[ CONSENT AGENDA (Routine items that may all be approved by one motion.) ALL ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS NO. 8 AND 9.]

THESE ARE ROUTINE ITEMS THAT MAY BE APPROVED BY ONE MOTION,

[01:05:03]

AND RIGHT NOW I ONLY SEE ONE ITEM BEING PULLED, THAT'S ITEM NUMBER 8, AND THAT'S BEING DONE BY SUPERVISOR MICHAEL.

ARE THERE ANY OTHERS, MR. GREGORY?

>> NO, SIR.

>> NO, OKAY. WELL, THEN I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT ALL ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA EXCLUDING ITEM NUMBER 8.

>> CHAIRMAN BROWN, THERE WAS A REQUEST FROM THE FACILITIES DEPARTMENT TO TABLE ITEM 9.

>> I DIDN'T HAVE THAT ONE. SO ITEMS NUMBER 8 AND 9.

CONSENT AGENDA, ALL ITEMS, EXCEPT 8 AND 9.

[8. Development Services - Approve a five (5) year contract authorizing Pinal County to utilize the Yavapai County designed and stamped plans in the Home of My Own program. YC Contract No. 2024-517]

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPROVED FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT, AUTHORIZED PINAL COUNTY TO UTILIZE YAVAPAI COUNTY DESIGN AND STAMP PLANS IN THE HOME OF MY OWN PROGRAM. JEREMY, GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND VICE CHAIR MICHAELS AND BOARD MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS JEREMY DYE. I'M YOUR DIRECTOR FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JUST THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BRIEFLY ABOUT A HOME OF MY OWN PROGRAM.

OF COURSE, WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT IT IN RECENT WEEKS AND MONTHS, BUT THIS IS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY HERE FOR US TO MAKE THOSE HOME PLANS AVAILABLE TO RESIDENTS OF PINAL COUNTY AT THIS TIME.

AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE WITH THE BOARD'S SUPPORT, WE MADE AVAILABLE SIX HOME PLANS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD AND PERMITTING FOR RESIDENTS OF YAVAPAI COUNTY AS PART OF OUR SOLUTION OR AT LEAST ONE MORE TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX TO ADDRESS THE AFFORDABLE OR THE ATTAINABLE HOUSING PROBLEM IN YAVAPAI COUNTY AND THROUGHOUT ARIZONA.

WE'VE RECENTLY ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS WITH THE TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY ALSO AND THE TOWN OF CLARKDALE TO MAKE THOSE HOME PLANS AVAILABLE TO RESIDENTS OF THOSE JURISDICTIONS AS WELL.

WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THESE AVAILABLE TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE TO HELP COMBAT THAT ISSUE.

OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN AWARD WINNING PROGRAM FOR YAVAPAI COUNTY, SO WE'RE ALL VERY PROUD OF IT.

LAST YEAR, WE WON THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES SUMMIT AWARD FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

ALSO RECENTLY OVER THE SUMMER, WE WON THE AWARD FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING FOR THE RURAL PROJECT OF THE YEAR.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT ALL OF US HERE IN THE COUNTY CAN BE VERY PROUD OF, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

>> SUPERVISOR MICHAEL.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I DID PULL THIS ITEM, AND WE'D LIKE JUST TO POSE AN OPPORTUNITY TO YOU, MR. DYE, FOR THIS BECOMING AN INTENTIONAL PRESENTATION ACROSS ALL 50 DOWN 14 COUNTIES TO HAVE THEM CONSIDER PARTNERING WITH US WITH AN IGA, IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE TO UTILIZE THIS PROGRAM.

IT IS SO WONDERFUL AND I'D JUST LIKE TO SEE THE MULTIPLIER EFFECT.

WE ALL KNOW THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PREVENTING HOMELESSNESS, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE BEGINNING TO TALK ABOUT NOW HAS AT ITS ROOTS THE ABILITY TO HAVE SHELTER.

YOUR PLANS COUPLED WITH NOW WHAT LOOKS LIKE MIGHT BE EVEN SOME FEDERAL FUNDING TO PREVENT HOMELESSNESS, SEEMS TO ME WOULD BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY ACROSS OUR GREAT STATE OF ARIZONA.

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT PUTTING THE SHOW ON THE ROAD AS THEY SAY, BUT IT'S SO POWERFUL AND IT'S SO EFFECTIVE.

IF WE AS A COUNTY COULD BE INTENTIONAL ABOUT OFFERING THIS TO OUR FELLOW COUNTIES, I THINK IT WOULD BE A PHENOMENAL OF WIN FOR YOU, JEREMY, AND YOUR LEADERSHIP, BUT ALSO A GREAT WAY TO SHARE A TOOL.

WE NEED ALL OF THEM, BUT AN IMPORTANT TOOL IN OUR TOOLBOX TO HELP PEOPLE GET INTO HOMES AND STAY INTO HOMES.

THAT WAS REALLY THE REASON FOR ME PULLING THIS.

I LOVE TO HEAR ALL THAT YOU HAVE DONE AND THE MORE RECENT ONE WITH PINAL.

I'M JUST HOPEFUL THAT THE BOARD WOULD CONSIDER DIRECTION TO TAKE THIS OUT ON THE ROAD, IF YOU WILL, AND THAT MAORI WOULD HELP THAT BECOME A REALITY SHOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THAT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR MICHAELS.

DO YOU HAVE A MOTION TO MAKE?

>> I SO MOVE.

[01:10:02]

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND TO APPROVE. ALL IN FAVOR?

>> I.

>> ITEM NUMBER 9 WILL BE TABLED AND WILL BE HEARD IN ANOTHER DATE AND TIME.

[9. Facilities - Approve a five (5) year service Agreement with Pitney Bowes, Inc., the purchase of a MailCenter 2000 postage machine, and the rental of all associated components, utilizing State of Arizona Cooperative Contract #CTR058808, in the total amount of $29,690.59. YC Contract 2024-521 (All Districts)]

MOVING ON TO HEARINGS.

APPROVE A PERMANENT TRANSFER. JUST A SECOND.

VERY QUICKLY, I'M GOING TO JUMP OVER TO ITEM NUMBER 3.

[3. Development Services - Approve a Preliminary Plat for Phases 1-2, consisting of a total of 196 lots ranging in size from approximately 2 acres to 21 acres, with an overall average density of approximately one unit per 3.9 acres, on a total of 764.21 acres, subject to the conditions of approval. Project Name: Rancho Santa Ynez Ph. 1-2 Preliminary Plat; Owner(s)/Applicant: Western Land Ranches LLC; APN: 205-25-001H; PLA24-000031. Located on the west side of the intersection of South State Route 89 and South Kirkland Valley Road in the Kirkland Junction area. Staff: Matt Blake, AICP (District 1 - Supervisor Oberg) TABLED BY 3 TO 2 VOTE. SUPERVISOR MALLORY AND SUPERVISOR OBERG OPPOSED.]

ITEM NUMBER 3 IS BEING PRESENTED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

WHICH ONE OF YOU IS DOING THAT ONE? YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO A LOT BECAUSE I'M JUST GOING TO WANT YOU TO COME UP AND SAY WHAT THE PROJECT IS, AND THEN I'M GOING TO BASICALLY DO SOMETHING ELSE.

>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN BROWN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

MY NAME IS MATT BLAKE, YOUR PLANNING MANAGER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH PRESENTING THE RANCHO SANTA YNEZ PRELIMINARY PLOT SUBDIVISION APPLICATION, I WANTED TO CALL THE BOARD'S ATTENTION TO THE LETTER THAT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RECEIVED FROM THE APPLICANT, WESTERN LAND RANCHES DATED OCTOBER 18TH, WHEREIN THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD REMAND THE APPLICATION BACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BEFORE IT PROCEEDS TO THE BOARD.

>> GOOD. THANK YOU, MATT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE IT BACK TO P AND Z ANY SECOND.

>> EXCUSE ME, CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

>> THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, SO UNTIL YOU HAVE A SECOND, I DON'T HAVE TO RECOGNIZE YOU, MATTY.

>> YOU'RE CORRECT. YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO RECOGNIZE ME.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO PROVIDE SOME INPUT IN RELATION TO THE ITEM.

>> WELL, I NEED A SECOND BEFORE WE GO ANYWHERE ELSE.

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> I WILL SECOND IT.

>> MARTIN.

>> CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR HEARING TODAY AND THAT PEOPLE HAVE APPEARED IN ORDER TO BE HEARD IN RELATION TO THIS ITEM.

TYPICALLY, THAT COMMENT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO PROCEED BEFORE THE MATTER IS CONCLUDED OR THE BOARD TAKES ACTION IN RELATION TO THE ITEM. THANK YOU.

>> WELL, IN THIS CASE, WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS REFER THIS BACK OVER TO PLANNING AND ZONING WHO WAS OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT AND GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO REEXAMINE IT WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS.

THEREFORE, SENDING IT BACK TO THEM WOULD BE THE MOST REASONABLE IDEA THAN US TRYING TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES HERE IN THIS HEARING.

MOVING BACK TO P&Z IS THE PLAN, AND THAT'S WHAT THE MOTION IS ABOUT. ALL IN FAVOR?

>> THREE TO TWO. IT'LL GO BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING.

GOING TO ITEM NUMBER 1,

[1. Development Services - Approve a permanent and transferable Use Permit to allow for a waiver of Section 516; Density District 2A, to reduce the required 50-foot rear setback by 21-feet, resulting in a 29-foot rear setback, for an addition to the existing non-conforming single-family residence, on a 15.04-acre parcel zoned RCU-2A, subject to conditions of approval. Project Name: Lieberman Use Permit; Property Owner: Lieberman Family Trust & Lieberman Aaron Ol & Jamie W Trustees; Applicant/Agent: David Dick; PLA24-000084; 406-17-014C. Located in the Quail Springs Ranch area, south of Verde Villages, near Cottonwood. Staff: BJ Ratlief (District 3 - Supervisor Michaels)]

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPROVE A PERMANENT AND TRANSFERABLE USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A WAIVER OF SECTION 516, DENSITY DISTRICT 2A TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 50 FOOT REAR SETBACK BY 21 FEET, RESULTING IN A 29-FOOT REAR SETBACK FOR IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SIGNAL FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A 15.04 ACRE PARCEL ZONED RCU-2A.

SUB CONDITIONS APPROVAL, PROJECT NAME AS LIEBERMAN USE PERMIT PROPERTY OWNERS OF LIEBERMAN FAMILY TRUST AND LIEBERMAN AARON ALL AND JAMIE W TRUSTEES.

APPLICANT AGENT IS DAVID DICK, PLA 24-00008440617014C, LOCATED IN QUAIL SPRINGS RANCH AREA NEAR THE VERDE VILLAGES NEAR COTTONWOOD.

STAFF IS MS. RATLIFF AND THIS IS MS. MICHAEL'S DISTRICT. GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING. BJ RATLIFF, THE NEWEST PLANNER TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

[01:15:03]

I'M HERE THIS MORNING TO PRESENT THE LIBERMAN USE PERMIT.

LET'S GO THIS ONE. THERE WE GO.

THIS WAS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 3RD, AND WE HAD A UNANIMOUS DECISION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE USE PERMIT PLA 24-000084 FOR THE LIBERMAN FAMILY.

THIS IS LOCATED IN DISTRICT 3, SUPERVISOR MICHAEL'S AREA.

IT IS LOCATED OFF OF QUAIL SPRINGS RANCH ROAD, WHICH IS WEST OF COTTONWOOD AND OVER AND WEST OF THE VERDE VILLAGES.

IT IS SURROUNDED BY RCU-2A ON THREE SIDES, OTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSING AREAS, AND THEN THE US NATIONAL FOREST TO THE WEST.

THIS IS A DEVELOPED PARCEL.

THEY CAME IN AND THEY WERE WANTING TO DO AN EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING HOME.

>> JUST A SECOND.

>> SURE.

>> CAN YOU FOLKS SEE THAT WITH THAT REFLECTION FROM THE LIGHTING OVER THERE OR CAN WE TURN THE LIGHTING DOWN? THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> IT MAKES IT A LOT EASIER TO VISUALIZE.

>> YES. THIS IS A DEVELOPED PARCEL WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND THEN THEY HAVE A BARN AND A STORAGE UNIT ON IT ALSO.

THE REQUEST WAS WHAT CAME TO US ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO WHERE THE FAMILY WANTED TO DO SOME RENOVATIONS.

THE REASON WE'RE HERE TODAY, ABOUT AN 800 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION ON THE REAR OF THE HOME JUST RIGHT ALONG THAT LINE THERE.

THIS HOME WAS ACTUALLY DEVELOPED ORIGINALLY AND PERMITTED IN JANUARY OF 1982.

AS SOME OF YOU GUYS WILL REMEMBER, AT THAT TIME, THE ZONING WAS RCU-18.

THEREFORE, THIS HOME WAS DEVELOPED RIGHT ON THE 30-FOOT SETBACK LINE, WHICH WAS ALLOWABLE AND PERMITTED AND LEGAL AT THE TIME.

HOWEVER, IN DECEMBER OF '82, THE COUNTY DID A REZONE CHANGING MOST OR ALL OF THE RCU-18 ZONING TO THE 2A ZONING, WHICH INCREASED THE SETBACK TO 50-FOOT SETBACK THAT MADE THIS HOME LEGAL, NON-CONFORMING.

THE ONLY WAY THAT THEY COULD EXPAND ON THE REAR OF THE BOUNDARY, WHICH IS WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS TO BRING IT TO YOU ALL FOR A USE PERMIT BECAUSE THIS HOME IS NOW LEGAL, NON-CONFORMING.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.

THIS IS JUST A QUICK OVERVIEW.

THE PARCEL IS ABOUT 15 ACRES.

IT DOES HAVE THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON ITS TWO-STORY AND THEN THE BARN AND THE STORAGE UNIT.

YOU CAN SEE, LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET THIS, WHERE THEY WANT TO EXPAND.

WHICH ONE IS THIS? THE EXPANSION IS THIS PIECE RIGHT HERE.

THEY WANT TO CONTINUE ON THAT LINE AND JUST COME NORTH A LITTLE BIT TO EXPAND THAT HOME.

IT IS SITTING ON THE 30-FOOT SETBACK.

ONE OF OUR COMMISSIONERS ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THE PLANS MUCH MORE CLOSELY, AND IT'S ACTUALLY SITTING ON THE 29-FOOT SETBACK, HENCE THE SLIGHT CHANGE TO THE CONDITIONS.

THIS IS LOOKING UP AT THE HOME FROM BLUE RANCH ROAD.

YOU CAN SEE THE HOME UP THERE ON YOUR FAR RIGHT AND THEN THE BARN AND THE STORAGE UNIT TO THE LEFT.

HERE'S LOOKING UP AT THE HOME AGAIN.

IT IS A TWO-STORY WALKOUT WALKOUT BASEMENT, AN OVERVIEW THERE.

THIS IS THE AREA WHERE THEY WANT TO EXPAND.

THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOME.

THIS IS LOOKING AGAIN ALONG THE REAR OF THE BOUNDARY.

TO OUR LEFT THERE IS THE US FOREST SERVICE, BUT THEY WANT TO EXPAND THEN ON THE PART THAT'S IN THE SUNSHINE THERE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE.

ONCE AGAIN, THEY WANT TO EXPAND, BASICALLY COME OFF RIGHT OF THAT A FRAME AND COME OFF ABOUT 800 SQUARE FOOT.

THAT IS ACTUALLY THE CORNERS OF WHERE THE NEW EXPANSION WILL BE, IF YOU CAN SEE THE SHOVELS THERE.

THERE THEY ARE, AGAIN, THAT SPACE IN THE SUNSHINE IS WHERE THE ADDITION WOULD BE IF THEY'RE GRANTED THE USE PERMIT.

THEY DID NOTIFY EVERYBODY WITHIN 100 FEET OF THEIR HOME.

THEY HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, MET SOME OF THEIR NEIGHBORS.

WE HAVE HAD NO COMMENT FROM THE STAFF OTHER THAN WHAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING.

THE STAFF HAS NO CONCERNS.

>> ARE THERE ACTUALLY HOUSES THERE IN THE AREA?

>> THERE ARE. IT'S NOT 100% DEVELOPED, BUT PROBABLY 70 OR 80% OF THOSE PARCELS DO HAVE DEVELOPMENT ON THEM.

>> AGAIN, STAFF HAVE NO CONCERNS.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A PERMANENT AND TRANSFERABLE USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A WAIVER OF SECTION 516 DENSITY DISTRICT 2A,

[01:20:02]

TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 50-FOOT REAR SETBACK BY 20 FEET, RESULTING IN A 30-FOOT REAR SETBACK FOR AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS ON APPROXIMATELY LITTLE OVER 15 ACRE PARCEL ZONED RCU 2A.

SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

WE DID HAVE THIS MINOR CHANGE.

AGAIN, FORTUNATELY, ONE OF OUR COMMISSIONERS WAS PAYING CLOSER ATTENTION TO THE PLANS.

THE CONDITION WOULD BE A PERMANENT AND TRANSFERABLE USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A WAIVER OF SECTION 516 DENSITY DISTRICT 2A TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 50-FOOT REAR SETBACK BY 21 FEET, RESULTING IN A 29-FOOT REAR SETBACK FOR IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

OBTAIN ALL THE REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE HOME.

PROPER TO BE MAINTAINED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE LETTER AND INTENT OF THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES, REGULATION, AND ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE TO BE ISSUED WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVAL CONFIRMING ALL STIPULATIONS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED.

