Scottsdale Planning Commission Approves 77-Home Luxury Enclave at Happy Valley-Pima Corner with Developer-Funded Traffic Infrastructure

The Welcome to the Scottsdale Planning Commission public hearing. The City appreciates your interest and participation in the public hearing process. The planning commission serves as an advisory board to the city council on land use and zoning matters. The hearing agendas consist of development applications that require public hearings. The planning commission considers the item and makes a recommendation for approval or denial to the city council.

The city council will make the final decision for or against approval of the application. So the agenda consists of the roll call, an administrative report by staff, public comment, non-agenized items, approval of the minutes from the previous hearing, continuances from items that would not have been heard tonight, withdrawals from items that have been withdrawn from any further consideration. and then again we have the consent agenda for items not likely to require a presentation or discussion.

All items on the consent agenda may be voted altogether at one. Any commissioner may move any item from the consent agenda to the regular agenda. And then the regular agenda is where each item includes a presentation recommendation by the staff, a presentation by the applicant, and public comments. The applicant will then have an opportunity to respond to the public comments. The planning commission will deliberate on the case and cast their votes.

The non-action items are for discussion only items. No vote will be cast by the planning commission. Do we have the rest of the cards coming in? We have the written comments card, which is a yellow card here. If anybody wants to submit one of those right now. And then the request to speak cards are the blue item cards here. So, do we have any more outstanding? We're here. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so Mr. Curtis, should I set out on these requests to speak cards now?

Call the meeting order, of course. Yeah, finish calling the meeting order. Commissioner Gonzalez will need to take the roll call and all that. Okay, very good. Why don't we have a request to, I'm sorry, one more time again, what would you like me to do? Take a look at that script in front of you. There's an order of operations including getting the roll call. Okay, very good. On the roll call we'll have the... I'm sorry.

Okay, why don't we go ahead and have the roll call now and we'll start with who would you like to start with on that? Yeah, Commissioner Gonzalez? Present. Commissioner Joyner? Here. Commissioner Reid? Commissioner Drake? Here. Commissioner Brand? Here. Commissioner Craig? Here. Commissioner McCurdy? Present. Six here, thank you.

Thank you Administrative report The administrative report Call to order Roll call Public comment Non items Citizens may address the members of the Planning Commission during public comment Public comment time is reserved at the beginning of the meeting for citizens to comment on the non items Non-agenetized items that are within the planning commission's jurisdiction and is limited to a total of 15 minutes.

Arizona state law prohibits the planning commission from discussing or taking any action on these non-agenetized items. Speakers may submit a blue request to speak card in person prior to the beginning of the meeting. Public testimony is limited to three minutes per speaker.

Okay, then written comments are also being accepted for non agenda items may be submitted by in person by the hearing or electronically at the planning commission website within comments written comments submitted electronically will be emailed to the commission members. Administrative report. Thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez. I just want to thank you for being the acting chair this evening as our most senior member since we lost a few members, basically getting termed out of their service.

So I appreciate the efforts in acting as the chair this evening. I want to also let you know that Commissioner Reid is planning on joining us remotely, but he will be late, so he'll just check in when he's available to sign in remotely. I also wanted to welcome our three new members, Commissioner McCurdy, and then Commissioner Brand and Commissioner Craig. Welcome. Glad to have you and thank you for volunteering.

I know you've all served on other boards and commissions, so your dedicated continual service is certainly appreciated. I wanted to draw your attention to additional information that's in front of you. It's all about, I think, item number three. So the applicant dropped off some additional correspondence and an exhibit for you all to take a look at. And we also received some additional correspondence within the last hour and a half or so. And that's in front of you as well.

So I want to make sure you saw that. And members of the commission, after tonight our next available meeting will be November 17th. November 17th is on a Tuesday. We had a holiday conflict in early November, so your next regular scheduled meeting is Tuesday, November 17th. So just wanted to remind you of that. And that will be the only meeting that we have in November. So Tuesday, November 7th. That's all I have, Commissioner Gonzalez, for the administrative report. Thank you. Very good.

