addressed by the corporation commission, but as staff mentioned, the county air quality department has been in review of this development, issued their draft permit.

It too has conditions that need to be abided by and will be abided by, but that's reflective of the types of turbines that we have and it's reflective as well of the hours of operation or the annual hours of operation is what I should say. But importantly, the Maricopa County Air Quality Control District, which by reputation is not only very good at what they do but very strict at what they do. They operate under oversight or input from the state through ADEQ and also through the federal government through EPA. So there's lots of eyes and lots of regulations keeping an eye on everything. When we turn to water, one of the things that this graphic is intended to show is that our projected water demand is the purplish bar at the very bottom as the plant goes ahead and ramps up.

The green line is the type one water rights which is associated as you know, arises out of ag use and then there's another bar as to the aquifer protection and so on. But what this is intended to show and there were detailed analysis done on this interface with EPCOR, interface with others is that our water use, which is not big old style chillers evaporating down. It's a closed cycle system. To me, it's similar to like the radiator in your car where yes there's water involved but it's enclosed, it's not evaporating into the environment, but it's a closed system that uses much less water than ag, uses much less water than a vast array of industrial uses that would be permitted under the existing industrial three or industrial three IUPD zoning that's in place. We continue to work with EPCOR and others on making sure that the water use at this site is a positive thing with respect to what could be in the area.

This slide touches on air cooled closed lever cooling. That closed loop cooling system, as I mentioned, requires much, much less water than what legacy style data centers would require. This site is intended to show from the turbines the distance from the turbines to the nearest residential to the north which is the shorter of the two orange like lines. That's about a half a mile up to Peoria where there is residential on the north side of Peoria Avenue as well is just under point seven miles and so on. We can go into more details on this, but recognizing that is provided in staff's conditions of approval, we'll have an eight foot masonry wall all along the northern perimeter running east west and all along the eastern perimeter running north south, there is substantial distance, there's substantial buffer, and again, what we're proposing here is much less significant in terms of height, noise, truck traffic and other kinds of considerations that are often discussed in this hearing when we're talking about industrial development.

There's no question that there's significant neighborhood interest and opposition to various aspects of this, but it's not for a lack of trying. The person who coordinated neighborhood outreach is here and can get into more detail if you want. Although the county standards call for outreach up to 300 feet, the initial rounds, multiple rounds of outreach went out a mile. There were six neighborhood meetings, four in person, two I'm sorry, four virtual and two in in person. Various things were discussed, emails exchanged, input provided.

I'd love to tell you there's no opposition. I can't tell you that. But I can tell you it's not for a lack of doing our best to get the information that's out there. And again, if you, even this last go around, that includes not only updating signs and updating the website, we ask that the postcard that the county sends out prior to this hearing go out twice the distance that's normally required. That postcard was sent to 600 foot owners of record, one of which you may have received a copy of letter from through staff this morning from a very large fourth generation property owner all along the northern edge and going significantly north of this site.

Staff's analysis we complement them on. We've said on this slide several quotes that I think get to the gist of staff's analysis and effectively conclusions. Pointing out, going back to that original general plan or comprehensive plan slide for decades around Luke Air Force Base, this area has been planned for industrial and employment uses. For decades, the state statutes, I think with input from the federal government at the time, have provided substantial protections around military facilities like Luke Air Force Base. We've been determined by the top brass at Air Force to be compatible.

We've been determined by staff to be compatible. What we're doing here is simply dealing with uses and development standards under the military compatibility permit. There's been prior extensive reviews and approvals through the corporation commission process and there'll be more through the site plan review and permitting process. This military compatibility step in the multi step process is exactly what we've done with a large Wolf Logistics development to the West, with Reams Ranch to the Southwest and others in the area as well. We are compatible with every adopted plan that's been in place for decades.

In conclusion, as I said before, we very much appreciate Luke's input, staff's analysis. We are making a huge investment here in the Valley. We are being compliant with every plan, being compliant with Luke. We accept all stipulations A through P without modification or deletion. We request your approval in accordance with staff's recommendation.

We'll stand for questions now if you like or if possible I'd like to reserve a few minutes for comment after neighbors have had

a chance to speak. Thank you Mr. Ball. Any comments or questions from commissioners? Commissioner Tomah.

Mr. Bohl, I know a lot of work has gone into this after reading 600 plus pages, most of which I struggled to understand and had to had to do additional reading to understand. I understand you guys had multiple meetings with the neighbors. In reading the opposition from the community, most of the objections center around noise and air quality. I understand air quality is also a separate process that's gonna go through the county.

But could you address what you guys communicated with the community in relation to those two issues? Because I saw you have a noise study in the packet that shows that there will be no sound to the nearest home. They won't be able to hear the plant.

I didn't see.

Oh, sorry. I thought somebody was saying something. And then regarding the air quality, you guys have a number of tables in the packet that show there's minimal pollutants. I'm not gonna say none because it shows some, but there's minimal pollutants. The best analogy that I could draw is it's like living if you if you were to live adjacent to the property, it would be like living next to a busy road. And, obviously, the closest home is over half a mile away, and the majority of the homes are close to a mile away. So could you just give us some understanding of what information you presented to the community during those meetings?

Will, Adam Chair, Commissioner Tomah, I will tell you what I know with a caveat that I was not personally in attendance at that meeting, so I can't quote exactly what was said. I may need to have Sarah's help here. But I know that there were information provided certainly about noise. And as you indicated and is on a slide that was up there previously, the the rings that go around the noise generators going on out. And that actually because I I get it.

I'm I'm a, you know, Blue Blazer at Luke's. I'm a Luke's supporter and so on and so forth. And I too agree with this, you know, sound of freedom flying overhead and so on. But the noise study purposefully deleted aircraft noise, which at times can be significant. We could get into, I expect, more comparisons of things like rain rollers and so on, which I grew up around as a kid, but we also know are much noisier than what we're talking about here, and that's without getting into some of the trucks and so on.