THE USE IS OPERATING IN CONFORMANCE WITH ALL OF THE APPROVALS, ALL THE BUILDING PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND THE USE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE COUNTY, STATE, FEDERAL REGULATIONS OR THE USE PERMIT WILL BE NULL AND VOID.

IN THE EVENT THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL FILES A CLAIM UNDER ARS SECTION 12-1134 REGARDING THIS USE PERMIT, THE USE PERMIT SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOID.

I STAND FOR QUESTIONS.

WE ALSO HAVE MR. LIEBERMAN HERE, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM.

ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE TWO OF OUR COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE ALSO HERE AND COULD ANSWER A QUESTION FROM P&Z.

>> WHAT WAS THE P&Z VOTE?

>> IT WAS UNANIMOUS.

>> UNANIMOUS. MS. MICHAELS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD?

>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.

YES. I FIND OUR COMMISSIONERS VERY DILIGENT.

AS A NEW MEMBER OF OUR TEAM, I WELCOME YOU, FIRSTLY.

TWO, YOU'VE ALREADY DISCOVERED THE DILIGENCE THAT OUR COMMISSIONERS HAVE.

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM ONE OF THEM.

I PERSONALLY HAVE NO RESERVATIONS ABOUT THIS.

I'D JUST LIKE TO HEAR WHAT ONE OF OUR COMMISSIONERS HAS TO SAY ABOUT THE APPLICATION BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> WELL, IT'S IN YOUR DISTRICT, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT IT? DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I SAID THAT I I HAD NO RESERVATIONS ABOUT THIS, BUT I DO WANT TO HEAR IF PERMISSIBLE FROM ONE OF OUR COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE DILIGENCE, OUT OF DUE RESPECT FOR THEIR PROCESS.

>> MR. PETERSON.

>> HOW THEY ARRIVED AT THIS CONSENSUS?

>> GOOD MORNING. I'M JIM PETERSON, ONE OF THE P&Z COMMISSION MEMBERS.

I THINK THIS IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

THIS IS A THING THAT WE LIKE TO REVIEW AND RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

WERE THERE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS?

>> ALL APPLICATIONS WERE LIKE THIS.

WHEN I LOOKED AT IT, I THOUGHT, WELL, EVERY BOX IS CHECKED.

I JUST WANTED TO HEAR THAT FROM THE COMMISSIONERS AS WELL.

WHAT A MODEL EXAMPLE IT APPEARS THAT THIS APPLICATION IS.

WITH THAT MIND, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

>> DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>> SECOND BY MR. GREGORY.

ALL IN FAVOR. AYE.

>> AYE.

>> UNANIMOUS. NO OPPOSED.

>> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER.

>> THANK YOU, MS..

>> DEVELOPMENT SERVICE APPROVE A PERMANENT AND TRANSFERABLE USE PERMIT TO

[2. Development Services - Approve a permanent and transferable Use Permit to allow for a waiver of Section 516; Density District 10, to reduce the required 25-foot rear setback by 13 feet, resulting in a 12-foot rear setback, for a proposed 14’X 64’ manufactured home, on a 10,454-sq. ft. parcel zoned R1-10, subject to the conditions of approval. Project Name: Farley Use Permit; Property Owner/Applicant: CNJ Trust & Farley Charley & Joanne Trustees; PLA24-000087; 500-03-603E. Located in the Spring Valley area, near the community of Mayer. Staff: BJ Ratlief (District 2 - Supervisor Gregory)]

ALLOW FOR A WAIVER OF 12-FOOT SETBACK FOR A PROPOSED 14 BY 64 MANUFACTURED HOME ON A 10,454 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL ZONE OR 10, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

PROJECT NAME IS FARLEY USE PERMIT, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT, CNJ TRUST AND FARLEY, CHARLIE AND JOANNE, TRUSTEES.

PLA 24-000087 500-03603E LOCATED IN SPRING VALLEY NEAR THE COMMUNITY OF MAYOR.

[01:25:03]

MS. RATLIFF, AND I BELIEVE SUPERVISOR GREGORY'S AREA.

>> THANK YOU. ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

BJ RATLIFF WITH PLANNING AND ZONING.

THIS IS THE FARLEY USE PERMIT, SIMILAR TO THE LAST ONE, A REDUCTION IN SETBACKS OVERALL.

THIS IS ONCE AGAIN, IT ALSO WAS HEARD BY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER THIRD.

THE VOTE WAS ALSO UNANIMOUS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR PLA 24-000087 FOR THE CNJ TRUST, CHARLIE AND JOANNE FARLEY, WHO ARE ALSO BOTH HERE SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> JUNE, NOT TO INTERRUPT, BUT DO WE HAVE ANY OPPOSITION ON THIS?

>> NO, SIR.

>> NO FROM THE NEIGHBOR.

>> WE'VE HAD NO OPPOSITION AND WE'VE HAD NO COMMENTS.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR?

>> AYE.

>> UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU FOR BEING PATIENT WITH THIS.

>> YOU BET. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> ITEM NUMBER 4,

[4. Development Services - Approve a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add a new Section 608 Solar Facilities with requirements, standards, and procedures to establish utility-scale solar facilities. Project Name: Section 608 – Solar Facilities Zoning Ordinance Amendment; Applicant: Development Services; PLA24-000042; Staff: Matt Blake, AICP (All Districts)]

VELMA SERVICES APPROVE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADD A NEW SECTION 608 SOLAR FACILITIES WITH REQUIREMENTS, STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES TO ESTABLISH UTILITY SCALE SOLAR FACILITIES.

THE PROJECT NAME IT'S ACTUALLY CHANGING OF SECTION 608 SOLAR FACILITY ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.

THE APPLICANT IS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLA 24-000042. MR. BLAKE.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN BROWN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

MY NAME IS MATT BLAKE, PLANNING MANAGER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

AT ITS MEETING ON SEPTEMBER FOURTH, THE BOARD VOTED TO APPROVE A PORTION OF THE AMENDMENT, SECTION 501 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES REGARDING SMALL SCALE SOLAR USES.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS AMENDMENT, THE ADDITION OF SECTION 608 UTILITY SCALE SOLAR FACILITIES WAS CONTINUED FOR 60 DAYS TO ALLOW FOR FURTHER REVISION AND ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT.

SINCE THAT TIME, REVISIONS WERE MADE BASED ON DIRECTION PROVIDED BY THE BOARD AT THE SEPTEMBER MEETING, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL STAFF SUGGESTIONS FOR SEVERAL POINTS OF CLARIFICATION, PARTLY IN CONSIDERATION OF SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS RECENTLY RECEIVED, AS WELL AS JUST THE OVERALL DESIRE TO AVOID CONFUSION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE AMENDMENT.

I WILL PRESENT EACH OF THE 12 REVISIONS AND CLEARLY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE SEVEN REVISION MADE SPECIFICALLY AT THE BOARD'S DIRECTION AT THE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER FIFTH, AND THE 4.5 ADDITIONAL REVISIONS, POINTS OF CLARIFICATION SUGGESTED BY STAFF.

I SHOULD HAVE A SLIDE FOR EACH OF THESE, AND YOU MAY FEEL FREE TO STOP ME AND DISCUSS EACH OF THESE.

THE REVISED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DOCUMENT WAS POSTED ON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WEB PAGE AND ONLINE SURVEY ON OCTOBER SEVENTH, AND PUBLISHED IN ALL NEWSPAPERS OF RECORD IN THE COUNTY THEREAFTER.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION.

SINCE THIS PROCESS WAS INITIATED IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR, TODAY'S MEETING WILL BE THE SIXTH PUBLIC MEETING HELD ON THE PROPOSED UTILITY SCALE SOLAR FACILITY AMENDMENT.

THAT'S NOT INCLUDING THE JOINT SESSION MEETING THAT SET THIS ALL IN MOTION BACK IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR.

THESE MEETINGS HAVE SPANNED MANY HOURS OF VALUABLE DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC INPUT, IN ADDITION TO MANY LETTERS AND EMAILS RECEIVED BOTH FOR AND AGAINST ADOPTION OR CERTAIN ASPECTS THEREOF.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF SOLICITED INPUT EARLY ON FROM INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL DEPARTMENTS, INCLUDING MUNICIPAL JURISDICTIONS, PUBLIC UTILITIES, STATE AGENCIES, AND OTHER STAKEHOLDER GROUPS.

UPON REQUESTS, WE MET WITH MANY INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS, INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS, INDUSTRY GROUPS, AND AS A RESULT OF THIS EXTENSIVE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH PROCESS, SPANNING A SIX-MONTH PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT HAS UNDERGONE EXTENSIVE REVISION.

THE GENESIS FOR THIS INITIATIVE WAS NEVER TO OPEN THE COUNTY TO AN INDUSTRIAL SCALE SOLAR FREE FOR ALL, BUT TO ESTABLISH GUARD RAILS IN ANTICIPATION OF APPLICATIONS THAT ARE PROTECTIVE OF THE PUBLIC INTERESTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT.

THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO STANDARDS IN PLACE AND WAITING IN THE WINGS, AS WE KNOW, ARE SEVERAL DEVELOPMENT INTERESTS WHO ARE CONCEPTUALLY PROPOSING SOME VERY BIG PROJECTS.

THEY COULD SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR A USE PERMIT AT ANY TIME.

I THINK MANY WOULD AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE FAR BETTER TO REQUIRE DEVELOPERS TO FOLLOW OUR PROCESS,

[01:30:04]

THE COUNTY'S PROCESS, RATHER THAN HAVING THE COUNTY REACT TO THEIRS.

THIS AMENDMENT PUTS THE COUNTY IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT, AND AS SUCH, YOUR ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE BOARD CAN CHANGE DIRECTION AT ANY TIME.

YOU'LL SEE IN THE SLIDE, THE VARIOUS PUBLIC MEETINGS THAT GOT US TO THIS PLACE OVER THE COURSE OF A SIX-MONTH PERIOD, SIX PUBLIC MEETINGS.

THIS IS A SUMMARY OF COMMENTS.

I'LL NOTE IN THE BOTTOM LEFT WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE COLORS IN FAVOR, NEUTRAL, OPPOSE.

ESSENTIALLY, SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS, IT'S BEEN ABOUT 180 COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED.

>> HOW MANY ARE OPPOSING?

>> YES, I CAN'T READ THAT EITHER.

CAN YOU TURN DOWN THE LINE? THANK YOU.

>> 94 IS ALL RIGHT.

>> JUST GETTING TO THAT. THIS IS ALL TOLD ABOUT 42 IN FAVOR, 37 NEUTRAL, 94 OPPOSED, AND OF COURSE, IT GETS VERY NUANCED BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR CERTAIN SPECIFIC CHANGES, AND THEN OTHERWISE MIGHT BE FINE WITH THE AMENDMENT WITH REQUESTED REVISIONS.

BUT MOST RECENTLY, SINCE THE LAST MEETING ON SEPTEMBER FIFTH, WE'VE RECEIVED ABOUT 50 PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND SO THAT SUMMARIZES ALL OF THEM, AT LEAST BY NUMBER.

IF ANYTHING, WE'VE SEEN A HARDENING OF POSITION BETWEEN PEOPLE WHO WANT MINIMALLY RESTRICTED UTILITY SCALE SOLAR, UNLIMITED IN SCALE AND ACREAGE, AND THOSE THAT MAY NOT WANT IT AT ALL, OR AT LEAST NOT WHERE THEY CAN SEE IT AND CERTAINLY NOT IN THEIR BACKYARD.

UNDERSTANDABLE. AT THE SAME TIME, STAFF HAS ENDEAVORED TO BALANCE THESE COMPETING INTERESTS WITH REVISIONS THAT ADDRESS REALISTIC REQUESTS AND CONCERNS THAT WE HOPE WOULD BE FAIR TO BOTH SIDES.

WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO NOW IS THAT WE DID RECEIVE MANY, PROBABLY ABOUT TWO DOZEN LETTERS THAT WERE A CHAIN LETTER THAT WERE RAISING THE SAME CONCERNS AND REQUESTS FOR FURTHER REVISIONS.

I THOUGHT IT WORTH SPEAKING TO THOSE BECAUSE I THINK SOME MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL UNDOUBTEDLY BE REQUESTING THOSE SAME CHANGES AS ECHOED IN THE LETTERS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED.

THERE'S ABOUT THREE OF THEM.

I'LL GO THROUGH EACH OF THEM.

PLEASE FEEL TO STOP ME WITH YOUR QUESTIONS, AND I'M SURE WE'LL HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC ON THESE.

THE FIRST ONE THAT WE RECEIVED IN THE CHAIN LETTER, WE'VE SEEN FROM MANY FOLKS, WAS THE REQUEST TO REMOVE THE OPTION THAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE AMENDMENT, AND IT'S BEEN THERE FROM THE BEGINNING TO REMOVE THE OPTION FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION OF WAIVER REQUEST, ESSENTIALLY ELIMINATING ANY POTENTIAL FOR DEVIATION FROM THE ORDINANCE, NO EXCEPTIONS.

I WANTED TO SPEAK TO THAT.

FIRST, IT NEEDS TO BE SAID THAT EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO REQUEST RELIEF FROM ZONING REGULATIONS.

THAT IS THE PREMISE OF THE USE PERMIT PROCESS AVAILABLE TO ALL.

WE COULD REMOVE THE REFERENCE TO WAIVERS IN THIS AMENDMENT, AND APPLICANTS WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO REQUEST RELIEF FROM OUR ZONING STANDARDS UNLESS WE FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE OUR USE PERMIT PROCESS.

WE CAN'T GRANT THE RIGHT TO PETITION OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR VARIANCE OR WAIVERS TO SOME AND NOT OTHERS.

THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS THAT THE AMENDMENT AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED HAS PROVIDED A SPECIFIC SET OF CRITERIA UNDER WHICH A WAIVER REQUEST MUST FIRST BE JUSTIFIED BY AN APPLICANT AND THEN CONSIDERED.

AS PART OF THE PUBLIC PROCESS.

WE TOOK IT A STEP FURTHER BY GRANTING THE BOARD AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE MEANINGFUL MITIGATION, OR AN OTHERWISE JUSTIFIABLE WAIVER MAY INVOLVE IMPACTS WHICH WARRANT OFFSETTING MEASURES AS ACCEPTABLE BY THE BOARD.

JUST TO GIVE YOU A FLAVOR OF WHAT MIGHT BE INCLUDED IN THAT IN A CONSIDERATION.

THIS COULD INCLUDE REQUIRING ENHANCED SCREENING, LANDSCAPING, BUFFERING, OR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS THAT PERMANENTLY PROTECT NATURAL RESOURCES OR CULTURAL SITES.

IT CAN INCLUDE LONG TERM RESTORATION, STEWARDSHIP, AND THE FUNDING OF LONG-TERM WILDLIFE STUDIES IN PARTNERSHIP WITH ARIZONA GAME AND FISH.

REQUIRING MITIGATION AS PART OF THE WAIVER PROCESS, THE AMENDMENT EFFECTIVELY GIVES THE BOARD ENORMOUS LATITUDE TO NEGOTIATE FOR IMPORTANT CONCESSIONS THAT PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE ENVIRONMENT WHILE ALLOWING BENEFICIAL PROJECTS TO MOVE FORWARD.

STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE WAIVER PROCESS THAT OPTION WITHIN THE AMENDMENT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE BOARD AND TO THE COUNTY AND TO RETAIN THAT LANGUAGE.

[01:35:02]

>> IF THERE'S NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, I'LL MOVE ON TO THE SECOND OF THE THREE.

>> ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT?

>> NO. I JUST THINK THAT WAIVERS ARE STANDARD PRACTICE JUST ABOUT ANY APPLICATION PROCESS.

I AGREE WITH YOU THAT BOARD SUPERVISORS CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THE WAIVER AND DECIDE THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE OR INAPPROPRIATE AND MAKE A DECISION FROM THERE.

I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO CONTINUE TO HAVE WAIVERS AS PART OF OUR PROCESS.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT SUPERVISOR OBERG.

PUBLIC CONCERNS CONTINUE.

LET'S TALK ABOUT AQUIFERS.

THE SECOND MAIN CONCERN OR REQUEST WAS THE REQUEST TO RESTRICT LOCATION, SO TO RESTRICT UTILITY SCALE SOLAR FACILITIES FROM LOCATING IN AREAS THAT ARE SHOWN TO BE IMPORTANT FOR AQUIFER RECHARGE, AND THE EXAMPLE WAS SUCH AS THE LITTLE AND BIG CHINO AQUIFERS.

SO STAFF HAS A RESPONSE TO THAT.

CERTAINLY THE COUNTY COULD PROHIBIT SOLAR FACILITIES WITHIN IMPORTANT GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AREAS AS MAY BE MAPPED AND DESIGNATED BY THE COUNTY IN THE FUTURE.

WE HAVEN'T MAPPED THAT YET, BUT WE CERTAINLY COULD.

>> QUESTION NOW.

>> YES.

>> DO WE KNOW WHERE ALL THE AQUIFERS ARE IN YAVAPAI COUNTY?

>> ESSENTIALLY, EVERYTHING IS A WATERSHED AND WITHIN THAT WATERSHED ARE CERTAIN UNDERGROUND AQUIFERS.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY NEED TO MAP SO I'M SURE THAT MAYBE IT'S THE US GEOLOGICAL SERVICE.

BUT AS FAR AS EMBEDDED WITHIN A COUNTY DOCUMENT SUCH AS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT.

IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT OTHER STATES AND COUNTIES HAVE DONE ELSEWHERE IN THE COUNTRY, BUT AS IT STANDS TODAY, I'M NOT AWARE AT LEAST IN THE COUNTY PLANS OF WHERE WE'RE ACTUALLY GRAPHICALLY MAPPED TO THOSE AREAS.

AGAIN, EVERYTHING'S A WATERSHED.

WHAT ARE WE REALLY TRYING TO SAY? IS THAT SOME AREAS OF THE LANDSCAPE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS AND THAT THE RATE OF RECHARGE WHEN IT RAINS, HOW QUICKLY WATER PERCOLATES INTO THE GROUND AND BACK INTO THE AQUIFERS THAT PROVIDE BASE FLOW TO IMPORTANT STREAMS. FOR SOME AREAS IN THE LANDSCAPE, THAT RATE OF RECHARGE IS MUCH MORE QUICKLY.

IT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH TOPOGRAPHY AND SOIL TYPE AND THINGS LIKE THIS.

A LOT OF IT JUST HAS TO DO WITH HOW PREVIOUS YOUR SOILS ARE, AND SO IT'S A REAL THING.

I GUESS FROM MY STANDPOINT IS, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING IN THE RECORD, AND WE'VE DONE A FAIR AMOUNT OF RESEARCH THAT REALLY SUBSTANTIATES WHAT THE CONCERN IS, AS FAR AS A POTENTIAL FOR CONTAMINATION TO AQUIFERS.

CERTAINLY THE PANELS DO CONTAIN THINGS LIKE HEAVY METALS AND OTHER COMPOUNDS THAT ARE TOXIC AND CONCERNING. NO QUESTION THERE.

BUT IT'S REALLY HOW DO THEY GET MOBILIZED IN THE ENVIRONMENT WHERE THEY BECOME A PROBLEM.

WELL, THEY ONLY BECOME A PROBLEM IF YOU WERE TO REALLY SMASH THEM AND PULVERIZE THEM INTO THE CONSISTENCY AND LEAVE IT THERE.

THIS WAS REALLY PART OF THE GENESIS FOR THIS AMENDMENT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD A STRONG DECOMMISSIONING PLAN, A STRONG MAINTENANCE PLAN, AND THE ABILITY TO INSPECT AND THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE.

THE IDEA THAT THAT GETS LEFT IN THE LANDSCAPE.

PERHAPS THROUGH ANOTHER LENS, A CONCERN MIGHT BE, MAYBE WE JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE INDUSTRIAL TYPE DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS GO IN AREAS WHERE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE MIGHT OTHERWISE BE PROTECTING A WATERSHED THAT PROVIDES BASE FLOW THE VERDE RIVER.

TO THAT ARGUMENT THERE MIGHT BE A POINT.

NOW, I SHOULD ALSO SAY THAT IN REALITY, WE HAVE PRETTY RESTRICTIVE STANDARDS ALREADY EMBEDDED IN THIS AMENDMENT THAT TALK ABOUT PROTECTING ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS, THAT TALK ABOUT IDENTIFYING PREFERRED SITES, AND ONE OF THOSE IS ABOUT PROTECTING WILDLIFE QUARTERS.

WELL, SO IN THAT CHAIN LETTER, THERE WAS THE MENTION OF PROTECTING THE LITTLE AND BIG CHINO AQUIFER.

WELL, THAT SAME AREA IS OVERLAIN BY WHAT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED BY ARIZONA GAME AND FISH AS IMPORTANT HABITAT FOR PRONGHORN AND OTHER MOBILE WILDLIFE.

IN REALITY, TALKING ABOUT PROTECTING CORRIDORS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS FOR WILDLIFE, YOU COULD LOOK OUT AT THE ENTIRETY OF THE GREATER LONESOME VALLEY BIOME, GRASSLAND SYSTEM, WHICH SPANS MANY COMMUNITIES, INCORPORATED AND UNINCORPORATED, AND SAY THAT ACCORDING TO THIS ORDINANCE, THIS BOARD HAS DISCRETION AND AUTHORITY TO DENY PROJECTS IN PRIME GRASSLAND HABITAT THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO WILDLIFE.

[01:40:03]

CERTAINLY IT'S POSSIBLE THAT APPLICANTS CAN COME FORTH WITH A SITE THAT IS UNIQUELY SITUATED OR IT'S SO FRAGMENTED, IT'S SURROUNDED BY DEVELOPMENT, THE HABITAT IS NOT THERE ANYMORE, IN WHICH CASE YOU'RE GOING TO JUDGE IT THROUGH A DIFFERENT LENS, AND MAYBE IT IS APPROPRIATE.

BUT AGAIN, THERE'S SO MANY FILTERS IN THIS ORDINANCE.

THE BOARD AGAIN, HAS GREAT DISCRETION TO DENY DISAPPROVED PROJECTS THAT ARE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS IN PRETTY BROAD TERMS. I THINK YOU ALREADY HAVE THIS ONE COVERED.

>> GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON.

>> THIS IS THE LAST ONE.

THIS REQUEST WAS TO CHANGE.

AS THE BOARD KNOWS, WE'LL RECALL AT THE LAST MEETING, WE GOT TO THE POINT IN THE AMENDMENT WHERE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE SETBACK IS FROM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

AT THAT TIME, IT WAS 500 FEET.

I THINK WE RESOUNDINGLY ALL OF US HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC THAT FOLKS WERE DISSATISFIED WITH THAT, AND THE BOARD GAVE DIRECTIONS TO ME AND STAFF TO CHANGE THAT TO ONE MILE.

THEN THE QUESTION CAME UP, WELL, WHAT ABOUT IN INSTANCES WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE A MAJOR SUBDIVISION OR A PAD OR A SINGLE LONESOME HOUSE OUT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE? WHAT'S THE BUFFER IF I JUST HAVE A PROPERTY, BUT AT SOME POINT, I MIGHT WANT TO DEVELOP? FAIR POINT, FAIR QUESTION.

THE STAFF WAS GIVEN DIRECTION TO PROVIDE 500 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY OF THOSE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

STAFF FEELS THAT WE'VE MET THAT TEST, THAT REQUEST, THAT WE HEARD THE PUBLIC, AND WE ADJUSTED WHAT'S NOW PROPOSED AND REFLECTED IN THE ORDINANCE.

THEN WHAT'S HAPPENED SINCE THEN IS WE'VE RECEIVED ADDITIONAL COMMENT WHERE FOLKS ARE LOOKING TO EXPAND THAT EVEN FURTHER.

IN ADDITION TO WHAT HAS CURRENTLY PROPOSED A MILE BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA OF A PROJECT, AND HOUSES ON OUTLYING PROPERTIES, THE REQUEST HAS COME TO US TO NOW INCREASE IT A MILE FOR ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT DON'T HAVE ANY APPROVED OR CONSTRUCTED HOUSES ON THE.

STAFF FEELS THAT THAT WOULD BE EXCESSIVE.

I THINK THAT WE'RE AT THE POINT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS AMENDMENT WHERE IF WE START TAKING ON MORE EXTENSIVE BUFFERS AND SETBACKS, WE'RE REALLY GOING TO STRIKE AGAINST THE OPERABILITY OF THE ORDINANCE IN TERMS OF ITS VIABILITY FOR APPLICANTS.

THAT WOULD BE THE STAFF CONCERN.

>> LET'S TAKE POINT BY POINT AS WE'RE GOING.

IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS SETBACKS ISSUE?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> MS. MALLORY.

>> I SUPPORT THE MILE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT THAT REALLY ISN'T?

>> I'M GOING TO GET TO THIS IN THE NEXT SLIDE, AND I HAVE SOME VISUAL GRAPHICS THAT I THINK WILL HELP EXPLAIN IT BETTER THAN I.

THERE'S REALLY TWO STANDARDS HERE.

YOU HAVE THE PROJECT AREA, YOU HAVE THE DEVELOPMENT AREA THERE IN.

THE STANDARD SETBACK FOR ANY ADJACENT HOUSE APPROVED OR CONSTRUCTED FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY OF A PROJECT, FROM THE EDGE OF, LET'S SAY, YOUR SOLAR PANELS, YOUR SOLAR ARRAY IS ONE MILE, AND THAT WAS THE DIRECTION THAT WE GOT FROM THE BOARD AT THE LAST MEETING.

BECAUSE EVERY PROJECT'S GOING TO BE SURROUNDED BY OTHER PROPERTIES.

NOW, APPLICANTS ARE GOING TO BE TRYING TO FIND PROPERTIES THAT AS PART OF THAT REVISION, THEY'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE MORE REMOTE AND FURTHER FROM HOUSES TO MEET THE STANDARD, WHICH IS A MILE.

INVARIABLY, THAT'S GOING TO MEAN THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE BORDERING AND BUFFERING PROPERTIES THAT DON'T HAVE HOUSES ON THEM.

IN THOSE CASES, THE SETBACK, WE CALL IT A BUFFER.

IT'S IN A DIFFERENT PART OF THE AMENDMENT.

IT'S THE BUFFER AREA, AND THAT WOULD BE 500 FEET.

BUT WHERE YOU DRAW THAT LINE, YOU CAN'T DRAW IT FROM THE EDGE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BECAUSE EVERY SUBJECT PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE ADJACENT TO ANOTHER PROPERTY, SO YOU EXTEND THAT BUFFER FROM THE EDGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

WITHIN THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY, IT WOULD BE 500 FEET, AND THAT WAS THE DIRECTION THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE BOARD.

I WAS GOING TO COVER IT IN ANOTHER SLIDE WITH SOME GRAPHICS, BUT AGAIN, ULTIMATELY,

[01:45:04]

THIS IS YOUR AMENDMENT, AND WE'RE INTERESTING TO HEAR FURTHER DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD. THANK YOU.

>> I DON'T MEAN TO DISRUPT YOUR PRESENTATION.

IT WAS JUST A QUESTION, SO WE CAN MOVE ON OR UNLESS SUPERVISOR OBERG HAVE ONE.

>> YES, CONCERNED ABOUT CONTIGUOUS AREAS.

IF WE HAVE A FACILITY THAT'S IN THE COUNTY AND IT'S ADJACENT TO A MUNICIPALITY THAT HAS ANOTHER FACILITY, DO WE HAVE A DISTANCE BETWEEN THOSE? WE WOULDN'T ALLOW THEM TO RUN UP AGAINST EACH OTHER SO WE COULD HAVE 3,000 IN THE COUNTY AND 5,000 IN THE MUNICIPALITIES SO YOU HAVE 8,000 ACRES OF GLASS OUT THERE.

>> THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR OBERG.

THAT WAS ANOTHER REVISION THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO MAKE UPON THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD THAT I'LL GET TO IN ANOTHER SLIDE BUT ESSENTIALLY THAT STANDARD IS A 500 FOOT SETBACK BETWEEN THE EDGE OF THE FOOTPRINT OF DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN PROJECTS.

IT'S OPEN ENDED, WE DON'T CALL OUT UNINCORPORATED VERSUS INCORPORATED.

HERE TOO, THE BOARD WOULD HAVE LATITUDE AND DISCRETION TO SAY, WELL, THIS DOESN'T JUST APPLY WITHIN THE COUNTY.

WE COULD HAVE A PROJECT IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY.

SOMEONE WANTS TO CONCEPTUALLY PROPOSE A PROJECT WITHIN 500 FEET, BUT IT'S WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF AN ADJACENT MUNICIPALITY, YOU COULD SAY NO.

YOU HAVE THAT DISCRETION BASED ON THE REVISION IN THE AMENDMENT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MS. MICHAELS. MR. GREGORY.

>> I'M GOOD WITH IT.

>> I'M GOOD WITH IT SO FAR IN GENERAL, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR THE REST OF MATT'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> NOW WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO THE ACTUAL REVISIONS.

I WANT TO DISCUSS THE REVISIONS MADE TO THE AMENDMENT SINCE THE LAST BOARD MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 5TH.

AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, 4.5 OF THE 12 REVISIONS REPRESENT CLARIFICATION SUGGESTED BY STAFF FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION SO WHEN YOU RECEIVED YOUR PACKET IN THE AGENDA.

WHEN YOU OR THE PUBLIC SAW IT ONLINE, WHEN IT WAS POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE SEEN THESE CHANGES BECAUSE WE HEARD A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM YOU AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN OTHER RECENT BOARD HEARINGS THAT THE PUBLIC WANTED ACCESS TO THE PROPOSES CHANGES IMMEDIATELY.

WE WANTED TO AFFORD THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A MONTH TO GET THAT OUT AT LEAST A MONTH BEFORE THIS MEETING.

THE REALITY IS WE HAD 60 DAYS AND THE REALITY IS THAT, AS WE STARTED RECEIVING MORE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, AND AS WE STARTED DIGGING DEEPER INTO THE ORDINANCE, WE REALIZED THAT THERE WERE A FEW ISSUES WHERE WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE VERY PROBLEMATIC FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORDINANCE NOT TO ADDRESS AND TO CLARIFY SOME ISSUES THAT WE BELIEVE WOULD PRESENT SIGNIFICANT OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONFUSION FOR ALL INVOLVED THAT WE WANTED TO ADDRESS.

THIS IS THE FIRST ONE. IN THE DEFINITIONS SECTION, YOU'LL SEE THIS IS B IN THE AMENDMENT.

THE LANGUAGE IN RED IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DELETE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A DEVELOPMENT AREA, WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE COMPACT FOOTPRINT OF THE PROJECT ITSELF, NOT THE STUFF THAT'S GOING TO EXTEND OUTWARD OFF THE PROPERTY.

WE TALKED ABOUT A DEVELOPMENT AREA.

OF COURSE, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT BUFFERS AND WILDLIFE CORRIDORS.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ROADS THAT EXTEND OFF THE PROJECT SITE OR TRANSMISSION LINES.

IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT DEFINITION, AND YOU'LL UNDERSTAND MORE LATER WHEN I GET TO SOME OF THE OTHER REVISIONS AND SLIDES, WHY THAT DEFINITION IS SO IMPORTANT BECAUSE YOU REALLY DESIGN AND ASSIGNED YOUR BUFFERS AND YOUR SETBACKS OFF THE FOOTPRINT OF DEVELOPMENT.

YOU DO ORDINANCES LIKE THIS, YOU'RE NOT REQUIRING BUFFERS UPON BUFFERS.

THAT'S NOT FAIR. IT'S LIKE, WELL, WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO PROTECT FROM? WHAT'S THE SENSITIVE RESOURCE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC? WHETHER IT'S A VISUAL IMPACT OR A HABITAT, YOU DESIGN THAT OFF OF THE EDGE EXTENDING OUTWARD FROM YOUR DEVELOPMENT AREA.

REALLY, THIS IS JUST A BYPRODUCT OF MATT'S POOR WRITING.

I DID NOT MEAN TO INCLUDE THE SECURITY FENCE AND TRANSMISSION OR COLLECTOR LINES AND DRIVEWAYS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AREA.

AS THE DEFINITION SHOULD NOW READ, AS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW, THAT'S THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE.

THIS IS ONE OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDED POINTS OF CLARIFICATION.

I THINK IT'LL BECOME APPARENT WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT AS WE GO FORWARD.

[01:50:02]

ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? I SHOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT SOME MIGHT BE SAYING, WELL, WOW, SO WHAT ABOUT BUFFERS FROM TRANSMISSION LINES AND ROADS LIKE AFTER THEY LEAVE THE PROJECT AREA PROPERTY? WELL, THAT'S STILL A USE PERMIT.

THERE'S OTHER STANDARDS IN PLACE FOR THAT, BUT THE SCOPE OF THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE PROJECT AREA, THE DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT.

I THINK I HAVE A POINTER HERE.

>> OH, NO. CAN YOU SHOW ME HOW TO USE THIS POINTER?

>> OKAY. IT'S BEEN PUSHED SO MANY TIMES, THERE WAS NOTHING ON IT.

>> OKAY, SO HERE'S YOUR DEVELOPMENT AREA.

THIS IS JUST A CONCEPT, TO GIVE YOU A FLAVOR.

SO ANYTIME AN APPLICANT IS GOING TO PURCHASE A PROPERTY, WHETHER THEY LEASE IT OR PURCHASE IT, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU APPLY ALL OF THE SETBACKS, THE PREFERRED SITE.

SO FIRST THING, YOU'RE YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THEM LOCATE IN A SITE THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION.

THAT'S THE FIRST TEST.

SECOND, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT STUDIES AND INVENTORIES SO THAT WE CAN DETERMINE, WELL, WHAT ASPECTS OF THAT PROJECT AREA, THAT PROPERTY, ENVIRONMENTALLY OR CULTURALLY SENSITIVE, THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CLIP OUT FROM THE FOOTPRINT OF WHERE YOU WANT TO PUT YOUR DEVELOPMENT.

THEN WE EVEN TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER AND WE SAY, WELL, NOW WE WANT TO EFFECTUATE OUR BUFFERS AND OUR SETBACKS, NOT JUST TO PROTECT SENSITIVE AREAS ON SITE, BUT LAND USES SUCH AS RESIDENTIAL, OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AND LAND USES THAT ARE OFFSITE.

REALLY, THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT AREA.

I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT AND SO PRESUMABLY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE, MAYBE IT'S IMPORTANT FOREST HABITAT BECAUSE THERE'S A SPOTTED THERE.

MAYBE THERE'S AN IMPORTANT WATERWAY.

WE HAVE A SETBACK FROM ROADS AS WE DO WITH ANY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE.

>> EXCUSE ME.

>> IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN A LOT OF TIME TO DESIGN OUR OWN GRAPHICS, SO REALLY, THIS IS JUST TO CONVEY A POINT HERE.