Thank you, sir. The next is on the public comment. We have, let's see… Commissioner Gonzalez, I think the public comment that you have received in terms of the comment cards probably relate to one of the cases, perhaps item number three. So typically we run through presentations before we get to the public comments. So we're probably ready to move on to the consent agenda, which I think there is an understanding that that item may be moving to regular.

So we could probably start item number two if you're ready, Mr. Chair. Very good on the consent. Oh, I'm sorry. The minutes first item number one. Let's make sure we get a motion and a decision on the minutes. Okay. Okay, so I guess the next point is the minutes approval of the September 23, 2026 regular meeting minutes. Mr. Commissioner, I move to approve the minutes. And I will second that. Very good. I guess that passes then on the- Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Excuse me. Yes.

Can we have a vote on that, please? Commissioner Gonzalez Yes Commissioner Joyner Yes Commissioner Reid I sorry Commissioner Drake Yes Commissioner Brand Yes Commissioner Craig Yes Commissioner McCurdy Yes Motion passes Thank you Very good. Thank you. Anything on the consent agenda? Mr Chairman, I'd like to move to remove item two from the consent agenda and move it to the regular agenda. Very good. Do we have any comments? Doesn't need any. Okay, I'm sorry, no comments? Okay. Very good.

Well, let's go ahead and move that way. I guess what we'll start here is with the... The. Yeah. On the 11 Z and 1986 number two Mac industrial rezone. request by owner for a zoning district Mac amendment to development amend development standards regarding the required landscape setback adjacent to on a plus or minus 95 acre portion of a plus and minus 124 acre site located at 1771 and 1785 5 North Pima Road. It's APN number 250747, 2507471, 2507472, and 250722P.

With Industrial Park Environmental Sensitive Lands, Hillside, Planned Community District, I1ESLHDPCD to Industrial Park Environmental Sensitive Lands, Hillside, Planned Community District I, I-1-ESL-HD-PCD zoning. Staff contact is Chris Zimmer. Thank you, planning commissioners. I'm Chris Zimmer with the planning department here to introduce and present to you MAC industrial amended standards. To give you a little context, if you're not familiar with the site, it's pretty large.

The highlighted area is about 94 acres and the whole site is about 124. But the area that we're looking at tonight is specific to the highlighted in the yellow. It flanks the 101 freeway, Pima Road, and Bell. The existing zoning and proposed zoning is staying the same. It was originally approved back in 1986. This is more of a formality to just kind of clean up the language for this property. Here's just a snippet of the legislative draft that's been proposed for this request.

It is to eliminate the or to provide a landscape offer only on Bell 91st Trailview Pima Road in the Pima frontage. This is essentially to eliminate the landscape offer necessary for any internal streets. I will clarify on that one also that this does not affect any of the landscape offer requirements, scenic corridor setbacks along Pima or the free freeway frontages. So all of that is staying consistent with 49DR 2022.

This is the request again in front of you for that and the applicant has prepared a more detailed presentation to kind of go through some of those exhibits and specific to the request. But that ends staff's presentation. And again, I have Jason here as well with the applicant team to kind of give you a little bit thorough of presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, Commissioner, Jason Morris with the Morris Ball on behalf of the applicant. Thank you very much for your time.

And I'd like to thank staff. This is a technical amendment and a technical request, yet it has to go through the public hearing process. So it's worth giving a little bit of background. And I think more than More than anything, it's also worth giving assurances that nothing is changing and none of the commitments that were previously made are being retreated upon.

So as we go forward, I feel like I need to give a little bit of background to this only because some of the commissioners are new to this case, although it's been in front of the planning commission most recently for the Rivian building that was approved actually within the last few months.