So in discussing noise, I know that there were discussions which you get into decibels and LDNs and that type of thing attempting to explain the conclusions reached by the noise analysis, which as you mentioned was in your packet. I think there's information on the Internet or otherwise which paints a picture for noisy data centers and other kinds of things which probably made some of the information that Sarah and others provided hard for some people to believe. I do believe that the noise analysis is accurate. I know that those kinds of that type of thing was also discussed at the line sighting committee and the corporation commission. So the essence of the noise study was discussed with neighbors who some may have believed it, some may have disagreed with the accuracy of it.

Same way would be true with respect to emissions and other environmental aspects, water and so on. The information was provided talking about best practices kind of technology, talking about review by the county's air quality department and oversight by ADEQ and if need be by EPA that keeps an eye on everything as well and has ongoing reporting and monitoring requirements as well. Sir, I think all of that was explained. Whether people chose to believe it or not, I'm not the judge of because I've read many of those same comments, many of those same online articles and perspectives, a lot of which I think arise from what I would call old technology facilities, which are very different than power generation that's provided with the technology that we're providing here and the fuel source that we're providing here and the data center facility and the cooling mechanisms that are used is modern water sensitive emissions sensitive environmental sensitive technology. Why don't I leave out?

You're going to need to introduce yourself and speak and what your involvement is.

Good morning, Sarah Justice. I'm with KP Environmental and among my responsibilities was coordinating public outreach. So everything that Ed said is accurate. I would add that for our public meetings, the same charts, the same maps, everything that you have in your packet were on big boards at the open house, so this information has been publicly available for many, many months. And we also brought our noise consultant and our air permitting consultant to the open houses directly. I completely understand what you're saying. It's a lot to take in, very technical information. So we brought the experts to the open house to be able to answer detailed questions and help explain these to people as they came in.

Thank you. My main concern was that the public had been provided the information during those meetings. Another question I had is we were as I was reading this, I saw a reference here to I understand the water usage is low and definitely in reading through the packet, saw the you guys are using new technologies, which is great. From what I could tell, the water consumption would actually be lower not only than the original use, but even if it was to be developed as a residential neighborhood, which it can't because it's in the Luke Air Force Base corridor. It's actually using less water than that.

But we all I also saw in here that you were using recycled water for construction and there was a requirement to I don't know if it was a requirement. I just wanted to understand, are you guys going to be using recycled water on a go forward basis once the plant's operational or a portion of recycled water?

Chair commissioner, I believe the comment that you're referring to in staff's report and that's been talked about some is the possibility of using recycled water from the brewery that's within Wolf Logistics. And yes, there have been and continue to be ongoing discussions between Taconic representatives and the brewery about the possibility of using that water. That because of confidentiality clauses on a possible pending agreement, I don't know that there's much additional I can say or should say other than I don't think there's anything confidential about the fact that in order to do that, the parties not only need to reach an agreement, but they need to go through additional regulatory review having to do with reusing water. And that's all fine, and we can go through those processes if the agreement is struck. But we don't have to have that reused water to operate and to stay way below what other industrial uses would consume or farming would consume or housing, if allowed, would consume.

But it seems like another good idea if we can make a good use of reusing discharge water from a brewery. It's something it's kinda one of those why not pursue that and see if we can make something good happen? I cannot today tell you that deal was struck.

Mr. Bull, the commission does thank you for the 700 pages. It was lovely reading. Could you just clarify because within these 700 pages, there as Mihai said, there was a lot. But you have brought up legacy versus the system that you would be putting in. Can you speak to square acre water consumption legacy system versus what is going in?

Quantity of

Yeah. Just simple yearly acre square

feet. Yep. And I'm gonna let Sarah give you the specifics on that. But when I refer to Legacy, in fact, I can tell you within the last year or so in a completely different part of the valley, in the in the Southeast Valley, I was asked to assist with expanding and updating a facility that used old style chillers Mhmm. And the massive amounts of water noise and other things that go along with that.

As a part of that process to obtain approval of the expansion and so on, that client agreed to convert that facility to something similar to what we're talking about here, which is a closed loop system. And that was a vast difference in annual water consumption but

I'm going to

let Sarah, if I may, Chair, address how vast that expected to be in the context of this facility.

Thank you for the question. When you look at the property, there are primarily two significant uses of water. There's water used for the data center and there's water used for the power generation and yes, a little bit of potable water for bathrooms, sinks, things like that. When you look at each separately for the data center, you may have seen in the slides there was a percentage there that using this system that is proposed, a closed loop water system uses about 1% of the amount of water of, you could say traditional, it may make sense in other locations today, so maybe it's not old versus new, but two types of cooling systems. You could use evaporative cooling, which uses water, or you could use this closed loop system, which doesn't continue to draw water over and over.

But as Ed mentioned, similar to a radiator, it gets filled once and then circulates the same water over and over. So that's what is proposed to be used at Project Pacara is a closed loop system. Compared to water or evaporative chilling uses about 1% of the amount of water. So when you hear in the media and other places talking about data centers using huge consumptive amounts of water, that is for a water evaporative water based cooling system as compared to this closed loop.

Okay, but once again, how much water does the legacy system use yearly acre square feet versus what we're looking at with this new facility?

Yes. So when we parse out the two pieces, let me say the campus as a whole, including power generation and data center is expected to use about 144 acre feet per year. That is the total. When you separate those out, it's roughly half and half data center versus power generation. And for each of those, they use water use more water on the very hottest days of the year.

And generally, other than those ten to twelve hottest days of the year are able to use just air cooled. So that 144 isn't necessarily using, you know, one three hundred and sixty fifth every time. That's the amount of water needed on those peak hot days to make sure that all the systems can still operate efficiently and as they're supposed to. So that is the total quantity for the entire campus, roughly fiftyfifty between the data center and the power plant. So if you look at the data center as being about half of that, look at about 70 acre feet per year, that would be the 1% compared to a water or evaporative cool system.

Okay. So in the system that mister Bull was involved in in the the East Valley, is that what you said, Bull? Did the the chain

Yes, ma'am.

Change? What was the yearly acre square feet usage of that system before they changed over? Do we know that?

I can try to find it respond to you in a few minutes.

