Planning Commission Splits 4-2 to Recommend Approval of Controversial 160-Acre Data Center and Natural Gas Power Plant Despite 11,000-Signature Opposition Petition

The City council meeting, Arizona. Proprietary. The City council meeting, Arizona. Proprietary. The City council meeting, Arizona. Proprietary. The City council meeting, Arizona. Proprietary. The City council meeting, Arizona. Proprietary. The City council meeting, Arizona. Proprietary. The City council meeting, Arizona. Proprietary. The City council meeting, Arizona. Proprietary. The question is the answer is that the question has been made in contact with the people of the U.S.

Department of Labor to be open, and the ability to contact the government.

Welcome to the planning commission meeting of September 24th 2026 My name is Vern Crow and I am the chairperson of the commission The planning commission is a citizen body appointed by the city council The commission is empowered to make final decisions on certain matters with those being appealable to the city council On other matters the commission acts in an advisory role to the council with the council making the final decision You will have an opportunity to address the commission during the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Your testimony is appreciated and encouraged. The commission acts from a written agenda and you will need to fill out a yellow speaker card and give it to city staff if you wish to speak on an item. Copies of the agenda and the speaker cards are located on the table outside the main door. At this time, please be sure to silence your cell phones. Thank you.

There are seven members appointed to the Planning Commission and at this time I will ask the commissioners to introduce themselves and state the district they are representing. Starting from my far right, Commissioner Gears. John Gears, Ocateo District. Vice Chair Cole. Tom Cole, Barrel District. Commissioner Hooper. Brian Hooper, Saguaro District. Commissioner Arellano. Sergio Arellano, Yucca District. Commissioner Johnson-Vasquez. Helena Johnson-Vasquez, Cholla District.

And I am Vern Crow and I represent Cactus. Let the record show that all members of the Planning Commission are present with the exception of Commissioner Crow, John Crow. Planning Commission received staff assistance and guidance from the Planning Division and the City Attorney's Office. Now, on to the approval commissioners to the Do I hear a motion to approve the minutes of August 27, 2026 planning commission's regular meeting? I move for the approval of the minutes.

Thank you, Commissioner Iriana. Do I hear a second? I second. Thank you, Commissioner Gears. I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of the August 27, 2026 planning commission regular meeting as written. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Ms. Duttgupa, are there any withdrawals or continuances this evening? Chairman, there are none. Thank you. The purpose of the public hearing is to provide interested parties an opportunity to present testimony for the commissioner's consideration.

We will now follow the same procedures for each item, and that is, I will call the application number, staff will present their report and answer questions from the commissioners, The applicant will be given the opportunity to make a presentation and answer questions from the commissioners. Other persons who wish to testify will be asked to do so and answer questions from the commission. The applicant will have an opportunity for closing comments.

Staff will be asked for final comments and the applicant and procedural guidance. I will then close the public hearing and ask for a motion prior to any further discussion by the commissioners. If you wish to speak on an item, you will need to state your name and address for the record when you're at the podium. Please be brief and to the point and avoid repetition. I reserve the right to limit the length of the testimony to three minutes.

All exhibits shown to the commission become part of the permanent record and must be submitted for the file. Large groups should designate a spokesperson, applause, and other disruptions that delay the hearing will not be tolerated. We have six public hearing items this evening. Agenda item CUP 26-02, CUP 26-03, and CUP 26-04 will be presented in succession and each item then will be voted on individually. Mr. Lerma, will you present the case? Good evening, Chair, members of the Commission.

Before you are three separate requests for a conditional use permit to allow three separate drive-through facilities in parcel 21 of the Stonehaven Plant Area Development. The 20 acre property is located at the northeast corner of 91st Avenue and Camelback Road in the Yucca District. The subject property along with the properties to the north and east are zoned planned area development and are part of the Stonehaven Master Development.

Properties to the west are zoned planned area development and agriculture and the properties to the south within the city of Phoenix Municipal Limits are zoned for commercial purposes.

The property is currently vacant and as of recently has been used for agriculture purposes Properties to the north and the east are being used for residential use and again part of the Stonehaven development To the west is Copper Canyon High School preschool and restaurant uses that are currently under development And to the south within the city of Phoenix municipal limits are restaurants retail and residential uses The conceptual site plan before you depicts the Stonehaven Marketplace commercial shopping center at full build with a proposed anchor grocery store with a fuel canopy and six separate commercial pads.

The area highlighted in yellow is associated with CU P2602 which is a request for a grocery pharmacy drive-thru facility for the anchor grocery tenant located at the northeast area of the shopping center. The area highlighted in red is associated with CUP 2603, which is a request for a restaurant drive-through facilities located at a central west boundary of the development. And the area highlighted in blue is associated with CUP 2604.

Also a request for a drive-through facilities for restaurant use, which is located at the southwest corner of the development. Access to the site is proposed along both street frontages with two full driveways and one right in right out drive access along 91st Avenue and two full driveways and a right in right out drive access along Campbell Back Road. The site plan before you is specific to the pharmacy drive-through which is associated with an anchored grocery tenant.

The building itself is going to be approximately 99,000 square feet. The pharmacy drive-thru will be located along the east side of the grocery store and will provide a queuing of six vehicles. The site plan before you is associated with Shop Stew, a multi-tenant building of approximately 7,000 square feet with a restaurant indicated along the northwest and south side of the commercial building. The drive-thru lane will be accommodating for 13 vehicle stacking.

And this plan before you is for shops one. Again, a multi-tenant building, approximately 7,000 square feet, with the drive-thru indicated along the west, south, and east side of the commercial building, and this drive-thru as well will have enough queue-in for 13 vehicles. A virtual neighborhood meeting was conducted June 3rd of 2026. At said virtual meeting there were 18 attendees. Those who attended had questions about timing for the development and screening mechanisms for the development.

Staff has found the following findings. The proposed development supports the intent of the planned commercial land use designation. The drive-through facilities are part of the planned shopping center. The commercial development is anticipated to offer goods and services which include multiple restaurants, retail shops, and the fuel station.

The proposed building location, orientation, drive-through design, and signage are key components to provide safe and organized vehicle and pedestrian circulation while taking into consideration the other commercial uses in the shopping center. The proposed drive-through facilities will not be determined to the surrounding properties due to the proposed site design.

The shopping center will have approximately, the shopping center will have a perimeter 8 foot CMU block wall along the north and east property lines shared with existing residential uses. Additional buffering will be done in the form of landscaping along the development perimeter with an average landscaping area of 36 feet. Substantial separation has been placed between the residential properties and the proposed drive-through facilities.

Site development standards have been met or exceeded providing for a high quality design. At approximately 20 acres the subject property is adequate in size to accommodate for the proposed drive-through facilities. The attached site plans demonstrate the proposed drive-through facilities exceed maximum stacking requirements. All applicable departments have reviewed the application and comments provided during the design review have been incorporated into these applications.

With this, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve CUP 26-02 subject to the following stipulation. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the site plan and project narrative, date stamped July 16, 2026, Subject to the design review approval by the Development Service Department Planning Division. Staff also recommends that Planning Commission approve CUP 26-03, subject to the following stipulation.

Development shall be in such conformance with the site plan and project narrative, date stamp July 16, 2026, subject to design review approval and the Development Service Department Planning Division.

And staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve CUP 26-04, Subject to the following stipulation Development shall be in substantial conformance with the site plan and project narrative date stamped July 16 2026 subject to the design review approval by the Development Services Planning Division Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, this concludes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Lerma. Commissioners, anything for Mr. Lerma? Nice job, thank you.

Okay, would the applicant or applicant's representative like to add anything? If so, come up, state your name for the record and make your presentation. Thank you very much, Chairman Crowe. Commissioners, appreciate you hearing this item tonight. Thank you for giving us support on this project. I really wouldn't add anything. We've had unanimous support, no opposition to the request. So with that said, yeah, hopeful for your support this evening. Happy to respond to any questions you have.

Did you state your name for the record? I apologize. Dana Burkhart, SEG International. Commissioners, anything for Mr. Burkhart? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay, the public hearing for case numbers CUP 26-02, 26-03, and 26-04 are now closed. And I will take each of those separately starting with 26-02. Do I hear a motion for CUP 26-02? Mr. Chair. Commissioner Arellano. I would like to make a motion that we approve CUP 26-02 per the findings subject to stipulation contained in the staff report.

Thank you sir. Do I hear a second? Second. John Savasca, thank you very much. Commissioners, are there any further comments or discussions regarding CUP 26-02? Okay I have a motion and a second to approve case number CUP 26-02 subject to the stipulation as outlined by staff. I will now call a roll call vote. Commissioner Gears? Aye. Vice Chair Cole? Aye. Commissioner Hooper? Aye. Commissioner Arellano? Yes. Commissioner Johnson-Vasquez? Aye. Chair votes yes.

Case number CUP 26-02 has been recommended for approval subject to the stipulations as outlined by staff. Mr. Gruber, what are the next steps in the process? Chair and Commission, your action with respect to case number CUP 26-02 is final, subject to a written appeal received within 15 days. Thank you, sir. Okay, do I hear a motion for CUP 26-03? Chair. Commissioner Johnson-Vasquez. I move to approve CUP 26-03 for the findings and subject to stipulation in the staff report. Second.