And just as an update they are actually in the process of their tenant improvements and moving into their building So with that as a background this parcel has been zoned I for a significant amount of time largely because it sits at the end of the runway for the Scottsdale Air Park and was zoned I in a time when there was actually other industrial also shown in this area During the state land department auction, it was advertised as I1 and was planned for I1, actually heavier industrial uses.

And as a result of the Mac companies being able to purchase this property at auction and being the high bidder, it was actually turned into a lighter industrial component with some of the forward-facing uses that we've talked about, Like Rivian that are more public facing rather than distribution.

If we go a little bit further back we can get a sense of what this area was like historically and I think this gives you a very good sense of the proximity to the runway and obviously what the flight patterns would be as a result of this site. So subsequent to the state land auction our zoning was already in place and I'd also like to reiterate nothing that we're discussing this evening It's not that the design review board has any impact on the underlying zoning.

This truly is about the technical aspects of the ordinance. But this plan was delivered to the design review board. I believe there's at least one member of the planning commission who sat through those DRB hearings. And the plan has not changed. There have been some deviations. We've worked with staff. We are now under permit review, building permit review for building permit review. Buildings A and B, buildings C and D are in place.

So this has moved along precisely as was planned at the DRB and approved by the DRB. Most importantly, at the DRB level and in every subsequent hearing and conversation with the city, more importantly, with the neighborhood and the D.C. ranch residents, we have committed to a perimeter landscape, and that has not changed and will not change as a result of this.

In fact, the perimeter landscape is now a better pedestrian design than it was originally and includes all of the security provisions that were originally approved at the DRB. So, you see there are a series since our original DRB approval of other master plans. All of those are still in place. None of those are changing as a result of this request. So what is changing? Essentially we are going from calling the internal drives, private drives, to tracks.

The difference between a private drive and a track is the city treats a track much like a street in terms of the internal landscaping. In this instance, because of that desire to be a track by the city, this is driven by by the city's ordinances, but also part of the platting and access requirements, there are certain pinch points, limited pinch points, where it does not meet 20 feet on the internal drive.

That being said, the totality of the landscaping, as we'll see in other slides, completely exceeds any of the requested landscaping for this area, which is why staff is recommending approval of this, because they're comfortable The perimeter landscaping does not change, and only the internal drives are impacted, but those internal drives are offering more landscaping that would be required.

So as we look at the only impacted areas, there are essentially two tract locations within the park where 20 feet is not possible in total landscaping. Those are largely around curved areas or around existing buildings, again. So we are talking about areas where technically we cannot make that standard, but as you'll see, we've exceeded the landscape overall.

So anyone experiencing this park, either from the exterior driving by this area on either of the two arterials or from the interior, will see a plethora of landscaping and over-landscaping. This exhibit gives you a sense of that area on the perimeter that we discussed that is not changing. Everywhere in green was what was presented to the DRB originally and in every subsequent plan. Those areas have not changed in terms of their density of landscaping or their size.

I will also point out that both the density of the landscaping and the size of the landscaping exceeds the requirements for the city of Scottsdale. The areas in yellow, the internal tracks, are areas where they have corners that do not meet that area. We'll go into a little bit more detail as to what that area looks like and where those tracks are slightly below the standard.

But, as I alluded to earlier, The required 20-foot landscaping internally, if it were measured in terms of landscaping, would have to require 127,000 square feet of landscaping. In this instance, with the plan that's proffered and the plan that has been approved by DRB, it provides landscaping along those roads and tracks of 317,000 square feet. So, to my earlier point, nothing has changed and we do exceed the standard, what we are asking for is some leeway on some of the corners.

And I will give that to you. And this actually, as things have changed literally day by day as we've been doing our minute calculations, these numbers are actually lower than the numbers that will in actuality be those setback points. So at one point we thought that the lowest deviation was a three-foot setback.

In fact, because we've moved the sidewalk to the other side to be closer to the large landscape tracks, there's an extra 10 feet that they're at least 10 feet, so there's nothing less than 10 feet, even in our pinch points nearest the buildings. And as you can see, in many instances, in fact in most instances, we exceed the required 20 feet by either a little or a significant number. That is also true.