THIS IS EXHIBIT B, PROJECT A DESCRIPTION.

SO THIS IS A REVISION THAT WAS MADE AT THE BOARD'S DIRECTION.

YOU CAN TRACK THESE AS I GO THROUGH THESE 12 SLIDES.

SO UP AT THE TOP RIGHT, IT'S GOING TO SAY EITHER A STAFF RECOMMENDATION OR BASED ON BOS DISCUSSION FROM THE SEPTEMBER 4.

I SAID SEPTEMBER 5, AND I APOLOGIZE.

IT WAS THE SEPTEMBER 4 MEETING.

REALLY, THIS IS WHAT THE BOARD RECOMMENDED TO STAFF AT THE LAST MEETING.

SO THIS IS WHAT'S CURRENTLY REFLECTED IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE. THIS GETS TO THAT.

ORIGINALLY, IT WAS 500 FEET.

WE HEARD RESOUNDINGLY THAT THAT WASN'T ADEQUATE.

THE AMENDMENT NOW REFLECTS A DISTANCE OF A MILE, 5,280 FEET.

MUST BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN SEPARATE FACILITIES.

I THINK I SPOKE TO THAT BEFORE.

THAT'S A PRETTY BIG SETBACK.

>> ANY QUESTION, MS. MICHAELS, OR THE OTHER BOARD MEMBER?

>> NO. MOVE ON.

>> SO ANOTHER GRAPHIC, WE PULLED OFF THE WEB, BUT AGAIN, JUST, HERE'S A FACILITY.

THIS MIGHT BE AN UNINCORPORATED YAVAPAI COUNTY, THIS MIGHT BE AN INCORPORATED MUNICIPALITY, EITHER WAY, IT'S A MILE SETBACK.

THAT'S WAS THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD.

YOU CAN SEE NOW THAT MIGHT BE THEIR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, BUT THE ACTUAL SETBACK IS GOING TO BE BETWEEN THE EDGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT.

>> HOWEVER, IF IN FACT, THAT SHOULD OCCUR, AND THE PROJECT ON OUR CORPORATED AREA.

IS RIGHT AT THE BOUNDARY LINE WITH THE TOWN, THEN THE TOWN COMES IN, THEY CAN PUT IT RIGHT UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

IF THAT'S WHAT THE ZONING DOES.

>> YEAH, I MEAN, THAT'S A GREAT POINT, CHAIRMAN BROWN.

I MEAN IT'S DIFFERENT JURISDICTION.

>> FIRST IS WHAT IS THE ISSUE.

>> SO, I MEAN, THIS IS IMAGINING THE SCENARIO WHERE AN APPLICANT'S PROPOSING A PROJECT WITHIN THE COUNTY, IN WHICH CASE, THE FIRST THING WE'RE GOING TO DO IS REACH OUT TO THE MUNICIPALITY FOR INPUT.

AND THEN THIS IS THE STANDARD.

AND IF THEY WANT RELIEF FROM THAT, IT'S A WAIVER, THEY HAVE TO JUSTIFY IT.

IT'S A PUBLIC PROCESS.

>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION, CHAIRMAN.

COULD YOU TELL ME, MATT? WE DID REACH OUT TO THE MUNICIPALITIES, DIDN'T WE?

>> WE DID AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS.

WHAT WE DO IS, AND WE DO THIS REALLY WITH ANY AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE,

[01:55:05]

IS WE SEND OUT, LIKE, A CHAIN EMAIL TO REPRESENTATIVES WHO ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM ALL OF THE MUNICIPALITIES.

>> WHO RESPONDED?

>> THERE WAS ONE MEETING IN COTTONWOOD WHERE I THINK WE HAD A STAFF FROM THE CITY OF COTTONWOOD THAT SPOKE AT A MEETING EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS, NOT UNSURPRISINGLY.

REPRESENTATIVES FROM CHINO VALLEY, THEIR PLANNING STAFF REACHED OUT TO US.

THAT MAKES SENSE, OF COURSE, BECAUSE THIS IS A COMMUNITY WHERE AT LEAST CONCEPTUALLY A MAJOR PROJECT IS PROPOSED.

I DON'T ANTICIPATE THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS GOING UP IN MOUNTAINOUS AREAS, BUT, YOU KNOW, GREENFIELDS ARE ALWAYS RIPE AND VULNERABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT.

A COMMUNITY LIKE CHINO THAT HAS ABUNDANT GRASSLANDS THAT USUALLY IS THE CHEAPER PLACE TO GO.

IT MADE SENSE FOR THEM TO REACH OUT.

THAT WAS A GOOD GOT DIALOGUE.

WE WENT TO A ONE ON ONE MEETING WITH THEIR STAFF, AND THEN WE ATTENDED A WORKSHOP WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH.

SO IT'S BEEN A GOOD DIALOGUE.

>> NO, AND THE MUNICIPALITIES USUALLY DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH AREA WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT A UTILITY-GRADE TYPE OF SOLAR FIELD.

SO THEY DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH LAND.

MY EXCEPTION MIGHT BE PRESCOTT OR PRESCOTT VALLEY.

I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THE OTHERS HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THEY MIGHT BE LOOKING AT LARGE SCALE.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THAT'S A GREAT POINT, TO A LARGE EXTENT.

MANY OF THESE MUNICIPALITIES ARE ALREADY BUILT OUT TO THE POINT WHERE THEY ANNEX ANOTHER PROPERTY THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED FOR DEVELOPMENT.

>> SPEAKING ONLY FOR CHINO VALLEY, CHINO VALLEY HAS INDICATED TO ME THAT THEY'RE WAITING TO SEE WHAT OUR ORDINANCE SAYS BEFORE THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR OWN.

WELL, I WOULD SAY THIS, THAT WHETHER IT'S IN CHINO VALLEY OR IN PRESCOTT VALLEY, OR POLDEN.

WE ALL LIVE IN THIS COMMUNITY, AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE LOOKING AT IT.

IT'S GOING TO AFFECT US.

NO MATTER WHAT, WE ARE EITHER A FAMILY COMMUNITY THAT TAKES INTEREST IN THE WHOLE COUNTY.

NOT JUST BITS AND PIECES BECAUSE EVERYTHING AFFECTS SOMETHING ELSE, THE SAME AS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

WHAT HAPPENS IN ONE STATE IS GOING TO HURT OR HELP THE REST OF US.

THAT'S WHY I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE, EVEN IF THERE IS NO LAND FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES TO BE A PART OF THAT WE BE DOING THIS AS A COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE BECAUSE THIS IS A LOT.

THIS IS OUR LANDSCAPE. THIS IS OUR HOME.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, SUPERVISOR RIGHTS HERE? I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENTS OF SUPERVISOR MALLORY.

I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT THIS FROM A 30,000-FOOT LEVEL.

YOUR WORK IS SO BRILLIANT, AND I APPRECIATE THE DILIGENCE THAT YOU AND THE TEAM HAS PUT INTO IT.

BUT THE LARGER QUESTION TO ME IS, DO WE WANT TO BE A COUNTY WHERE WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATE THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF SOLAR BUSINESS? THAT SEEMS TO BE THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM TO ME.

NO MATTER HOW FINE THE ORDINANCE IS, IF WE'RE SAYING, COME ON IN THE WATER IS FINE, THEN JUST AS SUPERVISOR MALLORY SUGGESTED, WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY IT.

THAT THEN LEADS TO THE QUESTIONS OF, HOW DOES IT PRESERVE OR PROTECT OUR RURAL WAY OF LIFE AND CHARACTER.

WHAT ARE WE DOING TO OUR OPEN SPACES, AND AS YOU'VE MENTIONED, WILDLIFE CORRIDORS, IS THAT WHY WE'RE HERE? PARTICULARLY, IF IT'S A BUSINESS MODEL THAT IS SERVING ITS OWN BOTTOM LINE, AND WHAT COMMUNITY NEIGHBOR, IS THIS BUSINESS REALLY GOING TO BE? WHAT'S THE GIFT BACK? WHAT IS THE TRADE-OFF? FOR US SAYING, OKAY, OUR LANDSCAPE, JUST AS SUPERVISOR MALLORY SUGGESTED IS SO GOING TO CHANGE WITH INDUSTRIAL-SIZED SOLAR BUSINESSES, SHOULD WE BE THINKING ABOUT THAT? AS WE GO THROUGH THIS ORDINANCE-BUILDING PROCESS.

IT'S NO SECRET THAT I ADVOCATE FOR A RULE LEGACY TO BE LEFT HERE AND NOT AS FAR AS THE EYES CAN SEE OR SOME VARIATION ON THAT CORPORATE SOLAR FIELDS.

BUT I THINK WE OUGHT TO THINK LONG AND HARD ABOUT THAT,

[02:00:04]

AND WE CERTAINLY SHOULD ENGAGE OUR COMMUNITIES IN A MUCH FULLER WAY.

I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH THE MUNICIPALITIES HAVE ENGAGED IN THEIR COMMENTS, GIVEN WHAT THE LANDSCAPE WOULD LOOK LIKE, THE WHAT IFS, THE RENDERINGS, THE CHARRETTES THAT COULD AND SHOULD, IN MY OPINION, BE DONE.

WE'RE ALL VERY WELL AWARE OF THE GOOD, BAD, AND UGLY, INTENDED AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT I'M SURE WILL BE AT ITS END, A VERY FINE.

>> WELL, LET ME BREAK THROUGH THIS FOG HERE.

I'M BEING RIGHT NOW.

>> QUESTION FOR ME.

>> MS. MICHAELS, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.

IS THAT ARE YOU ENTERTAINING TO US, THE REST OF THE BOARD, IS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS NO SOLAR OF THIS TYPE, AND YOU HAVE A PIE COUNTY?

>> THAT'S CERTAINLY AN OPTION, OR SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN, HAVE WE AS A BODY DISCUSSED WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE? SOLAR PERMITTED OVER HERE, BUT NOT HERE.

I DO RECOGNIZE THAT OUR LAND PLANNING AND OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH IS EXCELLENT.

MAY NOT SPEAK TO IT IN THE WAY THAT REALLY HELPS PEOPLE CITIZENS FULLY UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS.

IF I MAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR EXAMPLE, LA PAZ COUNTY IS AT THE WEST SIDE THAT'S ALL SAND AND DESERT.

THAT'S A GREAT PLACE FOR SOMETHING THAT'S NOT GOING TO INTERFERE WITH THE LANDSCAPE AND POTENTIALLY DO DAMAGE TO FUTURE AG INTERESTS, FOR EXAMPLE, OR THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE WANT THAT WE CAN'T CULTIVATE NOW BECAUSE IT'S FIELD UP ON FIELD ACRE UPON ACRE OF SOLAR PANELS.

>> LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PRESENTATION BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM.

SO MR. BLAKE, WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON WITH THIS, OKAY?

>> SO AGAIN, JUST MOVING ON OUT OF THIS SLIDE, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN PROJECTS, ONE-MILE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, RECOMMENDATION BY THE BOARD AT THE LAST MEETING CARRIED FORWARD INTO THE PROPOSED REVISION.

BUFFER ZONES.

YOU CAN SEE THIS IS A STAFF-RECOMMENDED CLARIFICATION.

REALLY, IT COMES DOWN TO WHERE YOU WHERE DO YOU ACTUALLY ASSIGN WHERE DOES THAT BUFFER ZONE BEGIN.

DOES IT BEGIN AT THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY? DOES IT BEGIN AT THE EDGE OF THE FOOTPRINT AREA? I THINK ALL ALONG STAFF HAD INTENDED THAT IT BEGIN AT THE EDGE OF DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE WHAT ARE YOU BUFFERING AGAINST? KEEP IN MIND THAT ANY SOLAR PROJECT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN ALL OF THE SETBACKS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE, THE REQUIREMENT TO PROTECT SENSITIVE RESOURCES THERE IN.

ANY PROPERTY, IF YOU HAVE A 4,000-ACRE PROPERTY, THERE'S A PRETTY GOOD CHANCE THAT AT LEAST 1,000, IF NOT MORE, MAYBE 1,500 ACRES OF THAT PROPERTY ARE ALREADY GOING TO BE CLIPPED OUT FROM DEVELOPMENT.

SO WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO ASSIGN BUFFERS AND SETBACKS FROM LET'S SAY IT'S A HILL OR A MOUNTAIN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT IS.

THIS IS JUST REALLY MEANT AS A CLEANUP.

WHEN YOU DO ORDINANCES LIKE THIS, YOU'RE NOT CREATING BUFFERS OFF OF BUFFER, YOU'RE CREATING BUFFERS FROM THAT AREA THAT POSES A POTENTIAL IMPACT, NEGATIVE IMPACT FROM TO SOME RESOURCE OR FOLKS THAT DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO LOOK AT IT.

THAT'S REALLY JUST THE CLEAN UP HERE, JUST CLEANING UP THE LANGUAGE. SO IT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT WE EXTEND THE BUFFERS FROM THE EDGE OF THE FOOTPRINT OF DEVELOPMENT.

ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE?

>> ITEM NUMBER 5.

>> AGAIN, THAT'S JUST THERE YOU GO AGAIN.

SAME GRAPHIC WE SAW BEFORE.

YOU HAVE THE UNDISTURBED AREA.

THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF THAT AN APPLICANT IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO PROTECT ON SITE,

[02:05:01]

ASSUMING THAT THEY BUILD AN AREA THAT HAVE THOSE TYPES OF RESOURCES.

HERE WE GO. THIS IS A REVISION RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD AT THE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 4, AND THIS WAS TO INCREASE THE LIFETIME, THE PERMITTED LIFETIME OF A PROJECT.

SO PREVIOUSLY IT WAS 30 YEARS.

THE BOARD GAVE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO CHANGE THAT TO 40 YEARS.

A SOLAR FACILITY USE PERMIT MAY BE APPROVED FOR A PERIOD OF 40 YEARS.

SO I READ THE MAY.

>> MAYBE THE BOARD MAINTAINS FULL DISCRETION THAT THEY CAN CHANGE THAT YEAR'S NUMBER AT ANY TIME TO BE MORE OR LESS, CORRECT?

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN BROWN.

I THINK WHEN I READ MAYBE, MY LEGAL INTERPRETATION WOULD BE THAT THE BOARD HAS DISCRETION.

AGAIN, IT IS A USE PERMIT AT THE END OF THE DAY.

>> LET'S GET ON TO DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARD.

>> OKAY. SO THIS WAS ANOTHER ONE BOARD DIRECTION FROM THE LAST MEETING AT SEPTEMBER.

THIS IS THE SETBACK FROM VISUAL RESOURCES.

AGAIN, IF YOU RECALL, IN THE AMENDMENT, APPLICANTS ARE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH AN ANALYSIS TO QUANTIFY AND QUALIFY VARIOUS VISUAL RESOURCES THAT MIGHT BE THE PUBLIC WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN SEEING PROTECTED AND NOT MARRED BY SOLAR DEVELOPMENT.

AS PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN, THE STANDARD WAS A FIVE-MILE DISTANCE FOR PREFERRED SITE.

SO WE DON'T WANT TO SEE UTILITY-SCALE SOLAR GOING WITHIN FIVE MILES OF AN AESTHETICALLY IMPORTANT AREA SUCH AS AMENUS MOUNTAIN, ET CETERA.

SO AT YOUR DIRECTION AT THE LAST MEETING, STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO CHANGE THAT TO TEN REFLECTED HERE.

IT'S NOW 10 MILES AS PROPOSED.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ONE?

>> ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? MICHAELS.

>> MOVE ON.

>> THIS IS JUST A GRAPHIC IMAGE TO ILLUSTRATE IT.

>> MOVE ON.

>> THIS WAS ANOTHER BOARD DIRECTION.

THIS ONE PERTAINS TO RESTRICTED SITES AND KEEPING SOLAR PROJECTS OFF OF STEEPER SLOPES.

ORIGINALLY, THE STANDARD AS PROPOSED BY STAFF WAS 8%.

ANYTHING ABOVE A GRADE OF 8%, OVER 300 FOOT RUN, HORIZONTAL RUN WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED AS THAT WOULD BE A RESTRICTED AREA.

THE IMPETUS FOR THAT, OF COURSE, IS THE STEEPER THE SLOPE, THE MORE IT'S GOING TO BE APPARENT.

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEE IT FROM MILES AWAY.

STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO CHANGE THAT TO 5%.

THAT IS A PRETTY RESTRICTIVE STANDARD, I WILL NOTE.

>> CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING ON THAT.

I THINK THAT 8% WAS MORE REASONABLE ON THAT.

BUT I THINK THE BIGGER PICTURE OF THINGS AS WE GO ALONG THIS PROCESS, I KNOW THERE'S CONCERNS OF CERTAIN AREAS THESE SOLAR PLANTS OR UTILITY PLANTS ARE GOING TO GO INTO.

THERE'S VERY FEW AREAS IN THE COUNTY THAT THESE CAN ACTUALLY BE DEVELOPED.

IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO ME IS WHEN WE'RE GOING INTO THIS, WE IDENTIFY THOSE AREAS IN THE COUNTY WHERE THESE UTILITY COMPANIES WANT TO COME AND LOOK AT THOSE AREAS AND THEN PUT SOLAR UTILITIES GOING TO COME IN THE AREA, THEY GO IN THE DESIGNATED AREAS.

THEY KNOW WHERE THEY'RE GOING BEFORE THEY GET HERE.

ALL THE COMMUNITIES KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE IN THEIR BACKYARD.