Okay, I have a motion. First of all, any further comments from the commissioners? Sorry guys, I almost skipped over you. Okay, I have a motion and a second to approve case number CUP 26-03 subject to the stipulations outlined by staff. I will now call a roll call vote. Commissioner Gears. Aye. Vice Chair Cole? Aye. Commissioner Hooper? Aye. Commissioner Arellano? Yes. Commissioner Johnson-Vasquez? Aye.

Case number CUP 26-03 has been recommended for approval subject to stipulations as outlined by the staff? Aye. Mr. Gruber, what are the next steps? Chairman, Commission, your action with respect to case number CUP 26-03 is final subject to a written appeal received within Thank you Mr. Gruber. Gentlemen, do I hear a motion for CUP 26-04? Mr. Chair. Vice Chair Cole. I move to approve CUP 26-04 per the findings and subject to the stipulation contained in the staff report. Thank you sir.

Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you Commissioner Arellano. Are there any comments or further discussions regarding case number CUP 26-04? Commissioners? Okay, I have a motion and a second to approve case number CUP 26-04 subject to stipulations as outlined by staff. I will now call a roll call vote. Commissioner Gears? Aye. Vice Chair Cole? Aye. Commissioner Hooper? Aye. Commissioner Arellano? Yes. Commissioner Johnson-Vasquez? Aye. Chair votes aye. Case number CUP.

CUP 26-04 has been recommended for approval subject to stipulations as outlined by staff. Mr. Gruber, what are the next steps? Chair and Commission, your action with respect to CUP 26-04 is also final, subject to a written appeal received within 15 days. Thank you, Mr. Gruber. Our next agenda item, case number ZTA25-04. Mr. Hoskins, come up and present the case, please. Can you present the case please? Evening Mr. Chair, members of the Commission.

ZTA 25 Tax 04 is a request to amend the Unified Development Code in 49 individual administrative technical items across 28 UDC sections. Key highlights are topographical citation and internal inconsistency corrections in compliance with state statutes and federal regulations. Notably, the zoning application protest statutes and the religious land use and institutionalized persons act. Public notification requirements for this ZTA have been met.

Staff finds that the proposed amendment complies with the general plan to ensure consistent and fair process for future growth. Staff recommends Planning Commission forward a recommendation for approval of ZTA 25 tax 04 as written. That concludes my presentation pending your questions. Commissioners anything for Mr. Hoskins? Vice Chair Cole? Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Hoskins thank you for presentation. A lot of cleanup.

See a lot of the changing of the term church to the term place of worship, which obviously aligns us and makes perfect sense. My question is item number 31, accessory use conditions. 353-204, ADU accessory dwelling unit. The terminology change from shall to may as far as separate meter requirements and it doesn't specify water or power so I assume it's both. Can you give us a little background on that? Mr. Chair and members of the commission, correct.

That change is to align with state statute and be in compliance with state statute. Okay, thank you. Gentlemen, anything further? I have no speaker cards. So the public hearing for case number ZTA 25-04 is now closed. Do I hear a motion? Mr. Chair. Commissioner Arellano. I move to pass ZTA 25-04. Second. Okay, I have a motion and a second to approve case Case number ZTA25-04, subject to the stipulations outlined by staff. I will now call a roll call vote. Commissioner Gears? Aye.

Vice Chair Cole? Aye. Commissioner Hooper? Aye. Commissioner Arellano? Yes. Commissioner Johnson-Vasquez? Aye. Chair votes aye. Case number ZTA25-04 has been recommended for approval subject to stipulations outlined by staff. Mr. Gruber, what are the next steps? Chair and Commission, your action with respect to case number ZTA 25-04 is not final. Your recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for further consideration. Thank you, Mr. Gruber. Our next item is case number ZON 26-06. Ms.

Lavelle will present the case. Good evening, Chairperson Crowe and Commissioners. Tonight I will be presenting CON 26-06, the request for the Base Industrial Planned Area Development Rezone. The applicant is requesting to rezone the Base Industrial Park North PAD and the Base Industrial Park South PAD into a single planned area development creating one consolidated zoning district over approximately 145 acres The subject site is shown on the zoning map and is highlighted.

The northern portion of the site is designated as Base Industrial Park North, and the southern portion is zoned Base Industrial Park South. The land to the north lies within unincorporated Maricopa County and just north of that is Luke Air Force Base. And the land to the south is within Litchfield Park. The hatched area on the zoning map shows the rezone location. The site is primarily accessed from Litchfield Road and it will be through three drive aisles.

The base industrial north PAD is partially developed with seven industrial buildings. The base south PAD remains undeveloped.

Adjacent properties include Maricopa County single-family residential subdivisions and industrial uses to the west and existing industrial uses to the south and the Luke Air Force Base The rezone consolidates the site into a single planned area development with consistent development standards, a stand-alone storage yard to support industrial operations, and it also removes outdated and incompatible uses.

It also establishes a clear process for future PAD amendments, ensuring that any project can be adjusted to the evolving operational and market needs. The applicant has met all public notification requirements. A virtual neighborhood meeting was held on August 5, 2026, with one attendee who just asked general questions. No additional comments to staff or the applicant were received. The applicant's citizen participation plan final report is in your packet.

The project is consistent with the City of Glendale general plan by implementing policy LU 2.1, which prioritizes land use compatibility within the 65 LDN and noise contour of the Luke Air Force Base. It also advances goal LU5 by establishing a coordinated planned area development over the entire area. And it supports goal LU1 by promoting orderly, well-managed growth.

Consolidating the two existing PADs under one regulatory framework advances the public health, And the budget and safety and the welfare of the city of Glendale by ensuring compatibility with surrounding uses and providing a defined process for future amendments and future development. No amendment to the general plan was warranted and was not proposed.

Stipulations included with this request ensure that the project adheres to the PAD narrative, meets all right-of-way standards, thus mitigating any potential impacts from that development. Staff recommends planning commission approval of ZON 2606 to be forwarded to the city council with the following stipulations. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the base industrial park PAB narrative, final date stamped August 7, 2026.

All half street improvements south of Bethany Home Road and adjacent to the site must be completed with the development of the property. Improvement standards shall comply with the City of Glendale design guidelines for site development and infrastructure construction. Dedication of additional right of way on along Litchfield Road to provide a total half width of 65 feet shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits. This concludes my presentation.

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Ms. Lavelle. Commissioners, anything for Ms. Lavelle? Vice Chair Cole. Thank you Ms Lavelle Thank you Mr Chair This still in the county Through the chair Chairperson Crowe this is actually was rezoned and went through two zoning actions in 2022. They had two separate PADs that were created, one for the north and one for the south. It is in the city. This action is only to consolidate that into one consolidated PAD.

So it is within the city limits. Thank you. So the half road improvements are still pending though? Through the chair, Commissioner Cole. Where so the north PAD has been developed to a certain level and so they have Those half street improvements have been completed. The south PAD has not had any development action and so that the half street improvements, they happen upon development application. So once someone comes in to develop that property then those will be completed at that time.

Thank you for the information. Commissioners? Thank you, Ms. Lavelle. Thank you very much. Okay, would the applicant's representative like to come forward, state your name for the record and add anything? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Wendy Riddell with the law firm Barry Riddell, 6750 East Camelback. We have a very brief presentation that I'd like to give if I could. I understand we had technology issues, so you might have to be my Vanna White tonight.

You don't look old enough to know who Vanna White is. I don't know what it is, but perhaps these gentlemen do. So what we are presenting tonight really is a technical cleanup. These zoning cases were already approved, and there is a division between them because they're two separate zoning cases. There's a rule that you can't build projects across zoning boundaries.

And so really the whole reason we are here today is to take two approved zoning cases and combine them into one so that we can build across that boundary. If our technical difficulties are too much, I'm happy to answer any questions, but really it is as simple as I am telling you, which is we have two existing zoning districts we're combining into one. That's wonderful. We'll go very quickly. Thank you. I hear you, but it's not moving. I'm presuming it's the green forward button. There we go.

Great, thank you. So the site today that you see, it's a multi-phase, Class A industrial. You can see what has actually been built out there, 1.2 million square feet. Phase two is planned to deliver an additional 750,000 square feet across three to six buildings. It's a major logistics hub here in the West Valley. It's been very successful. Next slide, if you would.

The site you see here today, just to put it in context with you, for you, adjacent to Luke Air Force Base, surrounding an existing storage site. Next slide, if you would. So there was a previous zoning request back in June of 2022. The city council approved these two zoning cases to M1 Light Industrial to PAD. One rezoning for the north, one rezoning for the south. Turns out that was a bad idea. We should have brought them all together as one, and that is what we are here today to remedy.

Next slide, if you would. So again, our today's request is merely a matter of taking the two and combining them into one. That was prompted by a tenant who wants to construct crossing that zoning boundary, which is not permitted. We are not proposing any changes to the PAD. There's technical cleanup items, so I can't say there's no changes, but just as your ordinance is being updated, There's been cleanup items, but there are no significant changes that are part of this PAD at all. Next slide.

To give you an idea, out there today you've got Tesla Collision, In Production, AZ Pro, Pulse Diverse, and Ayepa.

What we are proposing there you can see is an outdoor storage yard that is accessory to one of the buildings as well as you can see the future phases that are planned Next slide And then just to give you some idea of what those elevations look like very consistent with what you see out there on site today Next slide More renderings There you go So in conclusion we are requesting your approval tonight to take those two zoning districts to combine them into one All of the commitments that were made as part of the previous zoning case which include ultimately obtaining Luke's support have been maintained, as well as some of the commitments that were made to some of the adjacent neighbors that included increased setbacks, wall heights, landscaping.