There is one point on the south building where we are two feet deficient, but as you can see from the areas on either side, we are more than making up for that on the other portions of the landscape track. This is probably more data than you want to see on a Wednesday evening, and I know you have more important cases to look at, but I wanted to show you graphically how far we're exceeding all of those standards.

Because I think the concern and the reason perhaps this was pulled is to make sure we are on the record as doing everything that we promised to do for the neighborhood when this was originally approved, and that we are. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Chairman. Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. I'm the one that pulled it, so I'll start off. And I do want to correct you on one thing.

Three of us sat on D4B when this was approved, one of which is a landscaping expert, so I'm thrilled to have him back on the dais with us. But thank you very much. My concerns were because the exhibits that we got didn't have any of this information in it. So you've answered my questions. And that, I'm sorry, Commissioner, I want to point out that's our failure, not staff. So thank you very much for actually giving us an opportunity to tell the story.

No, I'm very happy with what you said, but that's all my comments. So that's it. Very good. Do we have anybody else has any questions? Thank you very much. I'd like to make a motion. Certainly. Go ahead.

I'd like to make a motion for recommendation of the approval to City Council for case 11ZN1986 number 2 after finding that the PCD criteria have been met and that the proposed zoning district map amendment and development plan are consistent and conform with the adopted general plan per the attached stipulations. I'll second that motion. Oh, I don't know. I think you need to answer. Are these on that? No, I think they're on the answer. Oh, okay. Right. Okay, very good.

Thank you very much for your presentation. We'll just go ahead and move on to the roll call. Did you make a second? No, did we get a second? Oh, yes, sir. Right. We'll go ahead and go with the roll call. Thank you. Commissioner Gonzalez? Yes. Commissioner Joyner? Yes. Commissioner Drake? Yes. Commissioner Brand? Yes. Commissioner Craig? Yes. Commissioner McCurdy? Yes. Motion passes, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation.

I have some room emptying out So anyway we move go ahead move to item number four item number three Excuse me on our regular agenda Okay, thank you. Good evening, Chair Gonzalez, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Jeff Barnes with the city's planning department presenting for you Case ZN-0003-2026. For context, this site is located at the southeast corner of Happy Valley Road and Pima Road in the highlighted site shown here that includes 94.8 gross acres of site.

Getting in a little bit closer, Still capturing the overall in this, you can see that most of the site is vacant as it exists. There are visible regional drainage facility improvements that the city has put in along the Pima Road frontage. You may not be able to see as clearly at this view, but there are three culverted crossings that were put in accounting for future access to this site as part of those regional drainage improvements. The existing zoning on this site is R1 190 ESL.

The applicant team proposes R135 ESL on this site. The existing general plan designation of rural neighborhoods remains as the proposed zoning request is still in alignment with the less than one dwelling unit per acre classification that goes along with that. So there is not a accompanying general plan amendment with this application.

The overall goal of this request with the applicant's rezoning proposal is to ultimately allow for the property to be reconfigured into a 77 lot single family residential subdivision with the proposal of amended development standards as allowable under the environmentally sensitive lands zoning overlay that exists out there today.

Highlighting a few key items for consideration with this request, I mentioned that this is proposing 77 lots on 94.8 gross acres, which amounts to a 0.81 dwelling unit per acre density. This development proposal includes a combination of on-lot and tracked NAOS and accounts for the existence of those regional drainage facility improvements along Pima Road.

Those do factor in to the NAOS calculation as the environmentally sensitive lands ordinance contains a provision that allows for an NAOS reduction proportional to the amount of regional drainage facility on the site. And so I mentioned that as it's factored into the overall. Highlighting for you a few of the things that I hadn't already highlighted in the previous slides. The existing site is made up of three parcels. I mentioned it's proposed ultimately for a 77 lot subdivision.