Okay. That would be good. My next question would be, I understand from the vast amount of information you gave us, EPCOR is going to be supplying your water. Now EPCOR can't put in more groundwater wells. There's a moratorium on that. So do they have I mean, I understand you have an agreement with them, but do they have the ability to supply you with the water you need?

Yes. I'm gonna need to perhaps defer to others for some detailed response. Okay. But the reason that EPCOR this this goes back probably twenty years with a MOU between EPCOR's predecessor and a city having to do with primarily sewer and creating a sewer treatment plant that the city and the area didn't have and probably didn't have the money to build. So in any event, in order for the city to not interfere with the construction of that wastewater treatment plant and so on, it was agreed that what's now Epcora's predecessor would be the service provider.

There's been ongoing and continue to be ongoing work between the ACARA team and EPCOR on this type of water and converting these ag rights and possibly ag to urban and other kinds of things like that so that the water that's needed for this facility is available and is much, much less as was discussed than what would be required under almost any other use on this 160 acres.

Okay. So EPCOR may not have the capacity, but they're talking about credits or whatever? Yes.

Commissioner Okay. Rothwell.

I must have missed this in the 700 page document that you provided us, thank you.

We should have added another page or two,

I guess.

But staff caught it in their presentation, and I held my question for the applicant. It was noted that you are in the process or intend to, or your client does, annex into the city of Glendale. Why are you not seeking entitlement in Glendale? Why did you not annex and then seek entitlement in Glendale?

Madam Chair, the commissioner was listening in on questions back about ten years ago when we were working on the industrial park to the West and to the Southwest. Same questions then and good questions then, good questions now. The military compatibility permit process is available only in the county. MCP is not a process in the city of Glendale or, to my knowledge, any other city. So we go through the process with Luke Air Force Base then the county through the MCP, which, as you know, could or either can or does either has or doesn't have a POD attached to it.

The process that was agreed upon years ago for Wolfe Logistics and then Reams Ranch, Wolfe to the West, Reams to the Southwest and here, and is reflected in a preannexation development agreement that's a couple decades old and one that we used again, Berems Ranch and are using now on this. We come through the county for the military compatibility permit process. Then we go to Glendale and if they choose to annex, we then go through site plan review and permits in the city Of Glendale. I can elaborate more on that if you want, but it's mostly so that we can provide you all with 600 or 700 pages of stuff to read.

Just a quick follow-up question on that. Are you in communication with City of Glendale staff and electeds as to what you're doing here, recognizing MCP is is only available in the county. Have you started conversations with Glendale so that they know that you are looking to entitle this in the county and then come into Glendale?

Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ball. We'll let you One more question. Yes, Commissioner Thelma. Yeah.

Thank you for putting the Luke letter up, something we reviewed. But could you just go into a little bit more detail as to the work you guys did to obtain approval from Luke for this project, given its proximity to the base and the use? Right. Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioner. As you know,

we're about a mile north of Luke in the noise noisiest contour that exists around Luke and not in either a p z in any of the APCs at either end of the runway, which is a good place to start. But Luke understandably had a variety of questions and concerns that needed to be addressed. Various reports were provided to Luke, including air quality, emissions, lights, no ponds that would attract any kind of bird life or other activities like that. And then there were ongoing discussions between various experts on the team, military experts, third party consultants, and others. We, again, can get into more detail if you want, but it was a several month long back and forth process before the brigadier general was comfortable finalizing and signing the letter.

Thank you. That's helpful.

Okay, thank you. We'll give you

an opportunity to respond after we hear public comment.

Thank you.

First speaker is Roy Dunbar. Again, you'll have two

minutes. Madam chair? Yes. This is commissioner Limbaugh. Could I ask mister Bull a question?

Certainly.

Thank thank you. And and also to answer commissioner late, Layton's questions around water usage. Some of the older loops just the open loop systems are at three, four million gallons a day, which is, like, 10 acre feet versus this one that's a 114 acre feet for the whole year. It's it's substantially different, and you just don't see many open loop systems anymore for that reason. Almost all data centers are switching to this.

So that was not my question, but I just thought I'd throw that in there. So my question's around power. My my principles around land use, and that's what we're here about today, are I like to be very supportive of property rights. And as part of that, it's how does the property right infringe, the the proposed use infringe upon those around the the the property as well. Correct?

It's it's both ways. I want everyone to enjoy and finding the right balance. What my question revolves around and why I think it is a land use question is there's proposed, gas turbines. I'm I'm, making the assumption that APS substation will be a private substation for, this client, meaning not available to those that are the surrounding neighbors. So what what, I guess my question is around how much will be self generated of the of the use of the 700 megawatts, which is not a small number.

The the max peak for all of APS territory was on around 8,500 in August. You know? And so you're talking about just under 10% of the of the total of all APS territory would go. It's that kind of power consumption in one spot. And currently, you know, throughout the valley, we currently work with, property owners that are not able to get powers around, some of these large power user sites.

And so my question is, what thought has been put into that? Like, you're seeking a tremendous amount of power. It looks like there's a self generation solution here. Is it all self generated? You are tying into the grid. What I I would just like to understand how potentially this site could impact the neighboring sites on, what is becoming, a a harder thing to come by for, for landowners, and that's power for what they want to do on their properties.

Madam chair, commissioner, as you may have picked up on a few minutes ago, I was talking about there being about an eighteen month gap between when the generation facility and data centers will be online as compared to when the APS substation is expected to come online. During that eighteen months is the only time that this I'll call it Genco, this power facility, will be available only to the data center once the APS substation is in place, and then we're then connected to the grid, as we need to connect to the grid as you know through APS, then power can come out of the grid to operate the data centers and conversely it goes into the grid. And one of the things that we recognized in doing the planning for the Genco and the 18 turbines of which up to 16 can operate for limited times and so on and so forth, is making the Genco available as a peaking facility that can add power back into the grid And where that power goes to once it's in the grid could be the homes or other businesses and so on and so forth that is served by the grid.

So it is, yes, self generated power in order to proactively address concerns that we've heard from other places in the country and in Arizona about data centers being a drain on the grid. Has been a goal from the get go for Tekonic and the Bukara development to be out in front of that and proactively address the need for power and make the availability of that power available to others above and beyond the data centers. I could also talk some if you wanted about some testimony by a representative of ED seven, which is, you know, in I I can go into that some if want.