All of that remains in place. So with that, Mr. Chair, I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Commissioner, is there anything for Ms. Riddell? Mr. Chair. Commissioner Ariano. Just out of curiosity, ma'am, why was it two pads instead of one? Was there a different plan? Ms. Mr. Chair and Planning Commissioner, that is a great question. I was not involved at first.

I think it had to do with how the parcels existed and probably the financing that was behind it at the time coming forward. They didn't anticipate this being a problem because they were mirror image PADs. And so, it's just proven to be a problem today. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, I don't have any speaker cards, but are there any members in the audience that would like to speak on this item? Okay, the public hearing for case number ZON 26-06 is now closed.

Do I hear a motion? Chair. Commissioner Hooper. The Planning Commission will recommend approval of ZON 26-06 based on the stipulations in the report. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson-Vasquez. Are there any further comments from the commissioners on ZON 26-06? Mr. Chair. Vice Chair Cole. I should remember a development this size and I just don't. That's kind of embarrassing. I apologize. That's all. That's all? Okay. Okay.

I have a motion and a second to approve case number ZON 26-06, subject to the stipulations as outlined in the staff report. I will now conduct the roll call vote. Commissioner Gears? Aye. Vice Chair Cole? Aye. Commissioner Hooper? Aye. Commissioner Ariano? Yes. Commissioner Johnson-Vasquez? Aye. Chair votes aye. Case number ZON 26-06 has been recommended for approval subject to the stipulations as outlined by staff. Mr. Gruber, what are the numbers?

Chair and Commission, your action with respect to case number ZON 26-06 is not final. Your recommendation will be forwarded to the city council. Thank you, Mr. Gruber. Ms. Torella will present case number ZON 26-05. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. As stated, I'll be presenting ZON 2605 for Project Eagle. This is a request to rezone from M2 to PAD with the intention of developing a data center campus and natural gas power generation facility.

Please note that the accompanying annexation case was heard for blank petition earlier this week at city council. Should a recommendation for approval be forwarded to council tonight, the annexation adoption and the case before you are anticipated to be scheduled at the same public hearing. Currently, the 160 acre site is zoned for heavy industrial in Maricopa County and there is an approved military compatibility permit which outlines development standards and conditions similar to a PAD.

Upon annexation, the zoning classification of M2 will be applied. However, the request before you is to rezone to PAD. Properties to the south and west are also zoned PAD and the properties to the north and east are zoned for agricultural and associated residential within the county. The subject property and land to the north and east are currently used agriculturally. The The area to the west is developed with warehousing and manufacturing developments.

The property to the south is vacant but permits industrial developments. Bording the site to the east and south is a BNSF rail spur which will remain. This site is within the 75 and 80 The 80 LDN is located within the 80 LDN. Development within these LDNs is limited by state statute to preclude any new single-family residential and allows for a mix of commercial and industrial uses. The 80 LDN permits for the most intense uses anticipated to generate higher decibels while operating.

Due to the proximity to Luke Air Force Base to the south, representatives from the Air Force Base were involved throughout this rezoning process. The site includes three main uses, data centers shown in green, a power generation facility shown in blue, and an APS substation shown in yellow. Three data centers are proposed, each at one story in height and approximately 330,000 square feet.

The power generation plant proposes to include 18 turbines and they are slated to come online to be built in phases with the data centers. The APS substation is the final phase of development and will develop independently.

Three access points are proposed, one on Olive which will cross the existing BNSF rail and will be used for emergency access, West on Hatcher Road, which will be the main ingress and egress point, and in the northeast corner, which will extend the 143rd Avenue alignment north to Peoria Avenue. All public notification requirements were met. Staff received one response after the notification letters were sent, which resulted in an in-person meeting.

This individual expressed concerns about air quality, noise mitigation, and encroachment on Luke Air Force Base, which were addressed by the applicant. A neighborhood meeting was held on August 12, 2026 and was attended by 40 residents from Glendale and surrounding municipalities. Attendees posed questions about air quality, water quality, water use, and proximity to residential. The applicant's final report is attached.

After the final report was approved, staff received additional responses including questions about the relation of this rezoning case to the already approved military compatibility permit, about screening and landscaping, about clarification on previous city council actions, and one response in support was received for this application. Provided to you before this meeting are email communications that were received over the entire course of this rezoning sent by surrounding residents.

A general plan amendment is not proposed as the existing designation of Luke-compatible land use is appropriate for the development within the vicinity of Luke Air Force Base. The site was selected due to the proximity to existing infrastructure, such as fiber and liquid gas, and to its location in the 75 and 80 LDNs. Luke Air Force Base reviewed the proposal and found the use is compatible should conditions provided in their review be met.

Some of these conditions are included in this request as stipulations, including the requirement for underground fuel reserves to be reinforced. Their letter from this review is included in your packet. The City, Luke Air Force Base, and the Maricopa County Department of Transportation reviewed this application. Conditions in the request are derived from those reviews. The City uses an adopted impact fee schedule for all developments.

Typically, developments are charged impact fees which will contribute to city improvements and services. As a large part of this site is occupied by equipment, the applicant and city staff are actively discussing possible contributions to public facilities which are appropriate to the scale of the anticipated operations. Should the Commission forward a recommendation of approval to city council, it should be with the following stipulations.

The development shall be in substantial conformance with the project EGLE PAD narrative, date stamped received July 17, 2026. A traffic impact statement shall be approved prior to the approval of the formal design review application. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy of the first phase of the development, a development agreement shall be approved by city council related to the proportionate cost share of the traffic signal at the Hatcher Road and Reams Road intersection.

Development shall comply with conditions for compatibility from Luke Air Force Base per the letter dated June 30, 2026. Operation of all emissions units shall be monitored continuously by adherence to the air permit conditions as issued by the Maricopa County Air Quality District and applicable MCAQD state and federal regulations to ensure adherence to the air quality standards Offsite natural gas shall be supplied directly by underground piping solely for on-demand power generation.

On-site liquefied propane shall be stored underground in National Fire Protection Association compliant tanks and protected by earthen and concrete slabs. Applicant slash developer is required to provide a secondary fire access to the site prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for the first phase of development.

If the location of the secondary fire access off Olive Avenue and on the southeast corner of the site as shown on the preliminary site plan dated July 13, 2026 is not constructed within the first phase of development, Another temporary fire access shall be provided, subject to review and approval of the fire marshal. Stand pipes shall be provided throughout the facility to include rooftops of all buildings.

Locations of stand pipes must be determined with design review application and are subject to review and approval of the fire marshal. Fire flow requirements shall be per the 2024 IFC section B104 and table B105.12. This may require on-site elevated or underground tanks to ensure fire flow requirements are maintained. And the last stipulation, the development is subject to fire inspections per standard protocol of the existing building inspection program. That concludes my presentation.

I'm available for any questions at this time. I thought I was going to get through without this cough. I almost made it. Are there any questions for Ms. Torella from the commissioners? Vice Chair Cole. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Torella. Is there a concurrent annexation action? Do you know? Through the chair, Commissioner Cole, there is a concurrent annexation application.

That's the city council action that I, or not action, the city council meeting I spoke of that happened in the last year. The blank petition was heard at the September 22nd city council meeting. The approval of that annexation is the application that I referred to that will be coming back should you recommend approval to move forward, most likely in October. Thank you. It's been a long day. And it's probably in here and I don't think I caught it about the estimated start time on the project.

Do they have a slide on? Through the chair, yeah, Commissioner Cole. They do have a phasing anticipated, but I'm going to defer that to the applicant. That's perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner, is anything further? Chairman? Commissioner Gears. I have a question. You're going to build a data center here, but I don't see anything where the city has done a water availability study of any sort.

Data centers use a lot of water and we're being asked to go to desert landscaping and cut back on usage. Where is the city going to get water and why isn't there a report in our packet? Through the chair, Commissioner Gears. This area is within EPCOR's water and sewer service area and the anticipated potential issue with the pressure for fire service is included in the stipulation.

I'm going to defer that one as well to the applicant as I know there are a lot of studies and discussions that are going on regarding just that. Okay, to that, eventually the city's going to be in charge of all of this. City of Glendale, they're going to annex this property and we will be providing water, fire protection, or is it Alderby County? How is that going to work? Through the chair, Commissioner Gears, no. It will be annexed into the city of Glendale.

However, EPCOR will remain the water and sewer provider, even after annexation. Guaranteed for 100 years? I'm just worried. We're being asked to cut back and this is a very large consumer water. And if there's a drought, why can't Citi be using that water instead of to a data center, which, you know, they're in business to make profit, so they're going to be using a lot. And what I looked at, they use millions of gallons of water, not just a little bit.

So that my biggest concern Thank you Thank you Okay would the applicant or applicant representative like to come forward state your name for the record, and make your presentation? Thank you chairman. Ed Boal, 1850 North Central Avenue. As you know we're here representing the property owner and the corresponding developers. We appreciate staff's recommendations. I agree with everything Ms. Torella just said. We'll elaborate on a couple of her answers because I think she deferred to us on those.

And I will tell you that many of our slides are very similar to what she showed, so I'll skip through them quickly, but stop me at any time if you want to dwell on any slide. But importantly, we have been working a long time, first with the county and now with the city. We appreciate staff's recommendation for approval. We accept all 11 of the stipulations that were in the staff report and that were read into your record a few minutes ago.