WE'RE PUTTING THEM IN AREAS WHERE THERE'S PROBABLY A PLACE SOMEWHERE IN THE COUNTY FOR SOLAR, BUT WE IDENTIFY THOSE AREAS WITH THE ORDINANCE WHERE WE WANT TO SEE THE SOLAR GOES IN.

IF THEY WANT TO GO OUTSIDE THAT, THEY COME BACK FOR A USE PERMIT, BUT IF WE IDENTIFY THOSE AREAS, A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE CONCERNED THEY ARE GOING TO COME IN THEIR BACKYARD, WE TAKE THAT CONCERN AWAY BECAUSE WE'RE IDENTIFYING THE AREAS WE WANT SOLAR TO GO.

WITH THAT, I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE.

WE SPENT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TIME OF STAFF TIME LOOKING AT A LOT OF THESE THINGS THAT WERE GOING INTO IT.

IT MAKES SENSE TO ME IS, IF WE'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH THE ORDINANCE, MAYBE WE TAKE THAT ONE STEP FURTHER TO IDENTIFY THE AREAS WHERE THESE UTILITY PLANTS ARE GOING TO GO IN AND MAKE THAT PART OF THE ORDINANCE.

WHEN THESE MAJOR UTILITIES ARE WANTING TO COME IN, THEY KNOW THAT'S WHAT THE AREAS WE CAN GO INTO, AND IT GIVES A PEACE OF MIND TO THE COMMUNITIES WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UTILITY HAS A PLACE AND YOU HAVE BY [INAUDIBLE]

>> HOWEVER, AS A USE PERMIT, WE WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO SAY AN A TO WHATEVER IT IS THEY'RE PRESENTING OR BRINGING TO US.

TO PRE-IDENTIFY THESE LOCATIONS, SEEMS LIKE AN AWFUL LOT OF WORK TO DO WHEN IT MAY COME TO US, AND WE MAY SAY NO, YOU CAN'T HAVE ONE PERIOD OR YOU CAN'T HAVE IT THERE OR WHATEVER IT MAY COME UP,

[02:10:02]

OR WE NEED TO HAVE THIS DONE OR THAT DONE.

SAME GOES FOR THE LOGIC OF THE MILE SEPARATION, AND MAYBE IN ONE CASE, IT WON'T BE A MILE, IT'LL BE A LITTLE BIT LESS, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAT WE REQUIRE.

>> I DON'T KNOW. I THINK THE UTILITY COMPANIES COMING IN THEY KNOW THAT THESE ARE AREAS WE IDENTIFIED WHERE WE WOULD APPROVE SOLAR.

THEY'RE GOING TO THINK TWICE ABOUT GOING OUTSIDE THOSE AREAS.

IF SOLAR HAS A NEED IN THE COUNTY, WE'RE GOING TO PUSH IN AREAS WHERE IT CAN ACTUALLY BE UTILIZED.

>> WELL, HOW ARE WE GOING TO MEASURE AND/OR ESTABLISH WHAT THESE OKAY AREAS ARE?

>> NO, I THINK THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED.

THEY NEAR SUBSTATIONS.

I'M SURE THE UTILITIES HAVE ALREADY IDENTIFIED AREAS WITHIN THE COUNTY.

THEY CAN'T BUILD THESE SITES ANYWHERE THEY WANT IN THE COUNTY AND BUILD TRANSMISSION LINES TO THE SUBSTATIONS.

THEY GOT TO BE VERY CLOSE TO THE SUBSTATIONS.

I THINK THERE'S VERY FEW AREAS THESE ACTUALLY CAN GO IN.

>> HOWEVER, I BRING YOU BACK TO WHERE THERE WAS A POWER SOURCE GENERATOR THAT WAS GOING TO BE TAKING WATER FROM THE BIG CHINO AND CREATING A LAKE AND THEN SHOVING THE WATER BACK THROUGH THE GENERATOR SYSTEM, AND THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE THAT TRANSMISSION LINE RAN FROM YAVAPAI COUNTY ALL THE WAY TO THE BORDER WITH CALIFORNIA.

I PERSONALLY, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. THANK GOD.

BUT AGAIN, ALMOST EVERYTHING WAS OFF A USE PERMIT IS WHAT THEY WERE APPLYING FOR, BUT EVENTUALLY WE SAID NO.

THAT WAS SOME YEARS AGO.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS THIS, I CAN COME TO YOU AND I CAN SAY, I WANT TO PUT IT OVER HERE AND YOU SAY, NO, NOT APPROPRIATE.

ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE IT'S NOT THE RIGHT SPOT IN MY DISTRICT.

>> I THINK IDENTIFIED THAT IN THE ORDINANCE SAYING, THESE ARE THE AREAS WE THINK THAT WILL BE FEASIBLE TO PUT THESE UTILITY PLANTS IN.

WE'RE SAYING THAT. THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM.

IF IT'S OUTSIDE THAT AREA, I THINK IT'S LOUD AND CLEAR WITH THE ORDINANCE WHERE WE WANT TO SEE THOSE THINGS GO INTO OUR COMMUNITIES.

>> SUPERVISOR GREGORY, IF I MAY RESPOND TO THOSE GOOD COMMENTS.

THE IDENTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE AREAS, LOOKING AT SUBSTATIONS, TRANSMISSION LINES, BEING NEAR THE AREAS THAT WOULD BE SERVED AWAY FROM SENSITIVE RECEPTORS SUCH AS WHERE PEOPLE LIVE, ETC, HABITAT.

THAT'S BEEN OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF CONTEMPLATING THIS AMENDMENT.

THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE POTENTIAL TO CONSIDER A PROJECT ANYWHERE WITHIN THE RCU DISTRICT, THAT WE HAVE SUCH RIGOROUS STANDARDS AND SETBACKS, AND THE BAR IS VERY, VERY HIGH BECAUSE THEY COULD PROPOSE ANYWHERE AND WE DON'T WANT THEM TO DO THAT, AND RCU IS A BIG DISTRICT.

AS YOU WILL RECALL, MOST RECENTLY AT JOINT SESSION BACK IN OCTOBER 10, WE SPOKE ABOUT STAFF PRESENTED ON THE RFP THAT IS NOW ACTIVE UP UNTIL, I BELIEVE DECEMBER 16, WHERE THE COUNTY IS GOING TO BE LOOKING TO POTENTIALLY HIRE A PLANNING FIRM TO DO A COMPREHENSIVE OVERHAUL OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE MAPPING THERE.

PART OF THAT DISCUSSION EXTENDED TO TAKING THAT OPPORTUNITY AND MAYBE AS ONE OF THE EARLY MARCHING ORDERS FOR THE CONSULTANT TEAM IS TO GO AHEAD AND ACTUALLY START MAPPING.

IT'S AN OVERLAY MAPPING PROCESS, FILTERING OUT THE AREAS THAT ARE NOT APPROPRIATE, IDENTIFYING WHERE ALL THE BOXES GET CHECKED.

THEN ONCE WE GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, WHAT MAY RISE TO THE TOP VISUALLY IS YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THESE HEAT MAPS OF AREAS THAT ARE WORTH CONSIDERING.

THEN YOU DRILL DOWN DEEPER.

WHEN WE GET TO THE END OF THAT PROCESS, THE BOARD MAY GET TO THE POINT AND OF COURSE, THE PUBLIC WILL BE INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS.

THERE'LL BE A LOT PUBLIC INPUT, ETC, IS THE BOARD MAY THEN DEEM TO DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT ACTUALLY HAVING A SPECIFIC NEW ZONING AREA THAT'S CREATED WHERE INSTEAD OF IT BEING A USE PERMIT, IT'S A BUY RIGHT USE.

THAT WAY, IF IT REALLY MAKES SENSE ECONOMICALLY AND THROUGH ALL THE FILTERS YOU WOULD RUN AND WE'VE HEARD ABOUT AT ALL OF THESE MEETINGS, THEN MAYBE YOU JUST INCENTIVIZE IT BY MAKING IT A BY WRITE USE.

IF YOU WANT TO DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE COUNTY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ABIDE BY MUCH STRICTER TEST AND STANDARDS, THAT'S THIS AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

THAT MAY BE IN THE FUTURE THAT THERE'S ANOTHER MORE TARGETED LASER GUIDED ORDINANCE THAT ACTUALLY CREATES A SPECIFIC ZONE, AND IT CERTAINLY COULD BE A SMALL ZONE LIKE AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE, IT COULD BE A ZONE THAT'S IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COUNTY, LIKE THE EXAMPLE OF LA PAZ, IT'S A BIG COUNTY.

WE ALL KNOW THIS. CERTAINLY THERE'S PROBABLY AREAS IN THE COUNTY THAT ARE NOT SO ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE.

NOBODY'S LOOKING AT THEM.

THEY'RE OUT OF SIGHT OUT OF MIND, BUT THE TRANSMISSION LINES ARE THERE AND THEY MIGHT BE VERY APPROPRIATE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

THAT'S A BIG PROCESS.

[02:15:01]

THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE CURRENT SCOPE.

WE LOOK TO THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD, HOW IT WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD.

BUT YOU COULD LOOK AT THIS AS A TWO PART PROCESS.

IF YOU WANT TO GO IN THE RCU ZONE, THAT'S THIS AMENDMENT WITH THE RIGOROUS STANDARDS.

IF YOU WANT SOMETHING MORE INCENTIVIZED AS A BY WRITE USE, WE'LL NEED TO GET THROUGH THE ZONING UPDATE PROCESS, MAYBE AS AN EARLY ACTION ITEM OF THAT BODY OF WORK.

THAT MIGHT MAKE ALL OUR LIVES EASIER BECAUSE AT LEAST THEN THE REGULATED COMMUNITY WILL KNOW WHERE THEY WON'T HAVE TO GUESS.

WE WILL HAVE ALREADY DONE THAT ANALYSIS FOR THEM.

>> WELL, THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WAS MAKING THAT WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THIS IS GOING TO MEAN TO US IN TERMS OF AN ECONOMIC ENGINE AND INTENDED AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IF THEY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN ORDINANCE.

IT SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT LIKE, THOUGH I THINK THIS PROCESS IS EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT I JUST DON'T WANT TO IMPLEMENT IT NECESSARILY BEFORE WE KNOW WHERE THE BEST PLACES, IF ANY ARE, TO HAVE THIS CORPORATE BUSINESS.

>> WELL, I WOULD ENTERTAIN THAT IF YOU GO OUT AND IDENTIFY LOCATIONS, IT'S ALMOST LIKE DRAWING UP AN INVITATION.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IT STAY THE WAY IT IS WHERE WE MAKE THE JUDGMENT CALL AT THE TIME OF THE USE PERMIT REQUESTS ON WHETHER WE WANT IT IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA.

WE ALREADY HAVE TWO THAT I'M AWARE OF.

THAT ARE SOMEWHAT IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS.

ONE OF THEM IS A LOCATION THAT I DON'T APPROVE OF AND ANOTHER ONE THAT WAS APPROVED BY SO FAR MOVING FORWARD, WHICH IS IN MR. GREGORY'S DISTRICT.

IN FACT, I THINK THEY'RE BOTH IN YOUR DISTRICT.

THE ONE IN PRESCOTT VALLEY IS I THINK STILL IN YOUR DISTRICT UP THERE ABOVE THE RACE TRACK, THE FANE PROPERTY.

>> IT'S ON THE BORDER MINE IN YOUR DISTRICT.

>> CAN WE MAKE THIS ORDINANCE JUST FOR YOUR DISTRICT? [LAUGHTER]

>> I GOT A LOT OF ISOLATED AREAS IN A DISTRICT.

I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP WITH THE 8%, AND THEN THAT DON'T RESTRICT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT ARE IN ISOLATED AREAS, IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR THE 8% AND NOT NECESSARILY.

WE WERE THROWING OUT NUMBERS LAST TIME.

5% I'M HERE WAY TOO RESTRICTIVE, AND THEN 8% WOULD BE WORKABLE.

I WILL TELL YOU, ON THIS ORDINANCE, IT'S GIVEN US GUIDELINES FOR THE COUNTY TO BE TELLING THESE UTILITIES WHEN THEY'RE COMING IN, WE HAVE SOME BASELINE TO GET THESE THINGS CLEANED UP.

MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BEING GOOD STEWARDS OF OUR LAND.

IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO PUT THESE ORDINANCE IN PLACE.

BUT I'M AFRAID THAT BETWEEN THE FIVE AND 8%, I WOULD GO WITH EIGHT, TOO RESTRICTIVE.

>> I THINK THE PLANNING STAFF IS FINE WITH THAT CHANGE.

KEEP IN MIND, WE HAVE ALL THESE OTHER FILTERS IN THE ORDINANCE.

THE STEEPER THE SLOPE, THE MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE BECAUSE THEY'LL BE HABITAT THERE.

>> THE BOARD HAS THE OPTION OF CHANGING IT UPON THE APPLICATION.

[OVERLAPPING] WITH THIS 5, 08, YOU PUT 20 UP THERE, IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF CHANGING IT AT THE TIME THEY COME IN AND ASK FOR THE USE PERMIT.

>> THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT TO FIND A SUITABLE SITE AND THAT SITE GETS VETTED BY THE BOARD, AND IF IT'S STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH, THEY CAN REQUEST A WAIVER, AND IF THAT'S STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH, IT'S A NO.

>> I PREFER TO STAY WITH THE EIGHT.

>> THAT WOULD BE NO CHANGE AS PROPOSED IN THE CURRENT REVISION TO EXHIBIT F WE'LL MAKE NOTE OF THAT IF THE BOARD DECIDES TO MOVE FORWARD.

ASSUMING EVERYONE IS IN AGREEMENT.

>> THAT'S IN RESTRICTED SITES NUMBER 5, CORRECT?

>> YEAH. THIS WOULD BE THE STANDARD.

I'M REFERRING TO THESE EXHIBITS BECAUSE IF THE BOARD DECIDES [OVERLAPPING]

>> WE'RE GOING BACK FROM 5% BACK TO THE ORIGINAL 8%.

>> YES.

>> CORRECT.

>> ANYBODY GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT? MOVING ON.

>> THIS WOULD BE EXHIBIT F.

>> SETBACK.

>> THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.

THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS IN THE ABSENCE OF GOOD PLANNING.

OF COURSE, THESE ARE YOUR SLOPES.

THAT'S A 5% SLOPE ON THE BOTTOM LEFT, IF YOU CAN SEE IT.

THAT'S 8%, NOT REALLY A HUGE DIFFERENCE THERE.

>> WE GET THE DRIFT. MOVE ON, MATT.

>> DRIFTING ON. SETBACKS ORIGINALLY, AGAIN, 500 FOOT SETBACK FROM RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS AND ALL OF THESE OTHER DISTRICTS BASED ON BOARD DIRECTION AT THE LAST MEETING, AS WELL AS SOME TWEAKING BY STAFF FOR CLARIFICATION, RECOMMENDED NOW.

IT'S A ONE MILE FROM ANY DWELLINGS, EXISTING OR UNDER PERMIT,

[02:20:02]

INCLUDING AND THIS WAS THE STAFF ADDITION, INCLUDING SUBDIVISIONS OR PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

REALLY, IF IT'S AN IMPROVED HOUSE, IF IT'S A BUILT HOUSE, YOU'RE COVERED UNDER THIS.

IT'S A ONE MILE SETBACK RANGE.

WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THIS ITEM.

I'LL MOVE ON. PICTURES, MOVING ON, SETBACKS AGAIN.

>> SAME THING.

>> YEAH, REALLY, SAME IDEA.

WE'RE REMOVING SOME OF THE OLDER LANGUAGE WHERE WE HAD A 100 FOOT BUFFER AND NOW IT'S 500, AND THAT REALLY REFLECTS THE INTENT OF THE BOARD AT THE LAST MEETING.

STAFF CLEANUP. EXHIBIT I.

THAT'S JUST A CLEAN UP. THE SETBACK WAS 100.

NOW IT'S A 500 FOOT MINIMUM BUFFER. PLACE EVERYTHING.

>> I HAVE HERE, DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, NUMBER 2A SETBACKS, AND IT GOES TO 5,280 FEET, WHICH IS A MILE.

FOR MANY DWELLINGS, THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU HAVE UP THERE. THAT IS 2A.

>> THAT IS BASICALLY REFERRING TO F2.

THIS ORIGINALLY IS A CATCHALL.

ALL OF THE OTHER SETBACKS ARE GOING TO CATCH A LOT OF EVERYTHING, BUT IF IT DIDN'T, THERE WAS A STANDARD FOR, WELL, THERE'S THIS MINIMUM 100 FEET, SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE 100 FOOT SETBACK FROM, LET'S SAY, A MINOR ROAD, A DIRT ROAD, ETC.

BUT NOW AT THE DIRECTION OF THE LAST MEETING, WE GOT THIS MINIMUM BUFFER FROM PROPERTIES THAT DON'T HAVE HOUSES ON THEM.

THAT AT THE LAST MEETING, STAFF WAS GIVEN DIRECTION THAT SHOULD BE 500 FEET.

IF THERE'S APPROVED HOUSES, IT'S A MILE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AREA.

IF THE ADJOINING PROPERTY DOESN'T HAVE ANY HOUSES, AND MANY OF THESE PROPERTIES MIGHT BE VERY BIG, 100 ACRE PROPERTY, ETC, THEN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS 500 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT EXTENDING OUTWARDS.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IS THAT AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO BUY A REALLY BIG PROPERTY.

BECAUSE REALLY THE SETBACK DOESN'T BEGIN AT THE BORDER, THE EDGE OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY IT BEGINS WITHIN THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY.