No. I I think you I think you've, yeah, I think you've hit my concern. That's a that's a a differentiator for many who are just pulling power to an area and not coming coming up with a solution that actually allows power at peak loads and times when you're not using it, this client's not using it, to be able to, be able to be an asset to the grid. Most I've seen, it's whether we're using it or not, it's our private substation. We've been allocated it, and it's not coming back.

And this this appears to be a much more good partner solution for for the community. And I and I I certainly know that there's so much misinformation out there around data centers and them causing my rates to go up, and it's under the new subscription models and and the ways the utilities are approaching. I know that not to be true. I know that data centers are paying the infrastructure costs a 100 percent. It's not causing the rates to go up. I think it's a perfect land use for all the other reasons that have been identified today, and and so you answer my question. Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Tomer. One last question which just popped in my mind. You know, when you're reading the 600 plus pages, you you tend to center on a a gravitate towards a few things, and this one just occurred to me. I've I I see the the benefits you guys putting power back into the grid as an Arizona Phoenix resident, you know, should say Peoria, technically, my power rates keep increasing like everybody else's. So it's good to see more power available.

But I hadn't hadn't thought about the natural gas use because I also have natural gas. That cost has been going up consistently. So, you know, the water usage is efficient from what we've seen, but how does how does the plant utilize natural gas? Is it using a lot to produce the power? Is efficient? I just I didn't pay attention to that portion of the packet.

Madam Chair, I didn't see that page in the packet either, so I need some help on I know that natural gas comes to the site through underground pipeline. I know natural gas is not stored on the site. To the best of my knowledge, there is on this and other power plants that we've worked on there's been forward thinking of planning for natural gas use in the valley, in the Greater Valley and so on. But if your question is, are we going to cause a shortage of natural gas elsewhere? Is that kind of what I'm reading

into Was your shortage just are you going to be consuming so much that people's natural gas rates will change as a function of the plant being operational?

Thank you for the question. To our knowledge, no, there should not be a rate impact. There is definitely sufficient natural gas for the site and the purpose of it is for operating the turbines, they burn the natural gas for operations. As you may have seen in there, there is a potential for a backup fuel to use propane as a backup fuel. So that really is because of the importance of consistency and availability of these systems.

It's a positive to have another fuel available should there be a shortage, should there be a pipeline problem that is makes natural gas not available? There is a secondary fuel available to supply power in this area, so there should be no impact negatively to pricing or availability of natural gas. Plus you have this backup that is available. Should there be some sort of outside out of the plant or the communities control issue with natural gas. And if I could, I just want to add something to the previous question.

The substation, it will be built and owned by APS. So it's going to be an APS substation. APS's transmission system will come in and out of there. So it is not a private substation. It will be part of APS's network and should there be other things in the future that would need to interconnect that substation that's fully in APS's control.

Thank you. That actually helps me even know what you're saying is even more valid. Appreciate it.

Okay. We're ready for public comment now. Mister Roy Dunbar followed by Lisa Everett.

Good morning, commissioner and commissioners. Before I begin, I only have this much. So pardon? I I just wanna say we worked hard to keep our comments germane and concise.

Flexible, sir. Go right ahead. Okay.

My name is Roy Dunbar. I live in Surprise, one mile from Project Pacara. And I'm speaking as a member of the Project Pacara opposition coalition. We have over 2,100 members in the group, and we have so far gained 6,400 opposition signatures of Surprise residents. Luke Air Force Base in their letter of March 13 to mister Daniel Johnson of the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department stated that project Pecora was not compliant with ARS twenty eight eight six four one, which precludes utilities from being placed within the potential accident impact zone of Luke Air Force Base.

Project Baccaro sits squarely within that zone. In their letter, Luke required five conditions to be met. One of those conditions were that there'd be no natural gas storage on-site because, and I quote, no natural gas will be stored on the project Beccarra site, a critical measure to mitigate terrorist threats and ensure public safety in accordance with ARS 49 dash 15 o two, unquote. Project Pecora plans to store 2,500,000 gallons of propane on-site, which is even more volatile and explosive than natural gas. How this could get overlooked by Air Luke Air Force Base, we do not know, but I sent a letter to the commanding general last week.

This cannot be ignored. Therefore, we hold that project Bikar is still in violation of a r s eighty four sixty one, and we intend to file a complaint with the state's attorney general's office in the next few days on just this issue. We suggest it would be better for this body to postpone this vote until this issue can be dealt with more completely. Also, it appears to us that the project Picard is not compliant with federal news source performance standards 40 CFR part 60, which has been incorporated into the Maricopa County Air Quality Control District, and states, new, reconstructed, modified sources are required to control emissions to the level achieved by the best demonstrated technology. Project Pecora proposes to use Siemens simple cycle natural gas turbines.

And according to industry experts, these are not considered compatible for sites near residential areas. The best natural gas turbine technology is h class or otherwise referred to as CCG turbine generators. They are quieter, run at 64% efficiency, and can use up to 50% less fuel than simple cycle turbines. H class turbines are typically used when located near residential areas. Ask the Konic about this.

Why weren't they using the best technology, especially since the project is one half mile from hundreds of surprise homes? We questioned Takanok's ludicrous claim that there will be no discernible increase in noise from the project site, no louder than with the refrigerator in my kitchen. Our research shows the noise from the large data centers alone can be heard up to two miles distant, reaching approximately 1,500 surprise homes. The noise issue needs to be reevaluated by the county before a vote is taken, we respectfully suggest. The government wants a site because it is more cost effective for them to be located to existing infrastructure.

But what that really means is that nearby neighborhoods will bear the burden of their cost savings by reduced property values, increased risk increased public risk increased public risk to public health, and the stink and noise and pollution that will that will be produced by project Pacara. We respectfully urge you to vote no or at least allow us an opportunity to present our case in professional and objective manner with details that you need to hear. The future and well-being and safety of our neighborhoods is literally in your hands at this moment. We ask you to consider our comments and vote no or at least postpone this until we've had a chance to submit our case. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Dunroy. Lisa Everett followed by Hillary Weber.