As she indicated, this development on this approximately 160 acres, all of which is owned by Bacara Eagle Land LLC, is really three components. Data center component on about 108 acres, the power generation component on about 33 acres, and then an APS substation on about 12 acres. The data center is referred to as Project EGLE. The power generation facility is referred to as Project Bacara.

Separate ownership but a co-location kind of facility which is being encouraged federally, locally and otherwise to, if you're doing data centers, bring power to the grid. We can talk with you about why EGLE and BACARA, and we may get into that more if you want on questions and so on, but as you know from the staff report and what's mentioned, this is all in accordance with the county approved military compatibility permit which goes through those processes.

It's in accordance with Corporation Commission approvals, which goes through those processes, and in accordance with Luke Review, which goes through Luke and other Air Force related processes. It's a huge investment. It's a development that we believe is best located in the city of Glendale and brings benefits to Glendale with respect to a variety of things. This is similar to the slide that was on the screen a few minutes ago.

I want to point out one additional feature in addition to not only the Wolf Logistics Industrial Development that's immediately to the west, which we had the opportunity to work with you on six or eight years ago, more or less. They've been busy building out there, but as indicated in green, all along the south and east sides of this site is a railroad line. All along that rail line is a 230 KV power line.

So we have industrial, industrial, rail line, KV line, and then some ag uses between us and residential to the north. General plan wise, as was indicated, we're in accordance with general plan, not only in Glendale, but surrounding communities as well, all of which track what the state statute says general plans are to provide in proximity to Luke Air Force Base. The noise contours were already on the screen. We're primarily in the noisiest noise contour that there is adjacent to Luke.

We are not in one of the APZs or under one of the APZs. We're not quite vertical to the runway, but nearly vertical to the runway. Current zoning is indicated. We went through the MCP process in the county. That's in accordance with state statute and the county code. We did the exact same thing for Wolf Logistics to the west a few years ago and Reams Industrial to the southwest a few years ago. That's the process to go through in accordance with the statute and accordance with Luke's review.

This is the county approval letter on the on the left Subject to a variety of stipulations The county approved military compatibility permit face sheet on the right We can go through those stipulations if you wanted but importantly what it picks up on are some Luke conditions of approval all of which one of our CEOs immediately replied back to the county and Luke agreed with and saying we comply with them and that's part of the stipulations and staff's report to you tonight as well, is that we comply with those loop requirements.

The data center itself, which is the Project Eagle portion, again on the western acreage of the site, at one time it was three, it was two, two-story buildings. There was some concern voiced about two-story buildings. We changed it to three one-story building, a little over a million square feet, high security. Obviously, along the north, stipulated elsewhere and included in the DR processes which we're in now. We have an eight-foot wall along the north.

We have other security fencing, wrought iron type fencing, along the west and south of the data center complex. The power generation facility also has a masonry wall along the north. Again, it's separated from the north property line by a future APS substation. A lot of discussion at the county about how is this generation facility fueled. It's fueled with natural gas that's piped to the site.

Backup as needed is in a buried concrete encased capped facility down near the southeast portion of the turbine facility. All of this is located substantially distance from any residential which is way to the north and substantially removed from any of these facilities, which we can talk about in more detail if you want. The APS substation, if you remember, is up at the northeast corner of the site. This will allow electricity generated to go through the substation into the grid.

It will also allow electricity to come out of the grid to the data center facility. There's been years of studies and reviews and approvals. As I mentioned, it's been scrubbed through federal standards, state standards, county standards, and city standards. In addition to approval by Luke and other Air Force entities, it went through the UCCD review processes, which has to do with use compatibility. That was confirmed as being appropriate. It went through the MCP processes at the county.

It went through line siting committee at the state, went through the corporation commission at the state, and of course we've been through additional city processes and so on as well. When we talk about water, as was indicated, the city of Glendale will not be the water provider, nor will it be the wastewater treatment entity. by the pre-annexation development agreement that goes back several years ago in this area and then was supplemented to include this particular 160 acres earlier this year.

The city today is not the water or wastewater provider. It will not be the water or wastewater provider post annexation. EPCOR is the provider in this area for water and wastewater. With respect to wastewater, that all arises from property owners agreeing to help construct a treatment facility many years ago which was needed for Wolf Logistics and other developments in the area. With respect to water, we were charged with bringing water or water credits in adequate quantity.

in the location that EPCOR wants them. That process is substantially underway and will be documented soon by all indications that have been provided to me as recently as today. Importantly, with respect to water use, while we fully appreciate that data centers and old technology electric generation facilities used a lot of water and Some publications available online and so on provide that that's still the technology. It's not the technology of today.

It's not best practice and it's not how this facility is designed. Compared to what this site is entitled to use because again it's ag land as is indicated on this slide. The anticipated water use through these closed systems is only about 25% of what the historic use would be on this property when it was used actively as farmland. Part of it still be in farm and it will be retired from that.

When I say it's a closed system, it's not exactly like the radiator in your car or truck, but it's similar to that on steroids. There is some pre-cooling that occurs. I am told similar to like a swamp cooler for pre-cooling before that closed circulation system kicks in on the hottest of days. That's just modern technology and it dramatically reduces that water use. As you can see on this slide, the estimated demand are the purple bands clear down at the bottom.

The green line is the type one ag rights which get converted as a part of this process. And then the blue bar charts are what the aquifer could actually support. We can get into it in more detail if you want, but this is not to be served water or wastewater service by the City of Glendale. And that's contractual and we'll be honored.

Through these processes at the state and the county, at the Corporation Commission Line Siting Committee, at the county itself, through the MCP processes and so on, All the different things that were listed up here were reviewed and studied. There's a variety of experts in the room with me here this evening which can discuss any of these in more detail if you want. But importantly, we believe is the ACC unanimously approved what they needed to approve several months ago.

The generation facility also as you know the city is not involved in air quality and dust and particulates and those types of things. That's not unique to the city of Glendale. That's true of every city that I'm aware of in this and in the county. That instead is handled by the Maricopa County Air Quality Control District or MCAQD.

We go through those processes for permitting and then importantly as indicated in this bottom part of this table is those standards need to be consistently and probably daily monitored and cross-checked against what the federal, state, and local county requirements are. The application for the power plant's air quality permit was filed and approved in July. The data center is pending. My understanding is to be finalized at any time. They do combined emissions and so on.

When we were here a couple nights ago in front of the council on the annexation, there was some questions by a neighbor about taking one permit to two permits, and we can explain it in detail if you want, but it was explained, look, there's two applications, one for the power generation facility, one for the data center. both go through Maricopa County Air Quality Control District which scrubs everything against federal and state and county standards and then monitors it as well.

When we look at the permits, this is again the permit for the power generation facility. Compliance with the regulatory limits is consistently monitored. The bottom dot point on the left side of this screen talks about continuous monitoring of the gas turbines for adherence to air permits applicable to the county, state, and federal regulations.

That not just me saying it that stipulation 5 in staff report to you There questions that have been posed maybe talked about again tonight about noise We have a noise expert here with us this evening if you want to talk about this in more detail. The analysis that's done based upon what acoustical consultants do and project is that there will be no perceptible increases in noise levels at the nearest residences.

The nearest residences are about four-tenths of a mile north of the closest data center building. They're about a half a mile north of the nearest generator facility and those are the closest residents that are in the county on the south side of Peoria. Of course those in surprise on the north side of Peoria are are substantially further away. We just put these concentric rings on here to show the projected noise levels and to do some comparisons as to what those noise levels are.

But importantly, there is no perceptible increase in the noise levels. I don't know how much the commission, if at all, gets into this type of jobs and fiscal benefit analysis.

It's something that we were asked by management and the council to have prepared by the same consulting firm that does this type of work for the city that supplied economics, talking about the in excess of $10 billion investment, talking about the substantial increase in jobs and high paying jobs north of a hundred thousand typically in these facilities because of the technology and engineering that's going on and then talking about the annual revenues to the city.

It's a very positive, from a fiscal perspective, very positive addition to the city. If the city chooses to annex the property, we know that so far at least the council has indicated they want to annex it and the blank petition will be signed soon. Of course there's been extensive community outreach done. Much of that was done when we were still in the county. I guess officially we are still in the county but when we were in the county processes there were six different neighborhood meetings.

There was an additional round of notice and an additional neighborhood meeting as we come forward in the city. With that, circling back to where I started, we appreciate staff's recommendation. We accept all 11 stipulations. We request your approval in accordance with staff's recommendation. If you have questions, I'll do my best to answer. Thank you, sir. Commissioners? Vice Chair Cole. Vice Chair Cole. Vice Chair Cole. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Notice the downturn in his voice. I apologize, sir.

Thank you, sir, Mr. Bolle, for your extensive and very detailed report. Did I miss the project phasing and your estimate on your timeline for the beginning of construction? You did because I forgot to answer that question. We are anticipating breaking ground yet in 2026. It is an approximately five year or so build out anticipation. It is a very real, as soon as we can, we can see that. We can get through DR and plans review and put a shovel in the ground is the intention. Thank you Mr. Bolle.

I do praise your report for, and I know I'm a broken record, but for acknowledging that rural metro is responsible for fire protection while this site is still in the county. I'll save my comments for the appropriate time, but thank you for having at least a nod to the fact that it's under private fire protection while it's in the county. Mr. Chair, commissioners, you are absolutely correct while we're still in the county.