The environmentally sensitive lands overlay does limit that to a maximum building height of 24 feet, so the ultimate product out there would be held to that. The required NAOS, based on slope analysis, prior to that reduction I mentioned, comes in as a calculated 21.94 acres, but the applicant's proposal accounts for the ability to provide 23.89 acres within the site. Again, in that distribution of about 9.5 acres of tracked NAOS and about 14.5 acres of on-lot NAOS.

Some quick comparison numbers. The existing density calculation for R1 zoning on the site calculates 19 lots as a result The requested R in just base calculation would allow for 98 lots In calculation the applicant team is proposing only 77 which is accompanied by stipulations that would hold them to that density number as well as conformance to the proposed development site plan. I mentioned the amended development standards. They are a product of the environmentally sensitive lands overlay.

They are typically reviewed and approved at the time of the preliminary plat as the way that ordinance section directs, but showing again for comparison of the requested change on the screen here is going from and I've mislabeled that first column as R1130. It should be R1190, but the lot area there changing from what's out there today to the base R135 zoning to the proposed amendments just for some context for you.

And again, I should mention those amended development standards are set up by the environmentally sensitive lands overlay to allow for design flexibility in the way lots are configured and oriented within subdivisions so that they may respond to wash corridors, open space requirements, and similar features protected within those drainages, mints, and ALS and scenic corridor.

A little hard to put on the screen here in the scale of it, but this gives you the overall subdivision plan extending there from Happy Valley to the north, down along Pima Road to the abutting the La Mirada Commercial Center to the south. This proposal includes an access point out to Happy Valley at the northeast corner.

It also accounts for utilizing two out of the three culverted crossings that were put in as part of those regional drainage improvements at the southernmost and the center of the site, with that northmost one out onto Pima not being utilized by this proposal.

The next slide up here has for you the NAOS and open space plan, which is split in half to at least fit a little better maybe visually for you, but the left side of the screen there is the north end of the site, The right being the south end, giving a little bit better visual on how that internal circulation works along with the open space corridors between homes in the lots shown. And then this slide is giving the pedestrian and vehicle or circulation plan for you.

I've blown it up as much as I could on the right hand side of the screen there, but again, giving you that circulation context utilizing two out of those three existing access points out to Pima Road and then adding the new out to Happy Valley at the northeast corner.

And so in summary of staff's presentation, the requested application for you tonight is for a recommendation to the city council regarding request by the owner for approval of the zoning district map amendment from the existing R1190 single family residential environmentally sensitive land zoning to the R135. environmentally sensitive lands zoning with those ultimate request for amended development standards to create a 77 lot residential subdivision on this 94.8 gross acre site.

That concludes staff's presentation. I know the applicant team is here with presentation as well. Thank you, Mr. Barnes. Let me ask, do we have any questions right now for Mr. Barnes? Okay very good Well thank you sir Yes sir Mr. Berry? Yes, sir. Thank you. If you'd give me a moment just to get situated here. No problem. Thank you, sir. As you know, I usually use the Elmo, but I've gone 20th century. Forget 21st century here.

I'm going to use the PowerPoint so you'll have to give me some grace on this one. Let me get things a bit organized here. Thank you. To give you an idea of what a dinosaur I am, they had to show me which button to press to advance the PowerPoint. That's okay. I'm still wondering who Elmo is. I think it was part of a puppet, I'm not sure, but puppet show. Thank you. Acting Chair Gonzalez, members of the Commission for your record, John Barry, 6750 East Camelback Road in Scottsdale.

And the question this evening before you is, what do we do with this odd, unique infill parcel of 95 acres at the corner of Happy Valley and Pima Road? Happy Valley is a minor arterial. Pima is a major arterial. Now it's interesting because this site is even more difficult to site plan because the city, in order to address drainage issues, put about a over a 100-foot wide regional drainage channel all along Pima Road adjacent to our on our property.

There's also immediately to the south at the intersection of Pinnacle Peak and Pima, And, including immediately adjacent to our southern boundary commercial. And, in fact, the La Marana Commercial Shopping Center shares a boundary with our property.