Good morning. My name is Lisa Everett and I live in Surprise. I wanted to start with quoting with quoting Kate Brophy Magee, chairman of the chairwoman of the board of supervisors. Just because it's on the Internet does not make it true. I loved that.

I strongly support this project because it is going to give power back to the grid. And I do live in Northern Surprise and our area is growing by leaps and bounds as you guys know. And I remember hearing last year SRP saying something to the effect of we cannot guarantee there will not be brownouts. I never want that to happen in my part of town. I enjoy having my home at 72 degrees.

So I feel like this is very beneficial for the community. When I first heard of the project, of course, I've gone to all of the informational meetings. I followed it through the corporation commission, etcetera. I realized that these folks are answering questions. They are giving me all of the answers I'm asking for, and they're they're trying to connect to the community.

They are not just coming in here bulldozing their way through. They're taking their time and they're helping the citizens understand the process. This land has been zoned industrial for a very long time. When I first heard about the project, I decided to go by and look at a data center and I did. I noticed cows grazing across the street.

They didn't seem to be bothered. And I also went to the Aquaphoria power generation off of Northern just to see what's going on there. And there's actually a new housing division going right next door to it. So I guess what I wanna say is the fears are probably not real and change is difficult. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, miss Everett. Hillary Weber followed by Melissa Parsons.

Hello. My name is Hillary Weber. I'm a homeowner in Surprise. Do you still need my address?

That's good enough.

Okay. I'm also a student and research assistant at ASU. I too do not believe all information I get from the Internet. I trust peer reviewed sources and accurate and up to date data. So I just wanted to give you that much of my background before I started.

As I was pouring through the 800 pages of data, because it's public, and I also spent months and months pouring through this data, fact checking, analyzing. I know that you all probably don't have the time to do that, which is why they gave you a packet of 800 pages, notably. But some things that were just just quick things that I noticed that were blaring red flags to me was the lack of current environmental measurements. While recently looking through the hydrogeological study that was submitted in October 2025, I noticed that while there are only four sources listed as recent as 2020, which would be considered recent in a an academic setting, The other eight sources range from the years 1935 to 2007. And I just want to remind the commission that it is 2026, so that is very outdated information.

Much of the modeling was based on these outdated measurements. The stated purpose of that study was to demonstrate that the proposed water supply is sufficient to meet the water demands for project Pacara. None of these outdated environmental measurements take into account the recent rapid infrastructure development oh, sorry, industrial and residential development in that area. If you notice from their maps, it's very tight. It's very zoomed in. If you were to just zoom out just a little, you would see the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of residential homes in that area. We have schools. We have playgrounds. We have parks. We have children.

Another thing I noticed is there is a lack of cumulative sorry, cumulative data. I'm so nervous. I apologize. Cumulative data. So all of the public environmental compatibility studies submitted does not take into account the other 167 data centers that are currently operating or being built in Maricopa County.

It also doesn't take into consideration the most recent industrial builds in that area as well. So they are just showing you a small slice of what is actually a rich economic and ecologically beautiful area. Our county is beautiful. The Sonoran Desert is beautiful, and it has other sources than just economic value. But if we're talking about economic value, our ecologic sorry.

Our ecology is so unstable right now because of the increasing heat waves year after year. We are breaking records for heat every single year. One of the recent studies that have came out of and this is a peer reviewed study from this year is that these data centers create heat islands up to 14 degrees Fahrenheit. So it's gonna be increasing the heat around its area. And take

a moment and wrap up your comments.

Yeah. I apologize. Thank you. Okay. I just wanted to point out that even if it's a closed loop system, it's still going to be polluting our neighborhoods. A 700 megawatt power plant, 2,000 feet away from a residential area is, of course, going to absolutely have negative impacts. And these impacts are health, right, health costs. They are the extra impacts we'll have to pay to cool our homes, to filter our air because our environment cannot keep up with the amount of carbon emissions this facility will place in our immediate vicinity. This facility isn't in a vacuum either. I'm so sorry. May I

a question? Yes, please. This is zoned industrial three. What would you like to see there?

I would even love, like like, honestly, not industrial. Light industrial would be preferred. But the thing too that they keep bringing up is this was zoned that way in twenty over twenty five years ago. Mhmm. And, again, because this is county unincorporated land, surprise didn't have a say in this matter even though it's very close to our border. And, again, because it was zoned twenty five years ago, it doesn't reflect the current residential zones that have rapidly developed in that area. And I think if you were to zone it today, considering the entire county makeup, you wouldn't zone it as high industrial either.

And yet it sits at the end of Luke Air Force bases. Yes. Airstrip. So there's only so much that can be done in

this area. Absolutely. But like they said, not even homes could be built there, but we're saying that 18 stacks of the worst polluting energy source there is available is okay, and that's better. Like, with all due respect, I didn't exactly know what 18 stacks looks like in a power plant. I've only seen some that have, like, four or five, but I would just like the commission to picture in their minds eighteen seventy two foot, like, polluting stacks and what that actually looks like and means.

And as for updating our power grid, I'm sorry to go on so long. I just feel like I've read through all these pages, and I deserve to give a little bit of comment because, like I said, I'm a homeowner. These people get to go hundreds and hundreds of miles away back to their own clean air and their clean environment. So I really appreciate the extra time you're giving me.

You're welcome, miss Weber. Thank you for coming by.

Yes. Thank you. And just so

you understand, legally, we cannot take away property owners' existing zoning.

I understand that, and I would also just call into question, like, maybe how fair that law is. I actually have gone for another day with No. Totally. Can I just say one more thing? I'm so sorry. One quick thing. I have gone to all their meetings. I've actually talked to miss Justice at one of the meetings, and I said, why are you doing this to us? And she said, you should be asking your county that. It's not our fault that this is zoned as

a high industrial. Thank you. Melissa Parsons is next followed by Holly Talamchuk, which I promptly got all wrong.

I actually have a statement to read, but before I do that, I do wanna address Takanic, Becara, project managers, everybody. I totally I'm relocating for retirement too. Surprise. I've owned a house there for five years. But I'm relocating out of the Northern Virginia Data Center corridor, I'll just say.