I don know that you want me to go into a great deal of detail and I can yet but there been ongoing meaningful positive discussions with city management and city fire and others about we and others in the area stepping up to take advantage of a site that was dedicated to the city through the Wolf Logistics Center There's a lot of artistic zoning that I've mentioned a couple times and that site is my understanding where the city wants to have a new fire station in this area.

Doing all the things that it needs to do for not only this proposed facility but other existing and proposed facilities in the area. We are the CEOs of both entities that represent here tonight are fully on board with participating in that program. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Bowling. Commissioners? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay, I have a few speaker cards. So let's get started on that. When I call your name, come up to the podium.

You'll have three minutes and please state your name and your address and give us your presentation. We're going to start off with Gavin Costley. So yeah I'm Gavin Costley. My house is the closest house to this project. We built We built that house 20 years ago. We're still raising our kids there. I have two lots in there also, two vacant lots. My kids run through those lots. They run through the orchard. They've grown up there. They've grown up with the farmer that sold us the lots.

Just our whole life is there. So I don't know much about data centers. I don't know much about these on-site power plants. I just know that I want to protect my family and I want to protect my property value. And I mean I know everybody in here is the same. So we all want to someday retire and you know have a little bit. I see this damaging my property property value big time. My buddy down the road, he's actually my really good friend, he just built a house similar to mine and sold his house.

It's gonna close soon for 2.4 million just right down the road on Peoria. I won't even be able to get close to any of that with this project going in. And I've just been running a lot of stuff through my head just trying to do some research, trying to look at some why Luke Air Force Base would approve this when jets fly over this area. It doesn't really make sense to me.

I go back on my life and I don't really have anything written down, but my wife and I just going out and sitting by the pool and just looking into the orchard and these owls flying all over. I mean, it's just so peaceful. Like you guys would just have to go out there because it's just all orchard. It's beautiful. And now we're just being bombarded by these... warehouses and now this massive power plant's coming in and I know you guys have seen the Agua Freya.

I looked up a couple of power plants, this Agua Freya and just how big they are and the lights and just how much light is given off when I can go out and I can just look up and see the stars. And so and then I looked into the power plant out in Gilbert the Sandtown power plant and it was built like in 1974 And so my house and my other acre lot to the north of Project Bacara Oh, am I already done? Oh gosh, sorry. And so it's the closest to it.

It's maybe that four tens of a mile, maybe a half mile. I would say it's even closer. But if I was looking at the Sandtown power plant, and I've been out there a couple of times, they have these massive berms. You can't even see the power plant out there. So my question is, why did they go to these massive berms and do all this earthwork? Is it because of the natural gas? If there was an explosion, would that go into the residence?

And so protecting my family and this power plant and with these huge storage tanks, If something were to happen and I'm the closest house to that, if there's no protection there, big berms, what is going to happen to my house or to my neighbors, our community? So that's... I oppose the project. It should have been built out in Tonopah. So thank you, guys. Thank you, sir. April Butler. My name is April Butler. I am in Waddell, Arizona.

I've lived out on the I've been on the west side my whole life. I'm a native. My family's been in surprise since 1936. We've done many, many land deals and this one is very confusing to me. This whole presentation does not list the two separate parcels. There's two parcels. They're not both industrial. This presentation would lead you to believe that all and both parcels are industrial. They're not. There's an RU 43 piece there and that's not being acknowledged.

They're being lumped together, which when I see a previous presentation that was shown here tonight, it seems like it was done a little bit differently and they acknowledged each parcel separately the way that they were and presented them as a package deal. I kind of question why that wasn't done here, but here we are. I don't want to hold up my whole time on that.

But we do question the way that this has been presented in this package, and that is something that we will look into if it's passed off this way, because we just don't feel that it was done properly. This is in the high accident potential zone. If you read Luke's letter, it clearly states it's in the high accident potential zone, and I myself have seen a jet go down just north of this property.

I have been asking for a year, a year I've been following this project, Bacara, Project Eagledale, there's never been a flight study done. I personally watched a jet go down and it landed at Bullard and That's not too far away. I question what would happen if a jet went down on this property with 2.2 million gallons of fuel stored on site. We're concerned. We are concerned. I also noticed in a slide tonight something completely opposite of what was being referenced in this.

In this, it stated under finding an analysis that the proposed amendment furthers public health and safety and the general welfare of the citizens of Glendale. I would like to include us in that little lump with the citizens that we might be considered that we're part of that being that we're the community. This does nothing, absolutely nothing to further our health, to further our safety or our general welfare. So to me that would be opposite of what Glendale's objectives are.

Am I correct in that? I think that it would be- that's a far-reaching statement to say that it furthers the public health and safety. I think it's nothing but negative with 18 gas turbines producing power and 2.2 million gas It does nothing for our health whatsoever. We're not happy about it. We heavily oppose it. Can you wrap it up? Oh, did I run out of time? Just wrap it up. That's fine. I'm sorry. I didn't hear the beeper. I'm sorry. That's all right. Okay, I'll just do one more thing.

And the only other thing that I want to do is I want to play a video for you. It's a very, very short video. It is something that I took the other night when I went out. When I went out, I literally went out to go take a picture of the lights coming from a nearby facility. I can't get my noise to play. I turned everything off. I am so sorry. We have facilities all around us. These facilities are closing in very close around us.

The lights are very, very bright, and when I went out to take the picture of the lights, you could actually hear the other adjoining facility and all the alarms and everything going. I mean, we're just being surrounded by it. So that was what I wanted you to take into consideration. Commissioners, I thank you so much for your time. I thank you for your service. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Butler. Kimberly Dunbar. Good evening. My name is Kimberly Dunbar. I live in Surprise.

I actually live less than a half a mile right on the other side of Peoria, along with many, many other residents, Copper Canyon, Rancho Gabriella. We're all very concerned about this proposed power plant and data center. The gentleman talked about the noise. He gave you some information that, oh, it'll sound like a vacuum cleaner or refrigerator.

And if you've heard any of the videos or seen any of the videos of people around this country that are opposing these data centers in their own cities, their states, The governors are even putting a moratorium in some states against these. This is a, we've heard this sound, and it's not a vacuum cleaner or a refrigerator. It is constant. And it's detrimental to the health of the children. We have many schools, we have playgrounds, soccer fields, less than a mile from this facility.

I will be able to look out my back door and see 18 stacks that emit natural gas pollutants. I don't care how clean they say it is, it's pollutants. We are concerned about the water. You're right, sir. This data center has used massive amounts of water, and we are in a drought. I believe that Arizona got a 30% cut from the Colorado. Lake Powell is shrinking. We need to look at the future not in the way of technology, but goodness in the way of the people that live here.

There are, we have received 11,000 signatures against this data center. We have worked tirelessly for a year, door to door. Many of these people did not get notices a half a mile away. They had no idea what was going on. We had to educate them. Every single night for one year, we went out in mass and gave them... we made our own flyers so we could educate them. So I beg you to reconsider this. I'm asking for your non-approval of this because we vehemently oppose it.

And I thank you for your time Good night Thank you Ms Dunbar Roy Dunbar you going to pass The house Good evening, commissioners. I'm Roy Dunbar. I live at 14855 West Cameron Drive in Surprise. We're coming here tonight because we really are concerned about the destruction of our neighborhoods. There are at least 600 homes within a half a mile of this project, homes that have been in place for 21 years. A lot of these homes are very high-end, exclusive properties.

I don't know if you can envision how big this project really is. This is a huge industrial project, okay? You're talking about 18 natural gas turbine generators the size of jet engines with 72-foot stacks, 72-foot metal enclosures. They're simple cycle gas turbine technology, which industry standards says are not appropriate for use adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Not appropriate.

Data centers themselves create noise, which under right circumstances could be heard for up to a mile and a half away, which is in reach of about 2000 homes. So we're here to object to this project. We've been working on it for years. My wife said there are 11,000 signatures of West Valley residents in opposition to this. This project has no place next, adjacent to residential neighbourhoods. The only reason it's being located, and I talked to Mr.

Davies himself, is because it has access to propane storage. That's the only reason they're putting it there. So it's convenient and cost-effective for them to do so, but it puts our neighbourhoods at risk. And it is increased risk to the public safety. There are 107 overflights of that property by fighter aircraft every day, according to that letter of June 30th from Luke Air Force Base. All you need is something to fall off or a jet to crash, because they're coming in to land or to take off.

So we're supposed to just accept increased risk to our own safety so that they can conveniently locate this plant. And one of the things we've been through, we went to the Arizona Corporate Commission meetings, we went to AQMD meetings, we went to just about every meeting including this one now. And what seems to be conveniently ignored is the fact there are hundreds of homes with a direct impact of this plant. Noise and pollution.

I just want to say I think it's incredible and absurd that Project Bacara and Eagle can sit there with a straight face and say, there won't be any noise from this plant. It won't make any more noise in our kitchen refrigerator. Or it will only increase the ambient noise by two decibels, imperceptible to human hearing. I question that. And I ask the city of Glendale to take a look at that. Look at their claims. Imagine how big this plan is and the impact it's going to have on nearby residents.