Now, at one time, and with another applicant and another lawyer, there might have been a request, with all of these constraints we've talked about, for a mixture of maybe some commercial down to the south there adjacent to the existing shopping center.

And given that 100-foot wide regional drainage center, which at least for now is not exactly something you'd put on the cover of Arizona highways, with these types of constraints and the unique nature of this property long and narrow, maybe some high density residential to go with that. That could have been the application. And in the past there have been some of those applications. Now today it's very different, and it's nice to be associated with a client like Shea Homes.

Because what you have with Shea Homes leadership and their corporate ethic is we're here this evening with a request. And you know Shea is a family owned company. They've got a lot of experience in Scottsdale. And we're here this evening with a request for 77 homes on 95 acres. Now, these are one story luxury homes in a gated community. I want to stress this, that this proposal has fewer homes than what is permitted by the maximum in the general plan for this zoning category.

Now what does the general plan allow? This is an excerpt from the general plan. The designation on the general plan for this piece of property is rural neighborhoods. And you can see the definition of rural neighborhoods. usually one dwelling unit per acre or more acres. Our proposed density, as you can see in green, is 0.081 homes per acre, 19 percent less than the maximum permitted under the general plan designation for rural neighborhoods.

Now our original proposal that we discussed was to recognize that general plan and look at doing 95 homes on 95 acres. That would have included two-story homes. It had no additional natural area open space or preserved desert associated with that request, but we would have met the ordinance requirement, which is pretty onerous in some cases for preserved desert on this site. But, as many of you know, that is not how Shea Homes operates, nor is it how this firm operates.

After neighborhood outreach, we listened to the community, we listened to the neighbors, and we made some significant changes to that proposal. This is what is before you this evening. High altitude, it's the only 77 homes on the 95 acres. It does have more preserved desert or NAOS. You see that 30% number and we use it throughout and we need to fact check that because I'm not sure it's correct. But needless to say it is more than two acres of additional NAOS or preserved desert on the property.

And we did eliminate all of the two-story homes. I want to do a little deeper dive on those changes we made to our plan. We've talked about reducing the number of homes, eliminating the two-story homes. Now this is something very interesting. From the setback for our homes along Pima Road, it's about 215 feet from Pima Road. That's the average. That includes a 100-foot scenic corridor as well along Pima. That Pima Road also includes an 8-foot wide multi-use path for the public.

It includes a 10-foot wide trail for the public as well. Now to the east, adjacent to those neighbors, in the upper right-hand corner you'll see those gray roofs just south of Happy Valley Road. That is the Solitude neighborhood, and I want you to remember that location in the name. That's the Solitude neighborhood. But adjacent to the Solitude neighborhood, running all the way south, is a 100-foot average building setback along that boundary.

Now we also had a suggestion to allow pedestrian connectivity to that shopping center immediately to our south, to allow people to walk or ride their bike directly into and out of that shopping center, which we provided. We did provide two acres of additional preserved desert. Something I'm going to spend some more time on is that last bullet point up there, the modified access to Happy Valley Road at the request of the neighbors. Those neighbors would be solitude.

They have an extremely challenging access issue today with access into and out of Happy Valley Road from their neighborhood. These are just a couple images of some existing Shea home signature product in Scottsdale. By the way, these homes will be somewhere from 3 to 5 million now. By the time they get built, who knows how much they'll actually be.

Now one of the things that I know members of the commission hear and will hear in the future if this is your first meeting is the concern that with new residential, will it lower the property values in the area. And in this instance, what we've done is kind of segment out some neighborhoods just geographically. And you can see based on the different color squares there, the average square foot for sales prices in the area.

The solitude homes, for example, in that yellow area are going for about $877 per square foot. And that's a recent comp for us. We intend and project and guess, it's a guess, we'll be at around $879 per square foot. Now that $913 per square foot is an anomaly. Those homes in Prado, next door to the east, are anywhere from 10,000 to, I think there's somewhere 25,000, 30,000 square feet in there, in that project.