THAT MEANS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A BIG ENOUGH PROPERTY, SO THE FOOTPRINT OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE THE DOUGHNUT HOLE IN THE MIDDLE.

THAT'S A PRETTY PROTECTIVE STANDARD FROM STAFFS IN MY MIND.

>> ANY QUESTIONS, FOX? YOU'RE OKAY WITH IT HERE. DONNA?

>> YES OR NO? MOVING ON.

>> THIS WAS EXHIBIT J.

WE'RE BASICALLY USING LANGUAGE AS PROVIDED BY PUBLIC WORKS.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDED THAT CHANGE AT THE LAST MEETING.

ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? WE DISCUSSED THIS ONE AT A PREVIOUS MEETING.

THIS WAS LANGUAGE PROVIDED BY PUBLIC WORKS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED OF AN APPLICANT.

IT'S PRETTY MUCH STANDARD LANGUAGE THAT ANY MAJOR DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE TO PUBLIC WORKS.

>> NO, I'M FINE WITH THAT. HOW ABOUT EVERYBODY ELSE? MOVING ON TO STORMWATER.

>> THIS IS RECOMMENDED CLARIFICATION.

WE CITED THE WRONG DOCUMENT.

OOPS, SORRY ABOUT THAT.

IT SHOULD BE DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL FOR DETENTION.

THIS LANGUAGE WAS PROVIDED BY THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT.

>> ANY PROBLEMS WITH FLOOD CONTROL? NO. MOVING ON TO J.

>> ORIGINALLY, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT INCLUDING STANDALONE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE FACILITIES AS PART OF THE SCOPE OF THIS AMENDMENT AND THE BOARD AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING SAW IT FIT TO REMOVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.

THE LANGUAGE NOW IS REALLY RELATED TO THE ALLOWANCE FOR BEST FACILITIES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF AN APPLICATION FOR UTILITY SCALE SOLAR.

THEY'RE ONE AND THE SAME.

CAN'T REALLY HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER, BUT THE STANDALONE BEST FACILITIES HAVE BEEN REMOVED AT YOUR DIRECTION FROM THE LAST MEETING SO WE DID TALK ABOUT THIS PREVIOUSLY.

THEN MOVING ON TO SUBSTATIONS, SAME THING.

IF THEY WANT TO DO THAT, IT'S A USE PERMIT.

>> OKAY.

>> IT'S ANOTHER PROCESS.

>> EVERYBODY ALL RIGHT WITH THAT? THOSE ARE SOME OF THE REVISIONS WE MADE EARLY ON.

[02:25:02]

DONNA, THANK YOU.

MOVING ON TO DECOMMISSIONING AND RECLAMATION.

>> WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT DECOMMISSIONING AND RECLAMATION.

JUST ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION STAFF THOUGHT MIGHT BE HELPFUL; IT'S HIGHLIGHTED.

THE FULL COST OF DECOMMISSIONING AND RECLAMATION WILL BE GUARANTEED BY ONE OR ANY COMBINATION OF THE FOLLOWING AS DETERMINED BY THE BOARD.

TYPICAL THE INDUSTRY STANDARD IS, THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS THAT AN APPLICANT CAN SATISFY THAT REQUIREMENT FOR RECLAMATION WITH GUARANTEED FUNDS.

ULTIMATELY, THAT HAS TO PASS MUSTER WITH THIS BOARD AND THE PROFESSIONALS THAT WILL BE TESTIFYING AS TO THE EFFICACY OF WHAT IS PROPOSED.

BUT I THINK THE INTENT IS THAT IT COULD BE ONE OF THOSE DIFFERENT TESTS OR IT COULD BE A COMBINATION.

THAT'S JUST A LEGAL LEASE OF HOW IT'S TYPICALLY DONE.

IF YOU WANT, I CAN OPEN UP THE AMENDMENT AND READ THE SECTION TO YOU.

WE DID SPEAK ABOUT THIS AT LENGTH AT A PREVIOUS HEARING.

>> THERE'S A COUNTY ATTORNEY REVIEW OF THAT SECTION?

>> WE HAD A COUNTY REVIEW OF ALL THE REVISIONS.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD? WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK SO EVERYBODY CAN GO POTTY AND THEN COME BACK AND THEN WE'LL START WITH THE INFORMATION COMING FROM THE PUBLIC.

[BACKGROUND] WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS MOVE INTO YOUR COMMENTS.

PEOPLE WHO HAVE FILLED OUT GREEN SHEETS.

REGARDLESS, I HAVE QUITE A FEW OF THEM.

[INAUDIBLE], I JUST WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU IF YOU WOULD.

IF SOMEBODY HAS MADE THE SAME COMMENT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE, JUST EXCUSE YOURSELF AND SAY DITTO OR WHATEVER.

ALSO, A LOT OF PEOPLE I'VE NOTICED THAT SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE BEEN GETTING IN REGARDS TO THE ORDINANCE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

UTILITY GRADE SOLAR IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING HERE.

WE'RE TALKING LARGE FIELDS.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT HOMES.

HOMES ARE A DIFFERENT SITUATION.

WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT SAVING AND PRESERVING THE AREA THAT WE LIVE IN AND THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S SOMETHING THAT TELEGRAPHS TO FOLKS THAT WANT TO DO THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS THAT THEY'RE NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO DO, BUT WE HAVE OUR ISSUES WITH THEM AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO THE BEST WE CAN GOING INTO THIS.

WE'RE NOT DENYING THAT WE NEED GREEN POWER IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA.

HOWEVER, ON THE FLIP SIDE, IN THE YAVAPAI COUNTY WE HAVE NO POWER NEEDS.

THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL POWER NEEDS IN THIS COUNTY WHATSOEVER.

APS HAS GOT US COVERED BASICALLY WITH SOLAR FROM CALIFORNIA.

IN FACT, CALIFORNIANS PAYS APS TO TAKE IT.

THAT'S INTERESTING, ISN'T IT? THE REASON BEING IS BECAUSE THE NUCLEAR POWER THAT THEY NEED DURING THE NIGHTTIME THAT THEY GET FROM PALO VERDE.

APS RIGHT BACK THERE SHAKING HER HEAD YES.

THAT'S SOMETHING EVERYBODY SHOULD KEEP IN CONSIDERATION.

AS THE COUNTY GROWS, WILL WE NEED MORE POWER? YES, BUT IT'LL PROBABLY COME FROM APS AND THEY'LL BE DEVELOPING THEIR OWN FIELDS AND/OR WHATEVER THEY NEED TO DO IN OTHER PLACES IF WE'RE NOT GETTING IT FROM CALIFORNIA.

ANYWAY, OKAY.

MR. CHAN, FIRST UP.

YOU WERE LAST UP LAST TIME.

[LAUGHTER]

>> BOY, I AM VERY PRIVILEGED.

>> CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT'S TWO MINUTES.

KEEP AN EYE ON THE RED LIGHT.

WHEN IT GOES ON, EXCUSE YOURSELF PLEASE.

>> CHAIRMAN, VICE CHAIR, AND SUPERVISORS, THANK YOU FOR THE TIME.

A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WANT TO ADDRESS VERY QUICKLY.

WE KEEP HEARING THAT CONTAMINATION IS NOT AN ISSUE FROM THE PANELS.

WE'VE SAID REPEATEDLY WE'RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONTAMINATION FROM THE PANELS.

IF YOU LOOK AT SOLAR FIELDS, THEY DON'T HAVE WEEDS ON THEM.

NOW THEY DON'T ACTUALLY INTRODUCE ANIMALS TO KEEP THESE WEEDS DOWN.

THEY DON'T TAKE CARE OF THEM MANUALLY.

HOW DO THEY DO THAT? USE CHEMICALS TO DO IT.

THERE'S PRE-EMERGENCE HERBICIDES.

ONCE AGAIN, LET'S THINK OF MONSANTO; $11-$12 BILLION IN CONTAMINATION CANCER CLAIMS.

[02:30:01]

THAT CONTAMINATION OF 3,000 PLUS ACRES OF HERBICIDES INTRODUCED INTO THE SOIL, IT'S GOING TO LEACH DOWN IN THE WATER.

IF WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT, JUST LOOK AT THE BOTTLE OF HERBICIDES THAT YOU'VE GOT IN YOUR GARAGE.

LOOK AT HOW THE DISCLOSURES ARE ON THERE AND THEY TELL YOU ALL ABOUT ALL THOSE DANGERS.

WE ALSO KEEP HEARING THAT THE AQUIFERS HAVE NOT BEEN STUDIED; THAT WE DON'T HAVE A GOOD READ ON WHERE THE WATER IS COMING FROM.

REALLY? I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THERE'S A WATERBOARD THAT'S ACTUALLY BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS.

IN FACT, THEY JUST TALKED ABOUT IT IN FRONT OF THE CHINO TOWN COUNCIL JUST A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.

THE CHINO TOWN COUNCIL IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE REACHING OUT TO ALL THE OTHER COMMUNITIES SO THAT THE QUAD CITIES CAN TALK ABOUT A WATER PLAN TOGETHER.

WHY DO WE KEEP HEARING WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE WATER'S COMING FROM? HEY, AND AS FAR AS PRE-IDENTIFYING AREAS, IF WE WANT TO PRE-IDENTIFY THESE AREAS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHERE THEY ARE BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO BE A LAND SPECULATOR AND BUY SOME OF THOSE LANDS.

NOW, YOU GUYS ARE LIKE THE ADULTS.

YOU GUYS HAVE TO CORRAL US KIDS BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO ASK FOR THINGS AND WHEN WE DON'T GET WHAT WE WANT, WE START THROWING TANTRUMS AND WE START GETTING ANNOYED AND WE TAKE OUR BALL AND WE GO HOME.

WE NEED THIS ORDINANCE.

THANK YOU. WE NEED THIS ORDINANCE SO WE CAN SET UP BOUNDARIES SO THAT WE DON'T GO CRAZY AND GO ROGUE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. MARY BETH HRIN.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, MR. CHAIRMAN, BOARD MEMBERS.

IF ORGANISMS DON'T DIE A [INAUDIBLE] DEATH, THEY DIE.

WHAT I MENTIONED THIS FOR, IT'S IN REFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S POLICY AND LIKEWISE, THE SIERRA CLUB.

THEY'RE 100% CARBON-FREE BY 2035.

WELL, GUESS WHAT HAPPENED.

EXACTLY TWO YEARS AGO THIS MONTH, CHATGPT WAS BORN.

AI COMES ABOUT AND THIS AI REVOLUTION TURNED THIS ENERGY POLICY COMPLETELY UPSIDE DOWN.

BY THE END OF THIS DECADE, AI AND THESE DATA CENTERS ARE GOING TO CONSUME 25% OF ALL THE ELECTRICITY THAT THE UNITED STATES USES.

BUT THE SIERRA CLUB AND [INAUDIBLE], THEY DIDN'T ADAPT TO THESE CHANGES AND NOW THEY WANT YOU TO COMPLETELY REVISE YOUR ORDINANCE ACCORDING TO THEIR STANDARDS.

BUT GUESS WHO HAS ADAPTED? THE LEADERS OF AMAZON, GOOGLE, MICROSOFT, FACEBOOK,.

THEY HAVE REALIZED THEY CAN'T MAKE THESE CARBON-FREE PLEDGES THAT THEY SAID AND THEY KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO USE WIND, SOLAR, THERMAL, AND EVEN FOSSIL FUELS.

THAT BRINGS US BACK TO YAVAPAI COUNTY.

WE'LL WELCOME SOLAR BUT WITH LIMITS.

I TALKED TO THE SPOKESMAN FOR THE DUGAS SOLAR PLANT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT PROJECT ALONE CAN POWER ALL OF YAVAPAI COUNTY.

IF WE GO TO DUGAS, THAT CAN POWER 80% OF YAVAPAI COUNTY.

HOW MUCH LAND SHOULD YAVAPAI COUNTY SACRIFICE IN ORDER TO MEET THIS POLICY OF CARBON-FREE ELECTRICITY AND THE DEMANDS OF AI? YAVAPAI COUNTY CAN'T BE THE STOPGAP MEASURE FOR WHAT THE VALLEY NEEDS FOR THEIR DATA CENTERS AND AI.

THE SIERRA CLUB ONES IS TO BANK POLES AND PANELS.

WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR UNPARALLELED BEAUTY.

THESE CAPS ARE REASONABLE AND THIS ORDINANCE IS REASONABLE. PLEASE PASS IT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> LAURA CHAN. LAURA, ARE YOU GOING TO GET UP AND SAY THE SAME THING YOUR HUSBAND DID?

>> NO.

>> OKAY. I'M GONNA HOLD YOU TO IT.

>> IT'S DIFFERENT. GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN, VICE CHAIR, SUPERVISORS.

I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M GOING TO SAY THIS, BUT I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE HERE.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE'S A SOLAR GROUP THAT'S SAYING, DON'T PASS THIS ORDINANCE.

THIS ORDINANCE HAS BEEN A JOURNEY.

THE TEAM DID A GREAT JOB.

BUT IT'S A GROUP COMING TOGETHER.

IT'S NOT PERFECT FOR ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER, BUT IT PROTECTS US.

IT PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE AND IT PROTECTS SOLAR AS AN OPPORTUNITY AND AN INDUSTRY HERE IN YAVAPAI COUNTY.

DO I LIKE THE FACT THAT THAT IT MIGHT HAPPEN NEAR A HOME OR A RESIDENTIAL AREA? WE DON'T HAVE DATA.

BUT THE INITIAL DATA COMING OUT AVERAGED 15-30% DECLINE IN HOME VALUES WITHIN A QUARTER OF A MILE OF A LARGE SCALE SOLAR.

BUT I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING; UTILITY SCALE SOLAR.

YES, THERE'S PLACES IN YAVAPAI COUNTY. BUT LET'S WORK TOGETHER.

LET'S APPROVE THIS ORDINANCE.

[02:35:03]

WAIVERS, THE WAIVER PROCESS, IT'S GOOD. IT'S FAIR.

THERE ARE SOME PROTECTIONS FOR RESIDENCES THROUGHOUT ALL OF YAVAPAI COUNTY TO KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WORRY ABOUT HAVING TO DEAL WITH A SOLAR FARM RIGHT BEHIND THEIR BACKYARD.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU. MR. THURMAN, SUPERVISOR EMERITUS.

>> YEAH. WELL, YOU'RE ALMOST THERE BUDDY.

MR. CHAIR, SUPERVISORS, AND MS. MICHAEL'S OVER IN VERDE VALLEY, STAFF, APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO FOR US.

I THINK THAT THIS ORDINANCE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED; I WON'T SAY NAUSEAM, BUT IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED A LOT.

IT'S BEEN CHANGED A LOT.

THANK TO MR. BLAKE.

HE HAS REALLY DONE A GREAT JOB ON IT.

I BELIEVE IN SOLAR TO A POINT HERE TO BE GENERATED IN YAVAPAI COUNTY SO WE HAVE OUR OWN NOT DEPENDENT ON SOME OTHER COUNTY OR SOME OTHER UTILITY, IT WOULD BE GENERATED RIGHT HERE.

WE WOULD BE THE FIRST ON THE SPIGOT ON THE HOSE IF YOU WILL.

I APPLAUD YOU ON THE JOB THAT YOU HAVE DONE GOING BACK AND FORTH.

IF YOU'LL PASS THIS, I THINK THAT WORKS GREAT.

I OWN A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

I WEAR A LOT OF DIFFERENT HATS.

I THINK MOST OF YOU KNOW THAT I CHAIR [INAUDIBLE] AND MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE, OUR TRADE SCHOOL, AND A LOT OF OTHER THINGS.

BUT ALSO, I HAVE A CONSULTING COMPANY AND I WORK WITH DEVELOPERS AND FOLKS TO TRY TO HELP THEM GET THROUGH THE COUNTY PROCESS.

I HAD CANDELA.

THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL CORPORATION THAT CAME IN TO LOOK AT SOLAR OUT IN THE DUGAS AREA AND NOW IT'S BEEN SOLD TO ANOTHER DEVELOPER CALLED LONG ROAD.

THEY ARE VERY EXPERIENCED IN THAT.

THEY HAVE PROJECTS ALL OVER.

EVEN IN FACT, THEY HAVE ONE IN CHINO HERE IN YAVAPAI COUNTY.

THEIR EXPERTISE IS GREAT.

THE ONLY CONCERN THAT WE HAD WAS THE PERCENTAGE OF SLOPE THAT WOULD HAVE KNOCKED ABOUT 25% OF THE USABLE AREA.

YOU GOT TO REMEMBER, OUT OF 4,400 ACRES THAT THIS PROJECT HAS, BY THE TIME WE DO ALL THE ROAD SETBACKS, ALL THE DRAINAGE SETBACKS, THE WILDLIFE CORRIDORS, AND NOTHING ON THE STEEP HILLS, IT CRANKED IT DOWN TO ABOUT 3,200 ACRES.

THAT WOULD HAVE CRACKED IT DOWN TO ABOUT 2,000 HAD BEEN TOO MUCH.

I APPRECIATE ALL THAT WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING AND HAVE A GOOD RETIREMENT.

>> THANKS, TOM. [INAUDIBLE], I THINK I'M PRONOUNCING THAT RIGHT. GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING.

>> IS IT STILL MORNING? WELL, ALMOST.

>> THIS IS GOING TO SOUND EXTREME, BUT THIS IS MY THOUGHTS THAT CHINO VALLEY, THEIR ORDINANCE THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT DOING IS THEY'RE CONSIDERING THEY'RE CALLING A LARGE SCALE UTILITY FARM ANYTHING GREATER THAN 275 ACRES.