So thank you for your time. I just ask you to really look at this closely. The whole city of Glendale will look at this closely. And I thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dunbar. Holly Tomachoff? Good evening chair and commissioners. My name is Holly Tomachoff. I live approximately half a mile from this proposed project. I think Gavin and I are like right next to each other, next door neighbors. With that we have me, my husband and four young children in our home.

I'm asking for you to recommend denial of Project EGLE, also known as Project BACRA, ZON26-05 in its current form. The original 2004 or 24 military compatibility materials described gas turbines as backup power, and the current PAD is materially broader.

It states that a portion of the natural gas generation will operate continuously until the APS substation and transmission connections are completed, The facility may continue operating for backup power potentially supplying excess electricity to the grid or both Luke Air Force Base reviewed the utility proposal again in 2026 Its June 30th letter states that this development is not compatible with Luke high noise and accident potential area unless specific conditions are met Those conditions address pilot visibility, electromagnetic interference, air quality, fire, and explosion risk and other aviation safety concerns.

Before recommending approval, I'm asking the Commission to require written confirmation that Luke's compatibility review encompasses this actual operating plan and that the technical studies supporting compatibility reflect the plan. The City's proposed stipulations require compliance with Luke's conditions, yet the PAD states that during future design review, City staff may elect to send plans back to Luke for comment.

If military compatibility is essential to allowing the use, future review should not be discretionary when project changes could affect that compatibility. The protections for neighboring properties also need improvement. The PAD allows buildings up to 60 feet tall and turbine stacks up to 72 feet tall. It requires perimeter screening yet expressly requires no landscaping within the power generation facility itself.

Nearby residents are asking for wider setbacks, engineered berms, meaningful visual buffers, enforceable landscape maintenance and replacement requirements, noise analysis that reflects the actual proposed operating schedule with clear enforceable limits. These protections should be written into the approval documents before rezoning with clear responsibility for monitoring enforcement throughout the life of the project.

For families living next to the site, these are not abstract planning issues. They're going to affect our homes, our children, our families, and our daily lives. Please recommend denial of ZON 26-05 in its current form. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Troy Mortensen? Good evening members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. My name is Troy Mortensen, located at 14438 West Cochise Drive in Waddell, Arizona. I was born and raised in Glendale, Apollo High School graduate.

My house is located approximately 2,000 feet from this proposed project. First, I want to, first I oppose the project and do not believe that this particular project is being developed in the right area. We can debate studies and facts, but I'm here tonight to respectfully ask that you that any approvals require stronger protections for existing residents. I want to be clear, I'm not opposed to economic development.

My concern is that the proposed protections in the zoning PAD for nearby neighborhoods are simply not adequate for a development of this size. This is a massive power generating facility with millions of square feet of data centers. Yet the proposed PAD relies on 75-foot setbacks, 8-foot walls, and limited landscaping as transition between massive industrial campus and nearby residents. When was the last power plant that the city of Glendale approved or built?

Does anyone on the commission or city staff have experience with development of a project of this scale? I ask for you to pump the brakes on this and study it. In researching similar facilities throughout the valley, the SRP Santan power plant near Warner and Val Vista was originally developed prior to residential neighborhoods in 1974. The power plant was expanded in April of 2000. SRP worked with the town of Gilbert on design standards to benefit the community.

The facility is now separated by substantially larger 200-foot setbacks from the roadway property line to a wall on a 25-foot high mound that is landscaped with over 1,200 trees. So it's a significant buffer. Facilities located inside that buffer are 125 feet off of that wall that set back 20 feet. That is where the power generation facilities are located. If those protections were considered appropriate for Gilbert residents, then why are Glendale residents being offered less protection?

The proposed PAD does not require berms. It does not require substantial landscape buffers. It even exempts portions of the power generation facility from landscape requirements. Why would the city allow this? Because we are in the West Valley, we can accept subpar design standards.

I asking the commission to modify the proposed PAD by stipulation to require a larger 200 foot from property line landscape buffer setbacks 125 foot setbacks for buildings and power generation equipment substantial earthen berms along the entire project perimeter no less than 25 feet high from the natural grade dense multi landscaping and stronger screening standards before considering this approval Growth and neighborhood protection are not mutually exclusive We can have both If Glendale aspires to be recognized as a first-class city, it must adopt design and zoning standards that are equal to or exceed those of leading communities across the valley.

And I do have a letter, I'm trying to be brief, I know the time, but I think you do have some of the restrictions or stipulations in the letters before you, if you have any questions or need to refer to those later. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Beth Mortensen. Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Beth Mortensen and my family and I have lived approximately 2,000 feet from this property and have been there for 19 years.

My husband's already addressed setbacks, berms, and perimeter screenings, so I want to focus on something different. The design of the site itself. If Glendale is going to approve a project of this magnitude next to an established community, I believe we should be asking not only how far is it from the property line, but has this site been designed to minimize its impact on the people who already live here?

Bacara is proposing an approximately 700 megawatt natural gas generating facility with 1872-foot stacks, along with millions of square feet of data center and the associated generators, chillers, mechanical equipment, and electrical infrastructure. There are ways to reduce those impacts through design. SRP's Santan expansion in Gilbert is an 825 megawatt natural gas facility, similar in generating capacity.

As part of its approval, its heat recovery steam generators were required to be constructed approximately 15 feet below grade. SRP ultimately constructed the main power block equipment in a 15-foot deep pit. That is the kind of thoughtful design I would like Glendale to consider here. Can a portion of Bacara's power generation equipment be lowered below grade to reduce their visual and noise impacts?

Can generators, chillers, mechanical yards and other high impact equipment be located toward the center of the 160 acre site, rather than around its perimeter to create as much distance as possible between that equipment and the surrounding residential areas? Can Glendale require those protections in the PAD rather than simply hoping they will happen during the design later?

This is particularly important because the current PAD actually states that no landscaping is required within the power generation facility site. It also says mechanical equipment must be screened from adjacent streets. But our concern isn't only what can be seen from the street, it's the impact on the surrounding community.

We are asking Glendale to require a site design that puts the most intensive equipment as far from existing residential areas as reasonably possible, uses below-grade construction where feasible, and uses the land itself, distance, placement, berming, walls, and landscaping to reduce the project's impacts. We may only get one opportunity to get the design of this project right. Once this facility is built, the surrounding community will live with that design for decades.

Please use the PAD process now to require the most protective site design reasonably achievable. Thank you for your time. Thank you ma'am. David Krause. My name is David Kraus and I live in Surprise, Arizona like a lot of the other residents that are here today. And I oppose this as well. I mean, we've been dealing with this for over a year and I agree with, you know, things that were said by the others.

From the letter that the Luke Air Force Base sent on June 30th, there's all kinds of compliances on here that need to be done and like was mentioned earlier, there was nothing in writing It says how they're going to do it. It just says they agree to do it. And I think we need to have something in writing there before anything goes any further. They also talked about air quality. Well, there's monitoring of air quality, of air quality permits.

What is the penalty if the air quality gets bad and they're violating it? I'm sure there are penalties, but money is not a deterrent. So I hope there's penalties that are severe for that type of violation. I also heard them mention wastewater treatment on site. Currently I live about 700 yards from the corner of Peoria Avenue and Reams Road. There's two bottling companies there, Rouch and Marc Anthony Brewery, which by the way use millions of gallons of water every day.

If you're concerned about water, there's where you start looking. They have wastewater treatment over there and I smell it almost every day. Every time the wind blows southwest, which is the prevailing wind, we smell it in our neighborhood. I've now got, I've contacted Glendale about this and I've actually contacted Rouch because it's them, they're the ones doing it.

They wouldn't speak to me so I had to file a complaint because that's what they told me to do so I'm in the process of documenting all the stench. If this thing is going to have wastewater treatment, we're going to have more of the same. You know, everybody else can join in that is close by. Looking at the maps that were included in the agenda, I was looking for where the closest resident, Glendale resident, was to this project.

And other than the housing at the Luke Air Force Base, I had, unless I missed something on a map, I had to go all the way to the 101 for a 91st area before I saw any I'm not sure if there were many residents that are actually in Glendale. If there were Glendale residents near this site, this room would be full. I mean, there's no way that there should be homes within a couple thousand feet of this. It's a 700 megawatt power plant.

And by the way, I believe there's a home that's 400 feet away at the corner of, I think it's 143rd and Olive that nobody mentioned. And when they brought up the maps there, they never mentioned the residents, but there is a house there. There's somebody that lives there. So we, how close is too close? Is it 300 feet, 400 feet? How close? Because this is way too close.

So I was just in conclusion, I just say that, you know, we've been dealing with this a long time and we keep hearing the same things. And I think that, you know, it should be nowhere near any residential area. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Grouse. Melissa Parsons. I'm not as tall as David. Good evening chair and commissioners. My name is Dr. Melissa Parsons. I'm a retired Air Force officer and a 24-year veteran from the Air Force and I live approximately one mile from the location of this project.

I'd like to start by saying that I do oppose this pad at this location. After listening tonight, my biggest concern is accountability. We have Project Eagle, Project Vacara, and a future APS substation with separate ownership, multiple agencies, infrastructure dependencies, and numerous conditions. Who ultimately ensures that every condition will be met? Who verifies compliance? Who enforces it?

And if these properties change hands, which they will, do those obligations remain enforceable and run with the land? That is especially important to Luke Air Force Base. The applicant has agreed to 11 staff stipulations. I would ask that you confirm that they incorporate every condition Luke has identified as necessary for military compatibility. And I would ask one additional question. What happens if one of these conditions is violated after this facility is operating?