But you can see in the balance of the area, the range of prices, and at $879 per square foot, I don't think we're going to be, this will be a challenge for people's property values in the area. Acting chair, members of the commission, we all know that water is a critical issue in our community.

One of the very interesting things about this case is that this proposal will actually result in less water consumption than large lots that are large homes that have a lot of pools, I mean multiple pools, huge amounts of turf, And if we had an aerial photo on some of those homes, it would lead to the east of us. But based on staff available data, we predict and project that we will actually consume 60% less water with this proposal.

Now the real issue, because this is where water is lost, much of the water we know that goes into the sewer is recycled and captured. What's not captured is the water used outdoors by single family homes. And about 70% of the water in a single family home's total use, 70% is outdoor water use. So if we can limit the amount of outdoor water consumption, we drastically reduce the amount of water use by a home. And that is true with these homes as well.

There will be limitations on the amount of turf that can be used on the site, and there will be obviously significant and technologically advanced methods to restrict and take better care of our water resource. I'd like to talk about access. And you have these graphics on the dais there, and they were a suggestion from one of your fellow commissioners that we provide those to you.

And I know some of you live up in that area I sure all of us have traveled up in that area And we know that Happy Valley Road and Pima Road in general are challenging for folks when they drive up there This graphic does not show the current condition for solitude Now you can see solitude on the right there, on the bottom right with all those gray roofs. What they have now is not what you see there.

What they have now is a lottery demolition derby trying to get out of their subdivision on Happy Valley Road with high speed traffic and try and make a left turn out of their property to head towards Kinga Road. We worked with them, we collaborated with them. The president of the homeowners association is here this evening. We work closely with the city transportation staff and the challenge is left turns in and out of their subdivision at Happy Valley. And how did we improve that?

Again, with the transportation department's involvement and blessing is what you see there. And those median changes, those protected medians with protected left turns and right turns, are in use all over the city, including on Pima Road south of this particular subdivision.

So it will provide deceleration lanes, it provides a safe harbor for people to wait until traffic is clear to be able to accelerate into the traffic on Happy Valley Road, also to make their left turn and not impede the flow of traffic that's going through today on Happy Valley Road.

Now in terms of the number of cars that the traffic report identifies, in the morning it's anticipated that making a left turn out of our parcel, which is to the left where you see the vacant land with our entrance, is about 15 cars in the morning making left turns out of there. In the evening, about 10 cars in the evening.

Something that doesn't really jump out in the staff report, but I think it's important for us to emphasize, is this 95 acres has the legal right to three access points on Pima. In fact, the city recognized that when they put in that over 100-foot wide regional drainage channel The bridge channel along the front of the entire range of this property. Because they built three bridges over that regional drainage channel. So this gives you an idea of the magnitude of that channel.

They've got to build bridges over it. It had to be all-weather access. We are only using two of those three bridges. None of them will look like the Punta Vecchio, but there will be three bridges that are already installed across that drainage channel. So we've eliminated one of them. The one furthest to the north is a simple right in, right out. You can see the green arrow going right out of the project and heading north on Pima Road.

Now importantly, at the bottom you see that left green arrow, that green arrow at the bottom turning into the project. There's a new 100 foot long deceleration lane in order to enter the project. That means that cars do not have to slow down as they put on their blinker and turn into the subdivision. The cars on Pima continue north without having to slow down. It has a salutary effect on traffic on Pima Road and makes it better. What are the numbers we're talking about?

In the morning for that ride in, ride out is four cars in the morning. What about coming back in the evening? Seven cars. Now, the numbers probably don't justify a decel lane, but it's something that the city requested and something that we happily agreed to provide. The final access point is further to the south, and this is full access. Now, this you will see on the upper... I was going to look for the mouse, but I can't find it. I smell a rat, I can't find the mouse.