WE REALLY HAVE NO LOWER LIMIT ON WHAT A LARGE SCALE FARM IS HERE SO I PROPOSE 300 ACRES BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW REALLY WHAT A 3,000 ACRE SOLAR FARM WILL DO TO OUR ENVIRONMENT, TO OTHER PATTERNS.

>> YES WE DO.

>> YEAH AND IT'S NOT VERY GOOD.

>> SOLAR FACILITIES BUILT IN THE COUNTY SHOULD BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING THE ELECTRICAL NEEDS OF THE RESIDENTS OF YAVAPAI COUNTY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR OTHER COUNTIES, LET ALONE OTHER STATES.

WE NEED TO HAVE THESE THINGS FOR US, NOT FOR OTHER PEOPLE.

LET THEM CREATE THEIR OWN SOLAR FARMS. I DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE ANY BEST FACILITIES IN THIS ORDINANCE.

THE BEST FACILITY FIRE IN ESCONDIDO THIS PAST SEPTEMBER USED OVER EIGHT MILLION GALLONS OF WATER TO KEEP THE TEMPERATURES IN CHECK FOR THE NEARBY BATTERY STORAGE CONTAINERS THAT WERE NOT ON FIRE.

THEY WERE GIVEN THREE MILES EVACUATION ORDERS.

I DON'T HAVE THE FIGURES ON HOW LARGE THAT FACILITY IS, BUT LOOKING ON A MAP, IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE TWO ACRES, NOT 20 ACRES, WHICH IS WHAT THEY MAY NEED FOR A 3,000 ACRE SOLAR FARM.

I HAVE THOSE CONCERNS.

EVACUATION ORDERS FOR [INAUDIBLE] WHEN THEY HAD THEIR BEST FACILITY FIRE IN MAY OR JUNE LASTED OVER 10 DAYS.

WHERE WILL WE GO IF WE GOT EVACUATED? WHAT ABOUT OUR ANIMALS? HOW WILL WE BE REIMBURSED FOR THE COST OF THESE EVACUATIONS?

>> JUST ON ANOTHER NOTE, I JUST WANTED TO SUGGEST THAT MAYBE IT HAPPENED.

I JUST DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT.

BUT I SUGGEST THAT WHEN DEVELOPING ORDINANCES OR POLICIES OF SUCH IMPORTANCE TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE COUNTY, WE LOOK AT THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW VERSUS THE LETTER OF THE LAW WHEN IT PERTAINS TO THE OPEN MEETING ACT.

DEVELOPING ORDINANCES BY STAFF MAY NOT BE REQUIRED TO INCLUDE PUBLIC NOTICE, BUT I JUST THINK THAT THE TRUST TO BE GAINED BY YOUR CITIZENS WHEN WE ARE TRANSPARENT IN WHAT WE ARE DOING. THANK YOU.

[02:40:03]

>> THANK YOU. MS. STAPLETON, NEXT ONE UP AFTER HER IS GOING TO BE AUTUMN JOHNSON.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN.

COURT. THANK YOU.

>> HI, HOW'RE YOU.

>> MY NAME IS SILVER STAPLETON.

I RESIDE IN UNINCORPORATED YAVAPAI COUNTY.

RESPECTFULLY, I DISAGREE WITH MATT REGARDING CONTAMINATION OF UNDERGROUND WATER.

THAT IS MY BIGGEST CONCERN.

MR. CHAN ADDRESSED MOST OF WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY, SO I'M SKIPPING OVER A LOT.

ONE POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS BARON MONSANTO HAVE PAID OUT MORE THAN $ [INAUDIBLE] IN SUMS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH NON HYDROGEN LYMPHOMA AND OTHER CANCER RELATED ILLNESSES DUE TO GLYPHOSATE, WHICH IS WHAT THEY WOULD BE SPRAYING TO DEFOLIATE THE AREAS.

NOTE, THAT WAS NOT FROM CONSUMPTION.

THAT WAS FROM PHYSICAL CONTACT.

HOW MUCH WORSE COULD CONSUMING IT IN OUR WATER BE? IF SOLAR FARMS ARE PLACED OVER OUR LOCAL AQUIFERS, WHERE DO YOU THINK THAT POISON WILL GO WHEN IT RAINS OR WORSE? IF THEY DO HAVE TO PUT OUT A FIRE? WHERE WILL THAT LITHIUM AND THE ACCUMULATED CARCINOGENS GO? IF OUR LOCAL AQUIFERS ARE POLLUTED, HOW FAR WILL THAT REACH? WE HAVE HUNDREDS OR MAYBE THOUSANDS OF WELLS IN THE NEAR PROXIMITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT.

BEYOND THAT, HOW MANY COMMUNITIES OR TOWNS DOWNSTREAM FROM OUR LOCAL AQUIFERS COULD BE AFFECTED? I BELIEVE THE ORDINANCE SHOULD STATE SETBACKS TWO MILES FROM PROPERTY LINES.

NO SOLAR OVER AQUIFERS AND ANY WAIVER REQUESTS REQUIRE A TWO MILE NOTIFICATION FROM PERIMETER TO AFFECTED RESIDENTS.

YOU MUST MAKE SURE WHEN YOU APPROVE AN ORDINANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SOLAR FARM, THAT IN 5-10 YEARS FROM NOW, WE DON'T FIND OUT THERE IS A NEW ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER AS A RESULT OF DECISIONS MADE BY YOU IN THIS VERY ROOM.

WOULD EACH OF YOU SITTING BEFORE ME PLEASE ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION.

KNOWING THE POSSIBLE DANGERS.

IF OPEN LAND IN MY FRONT YARD WAS A POSSIBLE SITE FOR A SOLAR FARM, WOULD I BE IN FAVOR OF THAT? THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

STACY WAGNER IS AFTER YOU.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY I THOUGHT YOU SAID AUTUMN WAS NEXT.

GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN AND SUPERVISORS, AUTUMN JOHNSON ON BEHALF OF THE ARIZONA SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OR ACA.

WE ARE NEUTRAL ON THE ORDINANCE.

WE HAVE PROVIDED SEVERAL ROUNDS OF COMMENTS.

I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THE TWO MAJOR ONES THAT WE'VE BROUGHT UP A COUPLE OF TIMES.

AS MATT SAID, DUE TO THE SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF SETBACKS, THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO BUY A REALLY BIG PROPERTY IS WHAT HE SAID.

THAT'S WHY WE'VE RECOMMENDED A 5,000 PER PROJECT ACRE CAP AS OPPOSED TO 3,000 TO ACCOMMODATE EVEN THE ADDITIONAL MILE SETBACK THAT YOU'VE JUST ADDED FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

WE ALSO WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU ELIMINATE THE 10,000 ACRE CAP.

I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY A DE FACTO MORATORIUM ON UTILITY SCALE SOLAR WITHIN THE COUNTY, WHICH I BELIEVE IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THERE'S ALSO BEEN SOME CONFUSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDINANCE DOES OR DOES NOT APPLY TO PUBLIC LAND.

AS YOU KNOW, THE STATE LAND DEPARTMENT IS REQUIRED ACTUALLY TO USE THE BEST USE OF THE LAND FINANCIALLY FOR THE STATE, AND I BELIEVE THIS ORDINANCE MIGHT BE IN CONFLICT WITH THAT.

AS WELL AS IN CONFLICT WITH THE BLM'S PLANS, AND IT'S UNCLEAR TO ME, IF THE BLM WAS TO HAVE A LARGER PROJECT, WOULD THAT MEAN THAT NOBODY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY IS THEN PERMISSIBLE TO USE THEIR LAND FOR SOLAR DEVELOPMENT, WHICH MIGHT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC IMPACT ON THEM.

THEN THE LAST THING I WOULD JUST ADD IS THAT THE DRACONIS PROJECT IS IN CHINO VALLEY, AND CHINO VALLEY WILL HAVE ITS OWN ORDINANCE AS IT IS NOT IN THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU NOT TO CRAFT AN ORDINANCE THAT WON'T EVEN APPLY TO A PROJECT SPECIFICALLY JUST FOR THAT PROJECT, AND TO BE THINKING A LITTLE BIT LONGER TERM. THANK YOU.

>> GOOD. TO YOUR TWO QUESTIONS THAT YOU ASKED, YOU MIGHT CHECK WITH MATT ON THOSE. STACY WAGNER.

>> HELLO, THANK YOU FOR LETTING US SPEAK TODAY.

I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF OBSERVANCES THAT I MADE.

MY HUSBAND AND I DROVE TO CALIFORNIA THE LAST TWO WEEKS BACK AND FORTH.

I DON'T WANT TO BE LIKE CALIFORNIA, BUT I DID NOTICE WHEN DRIVING THAT THE SOLAR FARMS AND THE WINDMILLS WERE IN OUT AREAS, NOT BY RESIDENCES, NOT BY ANYTHING ELSE.

[02:45:04]

AS I SUBSEQUENTLY DROVE UP BY 17, I NOTICED A LOT OF OPEN LAND THAT WAS NOT BY ANY HOMES OR ANYTHING THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE USED.

I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER THIS WHEN YOU COME WITH PERMITS AND ALL THAT TO CONSIDER THE OPEN SPACES THAT ARE NOT BY HOMES AND BY RESIDENCES.

MY LAST THING, IT WAS SAID THAT, YOU'D HAVE TO TAKE A SLEDGEHAMMER TO BREAK THE SOLAR PANELS, BUT WHAT ABOUT HAIL STORMS? THOSE ARE UNCONTROLLABLE, AND THOSE COULD BREAK AND THEN EVERYTHING GOES DOWN INTO THE GROUND.

THAT'S OUR CONCERN. THANK YOU.

>> GREAT. THANK YOU. JON GILLESPIE.

YOU HAVE, SMALLER PRINTING THAN MY SON.

>> IT'S A BAD HABIT I'VE DEVELOPED AND JUST KEPT UP, CHAIR.

SORRY. IT'S GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.

MY NAME IS JON GILLESPIE. I'M A LAND USE ATTORNEY WITH THE ROSE LAW GROUP.

IT'S BEEN NICE TO BE HERE TODAY AND TO HEAR THE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND FROM THE SUPERVISORS ON I KNOW THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY TALKED ABOUT FOR MONTHS NOW, AND I COMMEND STAFF ON WEIGHING THOSE ITEMS AND PUTTING TOGETHER REALLY WHAT IS A ROBUST, COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK REGULATORY GUIDELINES.

I DO THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS TO MAKE.

WE REPRESENT BOTH SOLAR DEVELOPERS THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND LAND OWNERS.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT FROM A LAND OWNER WHO HAS A PRIVATE PROPERTY, A PIECE OF LAND THAT MAY NOT BE PRODUCTIVE, MAY NOT HAVE A PRODUCTIVE USE, MAY NOT HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE TO DO OTHER USES, OR THERE MAY BE MORE INTENSIVE USES THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO THERE, WHETHER THAT'S AN INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT GOES HIGHER AND USES MORE WATER OR HAS STRONGER NEEDS THAN A SOLAR DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IN OUR VIEW THROUGHOUT THE STATE, IT REALLY PROVES TO BE A VERY NEIGHBOR FRIENDLY USE.

THERE'S NO NOISE, THERE'S NO ODORS.

THERE'S NO TRAFFIC GENERATED.

THE SCALE OF IT IS LOWER THAN CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS.

THERE'S NO HEAT OFF PUT TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT REALLY ARE BENEFICIAL FOR THIS LAND USE TYPE IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S VALUE ADDED TO YAVAPAI COUNTY BY RECOGNIZING PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND HELPING THOSE OWNERS WHO WANT TO USE THEIR LAND FOR A PRODUCTIVE USE AND JUST IN GENERAL, THAT THE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND THE ENERGY VALUES AND THE MARKET IS BENEFITED ACROSS THE BOARD FROM HAVING MORE MARKET FREEDOM AND PROVIDING THAT TO OUR COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU. SAMANTHA DEMAS.

>> HELLO BOARD. MY NAME IS SAMANTHA DEMAS, AND I HAVE A UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE.

I'M ALSO WITH ROSE LAW GROUP, BUT I ORIGINALLY GREW UP IN YAVAPAI COUNTY, AND I THINK SOLAR HAS A LOT TO PROVIDE HERE.

I COMMEND YOUR STAFF FOR THEIR HARD WORK ON THIS ORDINANCE, THE EXTENSIVE PUBLIC OUTREACH, AND THE COMMITMENT TO DETAIL, AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT.

I THINK SOLAR HAS A LOT TO PROVIDE THEY'RE SOME OF THE LARGEST COMPANIES IN THE WORLD.

THEN ON TOP OF THAT AT THE END OF THE 30 YEAR LIFE OR WHATEVER THE DETERMINED LIFE OF THE PROJECT IS, THE LAND IS RETURNED TO ITS NATURAL STATE, AND YOU CAN USE IT FOR THE NEEDS OF THE COUNTY AT THAT TIME.

WE'VE JUST SEEN SO MANY GREAT PROJECTS GO THROUGH WHERE SOLAR DEVELOPERS CAN PROVIDE ALL THESE COMMUNITY BENEFITS LIKE SCHOLARSHIPS OR FIREFIGHTER TRAINING OR LARGE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS.

I AM ASKING YOU TO APPROVE TODAY BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON IS A USE PERMIT THAT ALLOWS YOU TO CONSIDER THESE PROJECTS.

IT'S NOT A YES OR A NO ON ANY PARTICULAR ONE.

IF YOU SEE ONE THAT'S NOT FIT FOR THE COUNTY, VOTE NO ON IT, BUT I INVITE YOU TO AT LEAST CONSIDER THE OPTION TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY AND FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK FOR YOU. THANK YOU.

>> STEPHEN COOK.

>> I'M STEPHEN COOK. I'M VICE CHAIR OF THE YAVAPAI GROUP OF THE SIERRA CLUB, AND TODAY, I'M REPRESENTING THAT GROUP.

ON OCTOBER 25TH, WE SENT YOU A LETTER STATING OUR POSITION ON THIS ORDINANCE. IT BEGAN.

THE MOST RECENT REVISIONS WILL UNREASONABLY LIMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF UTILITY SCALE SOLAR.

[02:50:01]

THESE REVISIONS ARE INADEQUATELY ANALYZED AND WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS.

I BELIEVE THAT FALSE CLAIMS AND RELATED MISINFORMATION SPURRED REVISIONS YOU MADE AT YOUR SEPTEMBER 4TH MEETING.

OUR LETTER WENT ON TO SUGGEST IT IS TIME TO PAUSE THE PROCESS AND CAREFULLY RECONSIDER.

TO FACILITATE THAT RECONSIDERATION, THIS LETTER WE SENT RAISED MANY CONCERNS.

YOU SHOULD HAVE A ONE PAGE SUMMARY OF IT IN FRONT OF YOU.

IF YOU WISH TO CHALLENGE THESE REBUTTALS AND REASSERT ANY OF THESE FALSE CLAIMS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

NOW, WE'VE HEARD A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT ARE ADDRESSED IN THIS REBUTTAL SHEET THIS MORNING.

HILTONES ARE NOT A PROBLEM.

STATE OF THE ART SILVER PROJECTS ARE NOTIFIED BY APPROACHING THUNDERSTORMS TO CARRY HAIL, THEY CAN TILT AWAY FROM THE PROBLEM.

HERBICIDES AREN'T A PROBLEM.

>> CONTINUE WITH THE COUNCIL. [OVERLAPPING]

>> GRAZING SHEEP AROUND SILVER PANELS CAN DEAL WITH THAT.

I BELIEVE FEAR MONGERING FALSE CLAIMS AND MISINFORMATION, DROVE STIPULATIONS THAT MADE YOUR REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDINANCE MUCH MORE STRICT.

ONE OF THEM IS MORE THAN 10 MILES AWAY FROM SIGNIFICANT LAND FORMS WITH RECOGNIZED ESTHETIC OR RECREATIONAL VALUE.

HEY, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF BEAUTIFUL STUFF IN THIS COUNTY.

WHO'S TO SAY, WHAT FITS INTO THIS? YOU'RE LEAVING YOURSELF OPEN WITH THIS UNWORKABLE VAGUE PROVISION TO EXPENSIVE LEGISLATION.

FOLLOW WHAT THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DID IS DOING AND DESIGNATE SOME SOLAR ENCOURAGEMENT AREAS.

STUDY THIS.

>> STEPHEN.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. THE NEXT ONE UP IS, I CAN'T READ THIS, BUT THE LAST NAME IS CRADY. IS IT PATRICK?

>> YES.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.

I'M PATRICK CRADY, CHAIR OF THE QUAD CITIES CLIMATE COLLABORATIVE.

YES, I AM PRO SOLAR, BUT I ALSO AGREE WITH A NUMBER OF THE COMMENTS THAT CALL FOR BALANCING.

BUT I WANT TO RAISE AN INTERESTING PARALLEL.

IT'S BEEN MENTIONED A BIT TODAY THAT CHINO VALLEY IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED A SOLAR ORDINANCE.

ACTUALLY, IT'S MUCH MORE FRIENDLY TO UTILITY SCALE SOLAR PROJECTS.

TWO PROVISIONS ILLUSTRATE THIS CONTRAST.

THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES JUST THAT MINIMUM SEPARATION OF A QUARTER OF A MILE.

THE ORDINANCE BEING PROPOSED TODAY REQUIRES FOUR TIMES GREATER THAT AMOUNT.