I live right off the I 66. I totally respect what the company is trying to do by providing their own power because it is a huge power drain, and there weren't a lot of regulations in place in other states kind of doing that. So I do respect that. I just don't won't say I don't respect it. I wish they could find a better suited area not next to our homes because this is gonna probably impact our home values.

But my statement today really is, sorry, I forgot to introduce myself. Good morning. It's still morning because we've been here a while. My name is Melissa Parsons. I am a retired Air Force officer and have continued to work for the Air Force since my retirement with my most recent position with the Air Force Agency for Modeling and Simulation as a program manager overseeing student pilot simulator training at three bases.

Today, I'm here asking you not to take action on this case because the current permit request before you clearly shows this application is not ready for approval for three very specific reasons. And I'm not even gonna address that it was with POD and now that's been removed. First is the zoning. As of last night and in our paperwork today, it shows that the zoning map on the two zone parcels for this application, specifically Parcel 5014328 A that carries the project address of the 14472 West Holland Avenue is not zoned as industrial at all. It is still zoned for rural residential use.

The fact that fact alone indicates that this meeting might be premature. Although the adjacent parcel is zoned for heavy industrial use, the MCP boundary includes both parcels. And as of yesterday, there is no indication that a rezoning application for that parcel has been filed. The MCP that we're here today talking about does not change the underlying zoning, and the application lists the combined site as Industrial 3. So my question for consideration is can the commission take any action on this MCP at this time when the county's own zoning map shows the address parcel is RU43 and that no zoning has been refiled and it is a combined project.

The second item in question is the UCCD. The UCCD associated with this case is 24041 on your website, and it evaluated a data center with backup turbines as a pre application and was tentatively approved pending additional information based on a letter in 2024. The project before you today in your 600 odd pages was reviewed by Air Quality on Monday as a seven forty four megawatt power generation facility with multiple turbines and continuous operation. These are clearly not the same project. The UCCD on record applies to a different project scope, and there doesn't appear to be an updated compatibility determination for this recently revised proposal.

The third is the Air Force input. Subsequent correspondence from Luke Air Force Base identifies this project as a utility scale generation facility and states it is not compatible unless specific conditions are met. To my knowledge, those conditions have not been met or demonstrated through a finalized site plan because the POD has been removed from this MCP. Therefore, claiming that Luke Air Force Base has approved this is a misrepresentation of the intent of the general's letter. Taken together, this comes down to one question, has compatibility really been established for this project as it exists today?

The record shows three unresolved issues, a UCCD that does not match the current project, an address parcel zone RU 43 with no rezoning, and no demonstrated compatibility for the project as proposed today. For these reasons, I respectfully request that you deny or continue this case until all of these issues are resolved. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Parsons. Holly Almachoff. Good

morning, commissioners. My name is Holly Tommachoff, and my family lives in that house closest to the proposed Baccaro site. We are a young family with four children, and like many in this community, we chose this area intentionally for its real character, open space, and ability to build a life and a business from our home. We want to address something deeper than the compatibility or the buffering. I want to address consistency and fairness under the law.

Arizona revised statute two eight dash eight four six one is clear. It places restrictions on development within military airport flight paths and identifies certain uses, including utilities, as generally not permissible due to safety and compatibility concerns. Our neighborhood was directly impacted by this. Homes were built here within the with county approval until the state stepped in and sued the county for violating that very statute. As a result, development was halted, and today, there are at least 12 lots where families who purchase land in good faith are no longer allowed to build their homes.

So I have to ask, why are individual homeowners being restricted under the statute while a large scale continuous operation industrial facility with significantly greater intensity and risk is being considered for approval in the exact same flight path. How is that consistent application of the law, and how is that fair to the residents who have already been limited by it? This is not just a planning question, but it's a legal one. From where we stand, this creates a clear contradiction. The county previously allowed development, was challenged, and then restricted residents moving forward.

Now it is considering allowing a much more intensive use in the same constrained area. That raises serious concerns about equal treatment and exposes the county to potential legal challenge from the very community it's supposed to protect. Beyond that, the project is not being proposed in a vacuum. It's placed directly next to existing homes within a military flight path and in a location where long term compatibility is already in question. Once approved, this project will change hands.

They are not the final owner. Commitments made today may not carry forward, but the impact on the residents will. We're not asking you to stop growth. We're asking you to apply the law consistently and to fully consider whether this project belongs in this location. Once this decision is made, it cannot be undone, and the burden will fall on the families who already live there.

I respectfully ask that you take a hard look at both the legal implications and the long term compatibility of this project before moving forward. And then just one little side note, I also read through the 600 plus pages. It's a little bit more on our end over time between running a business and taking care of my family. And with that, a lot of the information that was presented even in today's meeting contradicts meeting that we were provide or information provided in that packet. Previous meetings and then all the public meetings did not have the same information presented at them. So the information is changing. And as a local resident concerned about the project, it's very hard to keep up with what's happening. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you

for coming down. Sipin Alizada.

Madam chair, members of the commission, my name is Supand Alizada. I work for the Arizona Technology Council at 2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1530 in Phoenix, here to speak in support of the military compatibility permit for project Makara. Yesterday, I was here for a board of supervisors meeting. And during the invocation before the meeting started, the individual who gave the invocation asked that we all pray for prosperity for Maricopa County residents, businesses, and the county in general. In 2026, Project Pacara is what prosperity looks like, The West Valley's transformation into a technology hub, a nationally regarded technology hub, has been nothing short of miraculous.

There are businesses from all over the country seeking to set up shop here in the West Valley specifically because of our data centers and the land that is leading to data centers. Tekanek has been a great developer to work with. They have engaged the community. They have answered community questions. They have been there.

They know what it takes to create an amazing project for the West Valley. More important than that, though, is the economic development benefits that project Beccarra will lead to for the region. You know, I'm not going to quote the applied economic study, but we saw billions of dollars. We saw hundreds of jobs, and these jobs are attainable jobs for individuals who do not wanna get four year degrees. These are jobs for individuals who go to community colleges.