I know that Luke is the largest employer in Glendale, and who gets shut down? The power plant and data centers or the base? Some of Luke's conditions exist specifically to protect things such as pilot visibility, communications, radar, and flight operations. We should know who has the authority and responsibility to act if one of those protections fail.

I also appreciate the concerns raised tonight about noise water fire protection surrounding homes making this decision for the community that exists today I came here after living in Northern Virginia data center alley This was intended to be my retirement home a place where I could give back to the military and I going to be able to do that I came here after living in Northern Virginia's data center alley.

This was intended to be my retirement home, a place where I could give back to the military, the community, local universities, and the Dysart School District. I have experienced data center noise and vibration first hand. You can look up Loudoun Valley all over the internet.

The developer describes Bacara as a first of its kind project, and before Glendale becomes the community that learns the lessons first hand, Please examine comparable facilities and determine what safeguards should be required now, not after the problems occur. I respectfully ask you to continue this case long enough to answer these questions, confirm Luke's protections, establish clear accountability, and determine whether additional safeguards for residents belong in this pad.

Whether you ultimately recommend approval or denial, please fully understand what Glendale is taking on before this project advances. A large investment does not determine whether a project belongs at a particular location. The location does, and this location matters to the military and the community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, ma'am. Mark Thomas? Thank you. Good evening. My name is Mark Thomas. I'm founder and head of the Arizona Progressive Coalition.

We're an Arizona-based coalition of over 100 nonprofit organizations that are primarily focused on civil rights, human rights, and environmental rights. I came in here tonight to observe another matter and saw that this was on the docket. And this is an area of concern that we're now developing a campaign to begin working on. That campaign is called the Homeowner Protection Project. And so we're...

I've heard a lot of great comments tonight, and I think accurate comments, and so we're, like the others, encouraging you to reject this application. We're not, so we own property, we love property rights, and we think everybody deserves to have the value of their property in full. We're not communist, we're progressive, I own property, people in the organization own property, and we love being property owners. So that aside, we're also not crazy environmentalists.

We are okay with the data What we oppose is a fossil fuel spewing data center. There's no reason for that. There's five other methods for generating power, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, solar, wind, that this could be fueled by. There's no reason to be doing gas turbines. And for anybody in here who's driven by your facility east of Westgate, The gas turbine generating facility there, it smells terrible. It smells terrible. You're polluting people's lungs.

The notion that natural gas is clean burning is nonsense. It is a total lie. Anytime fossil fuel is burnt, you're creating properties that cause lung cancer, that cause COPD, that cause asthma.

And there's thousands of people in Arizona that we're prepared to gather for a PR event in wheelchairs, on breathing devices, from the air pollution, and particularly this corridor here east of Luke, the northern Glendale corridor that runs into Westgate, with a massive landfill emitting methane, which is natural gas. And now this is going to be just adjacent to that. It's just absurd, absurd. So you may not have heard about us, but we're pretty aggressive.

And I just, I'm not, this is not a threat, but we helped get rid of Kirsten Sinema.

We're responsible for removing her from office because she was such a deplorable, nasty, unethical person, not fighting for citizens and consumers She gone And we prepared to fight this tooth and nail While sitting here I came up with a plan for us to do a dirty Glendale campaign a boycott Glendale campaign if this program gets proposed and moved forward as it represented here Now, we're not against a data center that has clean power on this particular site.

So if that's, if that sparks your interest, I would suggest that you ask the applicant if they're willing to adjust or augment their proposal for a clean power generating option. I think if you did that, you'd have a lot of people on board, and there'd be no reason I'm going to have the Dirty Glendale campaign scaring tourists away from spending money here. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Now for the record, I do have nine different submittals.

Most of them, if not all, I guess all of them are, except for one, All of them are internet generated and they'll be entered into the record as part of this meeting. Commissioners, what say you? Any comments? Mr. Chair. Jim. Commissioner Arellano. If the applicant would like to return for any questions and follow-ups we have, I really appreciate it. Chairman, would you close the public hearing and then the applicant can respond and staff can also respond? Yeah, I can do that. Okay. Mr.

Chairman, may I take a few minutes to respond? Hang on just a second sir. Okay I'll close the public hearing for case number ZON 26-05. It's now closed but I will take some further comment. Thank you.

In no particular order of some of the things that were said, first and foremost as you know as I believe staff was confirmed, as I believe your city attorney would confirm, Zoning stipulations and other zoning related requirements run with the land irrespective of who owns the land or who operates the facility. That is just a fundamental aspect of zoning. Secondly, I don't have it in our PowerPoint, but I could pass it around if you want.

I mentioned before when Luke and it wasn't just Luke this was worked through various levels at the Air Force with tremendous amount of federal study before their letter was issued. When Luke issued their letter and it set forth various conditions the CEO of the power plant facility of the Bukar facility immediate which was really the county, running the case at that time at the county, immediately responded to every one of those conditions, expressly stating how it is that we would comply.

Many of these things can't be complied with until the facility is built and operational, but through the design aspects, any of it that, you know, no lakes, no spotlights, some of, no steam, some of those kinds of things, of things which are of course important to Luke for various reasons. All of that is a part of the design and is a part of what staff could confirm is being covered in the design review package which is underway.

There's been various numbers thrown around about the amount of fuel that's stored on the property. I don't know where people get their information. What I do know is no natural gas is stored on the property. And people who've been at various hearings at the county and elsewhere know that. There is no natural gas stored on the property.

It comes in through the pipeline and it used from the pipeline The propane that stored as a backup supply There five tanks a total of 450 gallons They are in a and we could show you a detail if you want they in a vault with a concrete lid with all of the various protections that required to do that There's also some double steel walled diesel tanks for backup generators as well, which we can talk about if you want.

But those are talking about millions of gallons of fuel being stored on the property are operating, apparently believe things that are not the facts, and the facts are included in the DR package as well. There's people that have talked about massive berms and so on in the Gilbert facility. If Jen Daniels could have been here tonight to speak to it because she lives right by that facility, she could get into more detail. But first and foremost, the county didn't want berms for various reasons.

I will talk about separations and setbacks and screening here in a minute. But also please keep in mind, and I can bring a slide up if you want, that there are houses all around that facility. All around it. And the facility itself has stacks that are substantially taller than anything we're talking about and that the sand tan stacks are 150 feet.

yep they're 15 feet down in the pit so that's still 135 feet which is essentially double the height of the stacks that we're talking about on this property. I also I don't know if I'm live my life here and some have asked that we locate the power generation facility as far away from homes as as possible and we We have. I'll come back to that once we're live. Okay. Let me come back to it once. I'll talk to this slide and then we got to get back to like slide two I believe it is.

Someone this evening spoke about how I guess we're trying to pull the wool over somebody's eyes. by saying that this is an industrial site when it's really a residential and industrial site and so on. So on the left is the zoning map that existed in the county prior to approval of the MCP. The MCP is the exhibit on the right, which covers the entire 160 acres.

The one on the left shows in grey the industrial 3 IUPD which is approved in the county years ago in anticipation of a very large and very noisy grain rolling facility. It was never built. The yellow that's on that exhibit on the left is the Rural 43, all of which is under the railroad track and the 230 kV power lines. None of the development envelope was ever Rural 43 in this process.

Now, all of it, including what's under the railroad track, is MCP, Military Compatibility Permit, approved for this development with these development standards and so on. If I can go back to the... To this exhibit. Residences that there are I believe six homes in the county south of Peoria. And several of them spoke here this evening and that's great. The ones north of Peoria are located in the city of Surprise.

A couple speakers asked or requested that the power generation facility be located as far as possible away from existing homes. The yellow outlines the power generating facility. If we look closer at the site plan, here you'll see again this is that southeastern The power generation facility stacks.

Again, it's located as far south as it can come on the site, and they're located interior to the site, where the distances that we're talking about are actually wider setbacks than some of them that people have asked for, in that while we can have a 7% of the site, 75 foot setback off of any of the perimeter property lines.

In fact, from the north coming down, and this is really on here, the building 3 building, the farthest north data center building, is set back about 300 feet off of our north property line. And that north property line is improved with a minimum eight-foot solid block wall. And the landscaping plan, which is a part of the DR package, shows, as it should, a row of trees along that wall.

If we look to the south end of the data center part of the complex, There the building is set back about 350 feet north of Olive with railroad tracks and then a double row of trees as a part of the DR package along that Olive frontage. Along the east side, adjacent to the Genco portion of the site, we have a setback there of about 300 feet, I believe it is, from the east property line back to the generating facilities themselves because there's other mechanical equipment on the outside of it.

And correctly so, for various safety reasons, you can't put groves of trees between generator facilities, but there's pockets where the landscaping is provided, but again, an eight-foot block wall is provided all along that east side. So when you're talking about setbacks and talking about heights, our heights, our setbacks are the same or wider than some of them that were requested tonight. It's probably more of a DR issue than a planning issue per se, but it just is what it is.

And the location of this is again the generator part is south of the future APS substation. So we end up with the generator site being about a half a mile south of the nearest residences in the county to the north. And the nearest data center buildings about four tenths of a mile south of the nearest residents to the north. And add about a quarter of a mile to that for the residences that are in surprise on the north side of Peoria.