THEN IN THE SECOND AREA, THEY HAVE A CUMULATIVE MAXIMUM ACREAGE FOR ALL SOLAR PROJECTS WITHIN THE TOWN TO 3,800 ACRES.

IF THAT'S ABOUT 5.4% OF THEIR JURISDICTIONS ACREAGE.

IF YOU USE THAT SAME FIGURE, IT WOULD ALLOW UTILITY SCALE PROJECTS IN YAVAPAI COUNTY TO ACTUALLY OCCUPY UP TO 162,000 ACRES.

BY SAYING THAT'S A GOOD STANDARD? NO. BUT I DO THINK THAT 10,000 ACRES IS WAY TOO LIMITED.

IT MAY BE SURPRISING, BUT I STILL THINK ADDITIONAL WORK IS NEEDED.

I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK MORE CLOSELY AT THE CV MODEL AND ASK WHY IS THAT APPEAR TO BE ACCEPTABLE TO ONE COMMUNITY, BUT NOT ANOTHER COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU FOR THIS TIME, AND I ALSO APPRECIATE THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT'S GONE INTO THIS BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THE COMMENTS MADE BY A NUMBER OF CITIZENS TODAY, AGAIN, ABOUT BALANCE AND THE ECOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE AND THE LIKE.

I THINK THAT'S ALL VERY IMPORTANT, AND I THINK YOU'RE DOING A GOOD JOB OF LOOKING AT ALL THOSE POSITIONS AND HOPEFULLY INTEGRATING THAT INTO SOME FURTHER COMPROMISES. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CRADY. KENNETH FREUND.

IS IT FRIEND OR FREUND?

>> FREUND. THANK YOU.

BUT WE WON'T HOLD IT AGAINST YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

AGAIN, MY NAME IS KENNETH FREUND, AND I RESIDE IN PRESCOTT VALLEY.

I URGE YOU TO LIMIT THESE MASSIVE SOLAR FARMS. I THINK THAT THEY'RE AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND VISUAL DISASTER.

A LARGE ONE LIKE THAT WOULD CREATE A HEAT ISLAND.

WEED ABATEMENT, OF COURSE, IS A CHEMICAL NIGHTMARE RIGHT ON TOP OF AN AQUIFER.

[02:55:06]

WITH THE CHANGING TECHNOLOGY, THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE THAT THEY WON'T BE STATE OF THE ART IN A FEW YEARS, AND MUCH BETTER ONES WILL COME ALONG.

THEN WHAT HAPPENS? THESE WIND UP IN OUR LANDFILLS WITH ALL THESE DANGEROUS CHEMICALS.

WE'RE ALSO ONE GOOD HAILSTORM AWAY FROM A CHEMICAL DISASTER.

OF ALL THESE THINGS RUNNING INTO THE WATER SUPPLY.

I WOULD URGE YOU AGAIN, TO LIMIT THE SCOPE AND THE SIZE OF THESE.

I THINK THEY BELONG ON THE TOP OF HOUSES, AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND SCHOOLS, AND PARKING STRUCTURES.

I THINK THAT'S WHERE SOLAR PANELS REALLY BELONG.

I HAVE THEM ON MY OWN HOUSE, SO I'M NOT TOTALLY AGAINST SOLAR.

I'M AGAINST THE MASSIVE PROJECTS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MIKE SAVELLAS.

AM I SAYING THAT RIGHT?

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> THANK YOU.

>> HI.

>> HI. I'VE BEEN IN THE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY WORLD SINCE JANUARY OF '83.

I'VE DONE ONE OF THE FIRST SOLAR PROJECTS FOR APS, NSRP, AND I PUT IN ONE OF THE FIRST SUBSTATIONS.

THERE'S A TERM CALLED NODAL ANALYSIS.

YOU GOT TO KNOW WHERE YOUR POWER IS GOING BEFORE YOU CAN ACTUALLY PUT IT ON THE GRID.

WELL, I THINK THAT THE BOARD NEEDS TO KNOW FROM APS, IS GOING ACROSS THE LAND AND THE LINES THEY HAVE, HOW MUCH CAPACITY EACH LINE CAN HAVE, AND AT WHAT PERIOD OF TIME, OVER THE YEARS, DO THEY WANT TO ACCEPT THAT POWER? THE REASON WHY I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT MORE THAN ONE PROJECT GOING ON HERE, AND THERE MIGHT BE A BETTER PLACE TO PUT THOSE PROJECTS FOR THE PEOPLE OF YAVAPAI COUNTY VERSUS THE COMPANIES, TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT POWER TO WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE.

THIS IS NOT JUST LIKE ZONING FOR PROPERTY HOUSE.

THIS IS A POWER PLANT.

THESE POWER PLANTS NEED TO BE PUT IN THE BEST PLACE FOR THE COUNTY.

I BELIEVE IN PROPERTY RIGHTS, BUT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS AS A UTILITY AND YOU GOT TO PUT IT IN THE RIGHT PLACE.

THE POWER COMPANIES GOT TO TELL YOU WHERE THEY WANT THAT, BECAUSE THE POWER COMPANY'S NOT GOING TO ACCEPT THEIR POWER UNLESS THEY GOT A PLACE TO PUT IT.

NOW, WHEN I DID A CLASS TO THE POWER COMPANY, THEY'RE ENGINEERS, AND I BROUGHT EVERYBODY TOGETHER ON HOW TO DO THIS STUFF, WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN HAWAII, CALIFORNIA, NEVADA, AND WHAT THE GRID IS GOING TO BE LIKE.

I CAN'T TELL YOU ALL THIS STUFF IN TWO MINUTES.

BUT IF YOU EVER WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT, YOU'VE GOT MY NUMBER.

MARY MALLORY KNOWS HOW TO GET AHOLD OF ME.

I COULD LAY THIS ALL OUT.

I CAN MEET WITH THE ENGINEERS FROM APS, AND WE CAN GET DOWN TO THE RIGHT PLACE TO PUT THIS STUFF AND USING THE POWER THE CORRECT WAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. MR. BRAD CUSTER.

>> HELLO, AND THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME OUT.

GOOD MORNING. I AM COMPLETELY AGAINST THE SOLAR ALTOGETHER.

THAT'S WHERE I STAND. I HAD SOLAR IN MY HOUSE.

MY BIGGEST CONCERNS ARE FIRES, THE WATER CONTAMINATION.

WE MOVED HERE THREE MONTHS AGO FROM QUEEN CREEK, ARIZONA, WHICH IS 7,000 POPULATION ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO.

NOW IT'S OVER 100,000.

I'VE WATCHED BATTERY PLANTS GO UP THERE. IT'S A NIGHTMARE.

WE MOVED UP HERE. I'M A NATIVE OF ARIZONA, AND I'VE BEEN TO PRESCOTT A LOT.

WE'RE SO HAPPY TO BE HERE.

ONE WEEK AFTER WE MOVED IN, WE FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS PROJECT THAT'S GOING IN WITHIN TWO MILES OF OUR PROPERTY.

THE STIPULATION ON US BUYING WAS HOW THE WELL TESTED AND IT TESTS OUT A 25 GALLONS PER MINUTE, WHATEVER IT IS.

ANYWAY, THAT WAS GREAT, BUT THIS CONTAMINATION OF THE WATER WILL HAPPEN WITH PRE EMERGENCE.

I KNOW THIS. THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN.

THE OTHER THING IS THE TRAFFIC WAS NOT ADDRESSED BECAUSE THERE'S ONE WAY TO GET TO BUILD THIS THING, I BELIEVE, AND IT'S COYOTE SPRINGS ROAD AND THE 89.

I LIVE RIGHT OFF COYOTE SPRINGS ROAD.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY WOULD HANDLE THAT WITH BUILDING THIS FOR TWO YEARS,

[03:00:02]

WHICH IS WHAT I BELIEVE IT WOULD TAKE.

IF THERE WERE A FIRE OUT THERE, HOW ARE THEY GETTING TO ANYWHERE? I'VE GOT ANIMALS.

MOST OF THE PEOPLE AROUND ME HAVE HORSES, LIVESTOCK.

THERE WAS A FIRE NOT LONG AGO, A BRUSH FIRE, AND PEOPLE DID NOT KNOW WHERE TO GO.

THERE WAS NO ESCAPE.

I TALKED TO A LADY THAT WENT AND HELD HER HORSES IN A CHURCH PARKING LOT FOR FOUR HOURS TO FIND OUT WHERE TO GO.

THAT IS A BIG CONCERN OF OURS.

WE MOVED OUR WHOLE FAMILY HERE, AND NOW WE'RE DEALING WITH THIS.

IT'S VERY UPSETTING. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. BRIAN LANTERO.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I ACTUALLY ATTENDED THE CHINO VALLEY P&Z MEETING YESTERDAY, SO I DISAGREE THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE DRACONIS PROJECT, BECAUSE THE DRACONIS PROJECT, ALTHOUGH THE SOLAR PLANT IS GOING TO BE WITHIN CHINO VALLEY TOWNSHIP, THE TRANSMISSION TOWERS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING IN WILL BE GOING RIGHT ACROSS AND INCORPORATE YAVAPAI COUNTY AND STATE LAND.

WOULD APPLY IN MY BACKYARD.

I WANTED TO TOUCH ON SOMETHING ELSE.

THAT IS HOW BIG THESE ARE.

WE'RE THROWING NUMBERS AROUND LIKE 3,000 AND 4,000.

THE LARGEST SOLAR PLANT BY ACREAGE IN THE UNITED STATES IS 4,700 ACRES IN THE TOPAZ SOLAR FARM IN SAN LUIS OBISPO.

THE NEXT BIGGEST ONE IS 4,000 ACRES, COPPER MOUNTAIN FARM IN NEVADA.

THE NEXT BIGGEST ONE NUMBER 3 IS 3,200 ACRES.

THEY'RE PROPOSING 3,500 ACRES WITH DRACONIS.

CHINO VALLEY SOMEHOW MAGICALLY IS MAXED OUT AT 3,800.

THEY'VE ALREADY GOT 300.

WHAT DOES THAT LEAVE? THIRTY-FIVE HUNDRED.

THEN I FOUND SOMETHING SCARY YESTERDAY AT CHINO VALLEY DURING THE MEETING.

APPARENTLY, BACK IN 2020, BY THE WAY, EVERYTHING HAS GOT TO BE EAST OF THE P VALLEY OR PEAVINE TRAIL, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE IN A CERTAIN PERSON'S LAND.

THAT ORIGINALLY THE DIRECTOR GAVE HIM SOME APPROVAL, TOLD HIM TO WAIT.

NOW CHINO VALLEY IS UNDER PRESSURE TO DO THEIR ORDINANCE IN FEAR OF THEY MIGHT BE SUED BY THESE TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT BIG POWER COMPANIES.

THAT'S REALLY SCARY TO THINK THAT THE REASON THEY'RE DOING IT, AND THE REASON THEY'RE GOING FAST IS BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO FACE BANKRUPTCY FROM THESE NICE PEOPLE, THESE NICE BIG POWER COMPANIES.

THEY'RE GOING TO BRING US ALL THIS MONEY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

MR. JAMES STEIN DOESN'T WISH TO SPEAK, BUT HE WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT HE SUPPORTS THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY GARY BEVERLY AND THE SIERRA CLUB REGARDING THE LIMITATIONS PLACED ON UTILITY SCALE SOLAR FACILITIES.

HE BELIEVES IT SHOULD BE RE EVALUATED.

DIANE GOMEZ FROM DEWEY, ARIZONA, SHE DIDN'T WANT TO SPEAK, BUT SHE IS OPPOSED TO THE ISSUE.

JOHN AND ANDREA WHITMAN FROM PRESCOTT VALLEY, THEY'RE OPPOSED TO THE ISSUE WITH THAT COMMENT.

IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE ATTACHED TO SOMETHING? OLIVIA, WITH NO LAST NAME.

I AM EXTREMELY CONCERNED BY THE PROPOSED 5,000 ACRE SOLAR FIELD.

MY CONCERNS ENCOMPASS WATER ISSUES, FIRE, POLLUTION, AND OVERALL IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING AREA.

I FAIL TO SEE ANY ADVANTAGE THIS WOULD BRING TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.

WE ALREADY HAVE A WATER PROBLEM.

I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC THAT THIS WILL CAUSE, ESPECIALLY ON COYOTE SPRINGS ROAD, WHICH I BELIEVE IS GOING TO BE THE ACCESS TO THIS DEVELOPMENT.

NOW, MR. RUSSELL PILCHER, I HOPE.

I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.

CURRENT DRAFT IS ARBITRARY, TOO RESTRICTIVE FOR SOLAR POWER AND IS BASED UPON NUMEROUS FALSE CLAIMS. THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE NEEDS MORE WORK.

VALERIE JAMES, SHE'S IN FAVOR OF THE ISSUE.

PASS THE ORDINANCE.

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE RESIDENT'S FEEDBACK.

YOU'RE WELCOME. WITH THAT,

[03:05:07]

DO I HAVE ANY KIND OF MOTION OR THOUGHTS GOING FORWARD ON THIS AREA?

>> CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND ACCEPT THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN WITH THE ONE CHANGE OF 5-8 DEGREE SLOPE.

>> FIVE TO EIGHT.

>> DEGREE SLOPE. THE ONE WE APPROVED EARLIER.

>> OKAY.

>> I'LL SECOND THAT.

>> GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL.

>> BACK TO THE 8,000?

>> DO WE WANT TO TALK ANYMORE ABOUT HOW MUCH? RIGHT NOW, THIS STANDS AT 10,000, I BELIEVE, CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> TEN THOUSAND ACRES.

ANYBODY THINK THAT'S OKAY?

>> KEEP IT THERE.

>> KEEP IT AT THAT LEVEL.

YOU CAN TAKE EACH INDIVIDUAL AS IT COMES IN ANYWAY, SO IT'S ARBITRARY.

MS. MICHAELS, IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU?

>> SURE.

>> WELL, I GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR.

>> AYE.

>> IT IS NOW THE ORDINANCE.

WHEN DOES THIS TAKE EFFECT, SO EVERYBODY KNOWS?

>> THIRTY DAYS. THANK YOU.

>> MERRY CHRISTMAS. [LAUGHTER] JUST A GENERAL SPEAKING IN REGARDS TO THIS PROJECT OVERALL, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE GREAT FLEXIBILITY, AND MOST OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD HAVE ALWAYS BEEN BASICALLY VERY CONSERVATIVE ABOUT HOW WE SEE THINGS.

SOME OF THE REASONS WHY WE ARE ADDRESSING THIS NOW, ACTUALLY, SOME OF YOU TOUCHED ON SOME OF THOSE THINGS.

IS THAT THERE'S A LOT OF MISCONCEPTION OUT THERE ABOUT SOLAR.

THE QUESTION, ONE OF THE FIRST ONES IS, EVERYBODY SAYS, WELL, WE NEED MORE.

WELL, IS THAT TRUE? IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT SO ACCORDING TO APS, WHO IS OUR PROVIDER.

THEY ARE ONLY ONE OF TWO PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY CAN SELL ENERGY IN ARIZONA, SRPB AND THE OTHER.

WHAT WAS I GOING TO SAY? THE ENERGY THAT WE SELL TO CALIFORNIA IS ALL AT NIGHTTIME FROM THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOWN IN THE VALLEY.

THERE'S A LOT OF MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT SOLAR.

I HAVE SOLAR ON MY HOME.

I LOVE IT. I GET A BILL EVERY MONTH FROM APS, THAT SAYS THEY OWE ME MONEY.

I LIKE THAT. NOT A LOT, BUT IT ALWAYS HELPS, ESPECIALLY DURING THE SUMMER.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO UTILITY SIZE, WE HAVE TO SAY, WE MOVED HERE FOR A REASON.

DO WE WANT TO BE IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE AND HAVE THAT TYPE OF THING? I PERSONALLY DON'T BELIEVE SO.

ANYWAY, WITH THAT, WE'RE GOING TO GO ON TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT. WE DID VOTE, RIGHT?

[ COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02(K), the County Manager may present brief summaries of current events but no discussion may occur, and no action may be taken regarding anything that is presented.]

>> YES.

>> GO AHEAD, MAURY. THANK YOU.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME. GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN, VICE CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

MAURY THOMPSON COUNTY MANAGER.

I WILL BE BRIEF THIS MORNING.

I HAVE TWO ITEMS TO REPORT.

THE FIRST IS THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE BUDGET COMMITTEE THE MONTHLY FISCAL HIGHLIGHTS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN YOUR MATERIALS FOR YOU TO REVIEW.

VERY BRIEFLY ON THAT ITEM, YEAR TO DATE THROUGH SEPTEMBER, EXCLUDING THE URBAN REVENUE SHARING FISCAL YEAR 2025 GENERAL FUND REVENUES ARE 4% ABOVE THE PRIOR YEAR, AND ARE $108 MILLION ABOVE THE ENACTED BUDGET FORECAST.

FORTUNATELY, STATE REVENUES CONTINUE TO IMPROVE.

SECONDLY, LET YOU KNOW, CONSISTENT WITH A COUPLE OF ITEMS WE HEARD THIS MORNING ABOUT THE GOOD WORK HAPPENING IN OUR COMMUNITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.

LIKEWISE, I'D LIKE TO REPORT ANOTHER PIECE OF GOOD NEWS ON BEHALF OF OUR STAFF.

GOVERNOR HOBBS HAS APPOINTED OUR PUBLIC FIDUCIARY, KATHRYN BLAIR, TO A COMMITTEE.