As you know, Maricopa Community Colleges is the premier community college system in The United States, And two members of the the MCC, Glendale Community College as well as Estrella Mountain, offer data center academies. People want to work in this field because they know that they can make good money and support their families and have benefits such as health insurance, dental, and four zero one k's without investing too much in their educations. So with that, I'm just very, very grateful to Tucanic, grateful to you, grateful to staff who has done an amazing job throughout this whole process. Let's support Project Let's educate people in the West Valley. Let's employ them at Project Pacara.

Thank you.

Thank thank you for coming again.

We'll move to folks who are in the virtual meeting.

Mayor, I

have we have one person that preregistered, Beth Mortensen. I I have Beth available. She didn't respond to my chat, but if she can unmute herself, she's available to speak.

I am here. Thank you so much. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Beth Mortensen, and I am one of the residents that lives half a mile from this project site. I want to speak today to the long term impact this decision will have on residents like myself.

This project is being proposed on a relatively small isolated parcel zoned for heavy industrial use, but it is surrounded by residential areas and located within the flight path as so many have already talked about. This raises concerns about whether this is an appropriate use for this location given its scale and intensity. Arizona law requires that development near the military base be compatible with the operations and that decision makers carefully consider the input from Luke Luke Air Force Base before approving a project. My concern is that compatibility is being presented based on projections and commitments made today rather than how this project will actually operate over time. Compliance on paper is not the same as compatibility in reality, especially over a lifetime of a project like this.

This is a developer led project. Once approval is granted, it can be sold. That means the commitments being made today may not be carried forward in the same way, while the impacts on nearby residents like myself will remain permanent. The the developer may leave, but residents do not. I am concerned about the broader planning process, especially with the possibility of the annexation into Glendale.

That creates uncertainty about how accountable accountability will be maintained and how residents currently in unincorporated Maricopa County will be represented over time. If we do not hold this project to a high standard from the beginning, there is a real risk that that residents will be left dealing with consequences later. We have seen situations where industrial facilities currently around us operate out of compliance, pay fines, and continue operating without meaningful change. This decision will directly affect my life, my daily life, my health, and my home for years to come. I respectfully ask that you consider not just whether this project can meet requirements on paper, but whether it should be approved in this location given its proximity to homes, its placement within the flight path, and long term impacts on the community.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Do we have any other speakers? Nobody else online. Great. That ends public comment. Would the applicant like to respond?

Thank you, chair.

There were references by at least one speaker to ARS forty nine fifteen o one, and that has to do with storage of fuels. As we've discussed before and as I believe that speakers well aware, natural gas is not being stored on this site. Natural gas storage is what is prohibited by that statute. The reference to ARS forty nine fifteen o one forgot to mention that propane is expressly excluded from that statute. I can bring up a slide if you want that shows how we store propane, but among other things, it's in steel limited quantity steel tanks under a six inch concrete reinforced cap.

It it is not prohibited by the statute that was referenced. I agree we agree that compatibility needs to be carefully considered, and it was and continues to be. The discussions with Luke were ongoing and detailed. The Luke top brass ultimately determined, and I'm sure it was input from a variety of others with the Air Force as well, that this use with these conditions and requirements which are included in staff's conditions that we agree with is compatible. There's a couple other things that you may want me to mention, may not, is that the statute expressly provides that if the military facility and the political subdivision, which is Maricopa County, agree that a use, a particular use on a particular site is compatible and consistent with the overall statute, then it's presumed to be compatible.

That's exactly what staff's report says. Luke made that determination. Staff, following Luke's determination, made the same determination. There's another interesting little factoid that I find interesting, and that when you look at the table that's under the statute that says utilities for reasons I don't understand and we chose not to debate whether or not this is a utility when we're wholesaling power. But be that as it may, while utilities are prohibited in the noisiest noise contour that we're in, unless it's determined compatible.

There is other utilities in the same table which are permitted in the noisiest contour. But what is really ironic as well, as you go on out through the noise contours, into the noise contours that some of the residents that Spok live in, utilities are expressly permitted in that same table. I cannot explain that. All I know is seemingly this facility, without this debate about utilities, could be provided north of where we're at, further away from the base. However, the base is determined and the county staff has determined it's compatible in this location and I believe in the context of all land use discussions I've ever been involved in in my career, it is a far more compatible, quieter, cleaner, less truck traffic generating on and on and on kind of facility than any number of other facilities that can be allowed on land that 's been zoned industrial three IUPD for decades.

When we talk about the water use in Chandler on the facility that I mentioned earlier, they had to go look up a number as to what it was consuming. So per that staff report, not in the county, in the municipal jurisdiction, that facility on record was consuming over 14,000,000 gallons per year of water in a, I'll call it a traditional cooling tower kind of environment. It's that changeover to a similar loop system that we're talking about here that needed to be made and that client agreed to make and will make. One of the speakers mentioned that part of this site is zoned Rural 43. In your staff report, I think at page nine, you have an exhibit that looks like this where gray is industrial three, IUPD.

That gray takes up the entire development envelope for what Project Pacaro is proposing to develop. The yellow, which is Rural 43, clear along the eastern edge and then north of us, is not within the development envelope. It's actually where there's a railroad track and power lines that wrap around the south and east sides of the site today. The yellow to the immediate north, I believe you have a very positive detailed letter and support from a fourth generation property owner explaining that they're supportive of this and they've known forever that this was going to be an industrial area. We've talked somewhere in the volume of papers and here this morning about the technology that's being used and its modern technology and so on.

Someone else indicated that they felt, for reasons that are beyond my technical knowledge that they wished we'd consider H class. Someone here who does understand exactly what that means has indicated that H class requires up to multiples of water consumption. It also runs, it's much less efficient and it cannot be cycled on and off like this kind of facility can when we're talking about power generation where at times it's expected that at times some of these turbines aren't running at all because the grid has the capabilities to power supply the data center. Was H class considered? Yes.

Did the Bacari team move past that for what we believe to be a better opportunity and a more efficient and more compatible class? Yes, we were. Were some changes made along the way through the public outreach process? Absolutely. Changes were made because ACARA team was listening to questions and comments and concerns and suggestions that were made.