If you want me to go into more detail or more cross sections on that, I certainly can, but I wanted to get a couple of those things out right at the outset. The efforts to study noise on this development have been handled professionally by people, scientists, engineers, who do this for a living, and run their various computer programs. One of them is here tonight and can address it in more detail if you want.

But he originally was dealing with some different variables because there's been changes made to move facilities further away and do some additional noise mitigation and so on. But this guy for a living determines noise and that is studied by corporation commission people and others and so on and so forth. And he, and I can put it back up if you want, is adamant that there will be no perceptible increase in noise at the nearest residences.

Residences which were lawfully built when they were built I not trying to say anybody you know did not properly build their house But those residences because of the adoption of the various statutes and the noise contours that come in and part with Luke and what were F and now 35s Here is the plan which we looked at before from not only the city of Glendale, the county, Surprise, and El Mirage, all of which create a bubble of industrial land use that completely surrounds this site where residences that are there can of course stay.

They could not be built today. When we look at the zoning patterns in this area and what exists out here today, again it's Wolf Logistics that we worked with y'all a few years ago immediately west of us that was approved exactly the way it should have been approved under the statutes and under the Luke review and under the city's general plan and so on. It too went through the military compatibility process, was annexed into the city, and zoned PAD in the city.

This is exactly the same process that's being proposed here as was used at Wolf Logistics. There are buildings within and south of Wolf Logistics that's taller than anything that's proposed on this development. It's not really the main point of it. The main point is while residences were built out here in the past, this has been recognized by multiple generations, multiple jurisdictions, not generations, multiple jurisdictions as being an area primarily for protection of Luke.

not because we're an APZ, because we're not, but protect Luke and the Luke noise contours by assuring that there's industrial and other employment uses rather than additional residential built in this area.

I can go into additional issues if you want, but the point is we have been through, as I mentioned, state review, federal review, state review, county review, city review, and at least so far the Corporation Commission and the county and others have indicated this is the right use in the right area and the design is appropriate and the mitigation is appropriate.

which are being reviewed through design review are appropriate with respect to walls, landscaping, setbacks, and other criteria which are of course important and were requested by some of the speakers tonight. We're already doing them and will reassure through the DR processes. If you have other questions, I'll do my best to answer them. Otherwise, we request your recommendation in accordance with the staff's recommendation and we thank you. Commissioner?

Chair, my question is not necessarily for the applicant. I think it would be for Mr. Ruber for some clarification and that would be on the requested recommendation tonight. I just want to be clear and maybe get some history and Maybe the applicant would help answer that, but just for clarification on the requested recommendation for tonight, would approval or denial change whether or not the project would be in this location?

Chair and members of the commission and Commissioner Johnson-Vasquez, I appreciate the question and we may tag team kind of our response, but preliminarily I just want to understand You're asking more than...

I can restate it I just want to clarify I mean I understand what I do understand that I want to make sure that everybody understands what the required action is tonight on the zoning amendment I guess as a preliminary matter the council, the commission is making a recommendation to the council so the council, the city council is going to be the final stop in terms of making the legislative decision about whether to approve the rezoning so that that's the preliminary question.

Is your is your question beyond that in any way? I think the reason I'm asking is to make sure I want to make sure that everyone that is listening and here understands what that is tonight and what the required action is. Chair and Commission, yes, just to explain, this is a, the Commission is making a recommendation that the city council will reflect upon and receive and use as input when it makes its Final determination about whether to approve the rezoning in this case. Thank you.

Sorry if I caught any confusion. I just wanted a little more clarity for everyone to understand that. Thank you. Staff, do you have anything additional? Commissioners, anything else? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay gentlemen, you've heard the input. Bottom line as we just heard is the final decision is not up to us, it's up to council. But what we're doing here tonight is a recommendation to council. So do I hear a motion? Chair. Commissioner Hooper.

I move to deny ZON 2605 just based on everything that I've talked to and people who aren't here. Data centers are a hot topic and a source of contention and personally I don't want them in my city and I would hope that the city of Glendale would respect that. And I would also move for the state of Arizona to take action against it as well. We are a desert and we have limited resources. We just took a huge cut in our water. So I think for future generations of Arizonans we need to consider that.

So that's my two cents. Do I hear a second? To deny ZON 26-05. Chairman, I'll second that. Okay, I have a motion and a second to deny ZON 2605. And I have a second. So now I'll conduct a roll call vote. Any discussion here? More? Mr. Chair, discussion. You got a call for discussion. Gentlemen, anything further? I'd just like to say, when I came to the commission, we're here to make sure the city does their due duty and dots all their I's and crosses all their T's.

There seems to be so many ambiguous conditions here. I know it's a big tax revenue for the city, but we hopscotch past county land to annex this parcel And Surprise didn't want it and Peoria didn't want it. And there's just too many things that weren't brought out over the city's plan. It's like you haven't thought about a lot of the safety concerns. And the residents, even though they are not in Glendale, they're still residents of Arizona.

And they have the right to have a nice piece of property without a huge power plant going in right down the street. So I'm going to vote to... that's Mike's decision. Gentlemen, Vice-Chair Cole. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is one of those evenings that make this a difficult job to do.

You know as far as I concerned an easy choice is to look at the folks in the room and say go with the emotion and vote in favor of the motion that on the table But I believe our job, and with all my trepidations, and I've been up here over five years, and I have been concerned about infrastructure in the Loop 303 alignment for the city of Glendale for a long time. I'm encouraged by discussions about things like fire stations.

I'll be happy when there's action because discussions haven't borne fruit in the five years I've been here. And there's still not a fire station west of the 101. I know I sound like a broken record. But our job is to determine if they've met the law and the rules and the ordinances, the zoning ordinance of the city of Glendale.

And so, you know, I just, I'm going to vote with my head and I'm going to make a vote based on my assessment if the city did their due diligence in making sure that this fits the general plan and that it fits in the zoning ordinance, the unified development code of the city of Glendale. That's my two cents, sir. Thank you, Commissioner Cole. Mr. Chair. I'm going to have to agree with Vice Chair Cole.

This is not an easy thing to do up here that we do once a month, but I think Vice Chair Cole hit the nail on the head. A couple of things. First of all, we're here to do exactly what he said, and that's to make sure the city did what they were supposed to do and held to the rules and regulations that are in place. And I know the city staff is probably going to still work with as best they can to maybe address some of this as they go along.

And as legal counsel said, we're nothing more tonight than a recommendation. It is going to end up in the hands of city council. So, Commissioner Arellano. Mr. Chair and people present here, I really would like to see a beautification standard The standard that upholds the standard and way of living that we take pride in here in Glendale.

A lot of the feedback from the community has been heard by the applicant, and I hope he takes that to heart and into consideration as regardless of the outcome of the vote tonight. And so, you know, I think we all would be affected one way or another if this comes into our neighborhood. And so I really would like to continue seeing the applicant adhere and conform to more than just, you know, what is here. And I look forward to seeing a lot of the work in the future and what comes of this.

So thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Commissioner Johnson-Vasquez? I think I'm confused if we're voting or not. We're not. Okay. Okay. This is comments. Well, I would concur with vice chair. I agree with you that this is not an easy night. This is one of the difficult ones that I've been on. And there is a lot of emotion. And that's, you know, one of the reasons I wanted to ask that question was just to clarify what a real task is here and to make sure that the findings are what they are.

I would certainly like to see if there's a way the council could get more stipulations working with staff on this. So since we're not voting that's my comment. Thank you. Commissioners anything else? Okay I will now, we've got a motion on the table to deny. So I will ask for a vote on the motion to deny. Commissioner Gears? Aye. Vice Chair Cole? No. Commissioner Hooper? Aye. Commissioner Arellano? Nay. Commissioner Johnson Vasquez? And I will continue to explain my vote now.

Again, I do understand the concerns, but I do believe that amending the zoning to planned area development would actually allow the city to enforce the stipulations. which would then mitigate adverse impacts. So with that I vote nay. Okay, Chair votes nay. So the case Excuse me, the motion is dead. I will now entertain another motion. Mr. Chair. Vice Chair Cole. I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of ZON 26-05 subject to the extensive stipulations in the staff report.

And based on my comments, I will second that. So gentlemen, we have a motion and a second to approve case number ZON 2605, subject to the stipulations as outlined by staff. I will now conduct a roll call vote. Commissioner Gears? No. Vice Chair Cole? Aye. Commissioner Hooper? While I see that the applicant has adhered to the stipulations, I will still vote no. Commissioner Arellano? Yes. Commissioner Johnson-Vasquez? Aye. Chair votes aye.

Case number ZON2605 has been recommended for approval subject to stipulations as outlined by staff. Mr. Gruber, what are the next steps? Chair and Commission your action with respect to case number ZON 26 is not final Your recommendation will be forwarded to the City council for further consideration Thank you sir Mr Asgupta any other business Chairman and Commission members, none tonight. Are there any planning staff reports? There are none, Chairman.

Commissioners, are there any further comments or suggestions? Mr. Chair. I know I had my say on the last action. I just want to address the folks in the room that I empathize with what you're going through. I know these facilities are controversial. This wasn't an easy vote for me and I just hope you appreciate the fact that up here we often agonize over these things. This is a particularly hard one. Thank you.

Okay, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on an item that's not on tonight's agenda? Okay, gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, the next regular meeting on the Planning Commission will be held October 22nd at 6 p.m. If there's no further business, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. So move. Do I have a second? Second. Okay, I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. We stand adjourned.