Not that much different from if we were here zoning a single family development and we started out at 200 units and residents thought that was too many and we ended up at 150 or whatever it may be. Usually listening to neighbors and making changes in response to their comments is seen as a good thing. I think it's a good thing in this situation as well and we'd hope that that effort to listen and respond accordingly is not penalized here this morning. In addition to that and the positive economic impact comments were made, which we can go into in more detail if you want, I want to circle back to where we started. And I'm very pleased to say we're here with a determination from top brass at Luke that this proposed development in this location, the way it's designed, is compatible so long as it's operated in accordance with the conditions and requirements.

We've agreed to operate in accordance with those conditions and requirements. Staff is requiring we operate in accordance with those conditions and requirements. As I recall, another condition in the staff's report says if we don't operate in accordance with the conditions, that's a zoning violation, the county can take appropriate action, which I have every confidence they would do. Just like when we go through corporation commission reviews or air quality reviews, those continue to be monitored, and if there are violations, you're put on notice and you fix it or you get cited and you ultimately can be shut down. We've done everything we know how to do to come in and be a good neighbor on this 160 acres that could be used for all kinds of things that would generate all kinds of traffic and truck traffic and noise and dust and all kinds of other things.

That's not what we're doing. We appreciate staff's recommendation. We agree and accept conditions A through P. We request your recommendation in accordance with staff's report.

Thank you, Mr. Bolk. Commissioner Thoma.

Mr. Bolk, just two quick questions. Was Luke aware of the underground storage of the propane tanks? And then the second question is I see your colleagues shaking their head yes. And then the second question is a little bit more broad, but why this particular location as opposed to a different location?

The availability existing pipelines availability for natural gas, the fact that as maybe all, maybe some on the commission knows, there is a propane facility that's existed for years just immediately west of us on Olive in both tanks and lots of tanker cars that are there whether we're there or not. The fact that the site has industrial three IUPD zoning in place, the fact that we're in the noisiest noise contour around Luke but are not located within the APZs on either end of the runway, vacant land, agricultural based water rights, which per state statute can be converted for municipal and industrial use and so on, and the fact that we are located, if we think of this large area around Luke that in accordance with the Luke contours is identified for industrial and employment development consistent with Luke and those noise contours. We think of that of a donut in many respects as one of the earlier exhibit shows. We're the hole in the middle of that donut. We are where we're supposed to be.

If I missed anything in that list of ideas

So would I be correct in assuming that if this project was out in the boonies, it wouldn't work because you don't have access to propane, natural gas and water?

Yes. Any

other commissioners have any comments or questions? I'm sorry, sir. Public comment's closed. All right. Would someone like to make a

motion? Commissioner

Chair. I'm sorry, sir. Public comment is closed.

They're cherry picking facts.

This is commissioner Tom. I would like to approve to move that we approve MCP250007 as circulated. And with your leave, I'd like to explain my vote. So I would like to, first of all, thank everybody that showed up here in person. I know that takes time, and you guys have clearly been involved in this process a lot longer than we have.

I wanna let you know that I read through, and I know the rest of the commission has, every single opposition letter, and that your your guys' opinions and thoughts and concerns have been taken into consideration. If this wasn't in the Lou Contour area, I would vote no, but it is. There is no possibility of homes being constructed next to this site. Definitely heard all the and read all the concerns around noise. The best analogy I can could draw is this this site is gonna sound like about 18 loud lawnmowers, and I just don't believe that I believe the the noise study that was in the packet that half a mile away, you won't you won't be hearing the noise.

And then the air quality concern, definitely read that. And as I asked the question in the beginning of staff, that's I'm not an air quality expert. Nobody here is an air quality expert, and that's a separate process that's going through the county, and I'm sure that's something the city of Glendale will also look at. There are some benefits to the community here, to everyone in the community. You know, our power grid's already taxed, and this is going to help alleviate that.

Phoenix is gonna continue to grow not just through data centers, but through other things and other growth that this will benefit. And that's why I asked the question around natural gas consumption since that doesn't really affect the availability of natural gas. For all those reasons, I believe this is a good thing for the community, and we'll be voting yes.

Do I have a second?

I second. And I would also like to say that part of land use is highest and best use for the parcel. And I truly believe that where this lies, it is highest and best use for this

parcel. All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Thoma and a second by Commissioner Layton.

I wanted to note that Vice Chair Hernandez had to leave the meeting. Commissioner Finter? Yes. Commissioner Layton?

Yes.

Commissioner Lindblom?

Yes. I'd also just like to explain my vote, if that's okay. Sure. Yeah. When you think of best in, best use of property, I read recently an article about it was someone sharing a viewpoint that data centers are driving up the cost of housing and other things.

And one of the reasons was they were buying properties that could have been used for housing and other types of things that support, you know, our communities. This is a perfect example that would put, a data center in a place where that doesn't happen, and, housing can't be built there. We not only read all your letters, we visit your websites. We've visited your, website and your coalition, and I I do commend you for not being vitriolic in that and being respectful. And, I live within a mile of 1,100 megawatt gas turbine, SRP facility.

I've lived there for forty seven years, and, it's it's been a good neighbor to us. I it exists. I actually had to look up and even see if it was a gas plant, as we were on this call today, and it and it is. I wasn't sure what was generating it there. But I I, I appreciate everyone's input, and, there's more to be done to work through all of this with, with this, applicant, but, I'm a yes today. Thank you.

Chair Millhaven?

Yes.

Commissioner Rockwallak?

Madam Chair, can I explain?

Sure.

I am not a fan of of of data centers being in the center of urban environments, as some of my colleagues are aware with the city of Phoenix. I'm also not a fan of zoning through county when we have plans to annex in. However, I do understand the MCP designation is only in the county. I understand that the noise contour of Luke Air Force Base prevents any other use in this area. And for those reasons, I will be supportive of this data center. I am an eye.

Commissioner Thoma?

Yes.

Commissioner Whitney?

Yes.

Here, we have a motion recommending approval by a vote of seven to zero. Thank you very much, and

thank you, everyone, for coming down. The final approval will be by the Board of Supervisors. Mister Gerard, do we have any other business? Hearing that there's no additional business, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.