So you see where it says Pima Road coming south, you'll see that green arrow. There is again a protected left turn lane that is about 100 feet long to allow traffic to gather there without impeding the southbound traffic on Pima Road. There's a right in, right out, going north on Pima. And also, if you're coming out of this subdivision, you may turn left and find that refuge area, that long area, where you can wait in safety until there is a gap where it's safe to merge into traffic on Pima.

And again, there are several of these types of geometrics and medians that exist on Pima Road today and all over the city, and they're proven safe. and our transportation department has endorsed them Now I know some of you know this but when we submit our applications we are required to prepare a transportation mitigation analysis and that is prepared by traffic engineers for traffic engineers.

They are very thick and they talk about all sorts of things, but the city requires that you do whatever you can to mitigate the impact of any new traffic that your proposal is going to bring to our streets. So in this instance, working with city staff, working with Solitude, working with the neighbors, and working with our client, all of those improvements I've shown you in the last three slides I showed you and that are in front of you, all of those improvements, we pay for.

They're not a taxpayer expense. The most important thing from the traffic engineer's perspective is that the result is it enhances safety and it doesn't impede the flow of traffic. So this conclusion that's in the transportation analysis that's been accepted by the city staff basically says that when you look at all the things we've done, The conditions will not deteriorate compared to what exists today, even though we are adding 77 homes to the area. And that's what that sentence says.

I can go through it in greater detail if you want, but that is the punchline for the traffic analysis. Acting Chair and members of the Commission, in summary, I know I'm way over on my time, but I thought it was important, some others thought it was important that we talk about that access in particular. So let me conclude. We do reduce the total amount of water that will be used on this 95 acres compared to what could be done with the current zoning today.

That is true of reducing the amount of outdoor water consumed on the site as well. Now this isn't intangible, but it's an important one. It eliminates the uncertainty for everybody in this area about what's going to go on that 95 acres. What's going to go there? Will it be commercial one day? Will it be apartments? Will it be high rises? Will it be, you know, who knows?

But it creates a bunch of uncertainty, and it can be argued that that's worse for property values than putting in place a very high-end, single-family, gated, luxury home community of $3-5 million homes. So this removes that uncertainty for everybody in the area. Now, it does provide very appropriate, contextually appropriate development. I think we have the right to go to two stories on this property, whether it's the current zoning or a proposed zoning.

The current zoning would allow two-story homes here. But what we're proposing, and all of these things I'm describing here will be invoked in the stipulations, are invoked in the stipulations. So we're limited to one story, maximum height is staffed set of 24 feet. Reduce the number of homes by 19 percent. It is in conformance with all All city adopted plans. Sometimes I come before you with proposals that are so new, so unique, or so different that aren't anticipated by our city's plans.

That we're asking you for some changes to those plans. This is not one of those. This is in conformance with all of the city's approved plans for this property. And importantly, as you know, we work through collaboration. We worked with the solid-tune folks to construct and pay for, not the taxpayers, But we pay for the improved vehicular access along Happy Valley Road. We provide that pedestrian connectivity to the shopping center to the south.

We have these huge average building setbacks along Pima and Sina corridors, and the building setbacks along our neighbor's boundary to the east. We preserve two more acres of additional NAOS. We have support from the La Mirada shopping center. We have a staff recommendation from your professional planning and transportation staff, for approval. Importantly, we work very hard with the Solitude Homeowners Association. I'd like to publicly thank them for their time and energy on this.

We have their support for this proposal from them. Now, Adam, I'm sorry, but I kind of stole two sentences out of your letter, your email that you sent to the staff and to the city supporting this. And I did that because it summarizes so succinctly what this process is about in Scottsdale and where we are with this proposal today. This is a quote from the president of the Homeowners Association at Solitude. Shea has been transparent and solutions-oriented, and we appreciate their participation.

We hope this plan—I'm going to go to the highlighted at the bottom—gets final approval and is put into motion, but I want to read what's in between.

We hope this plan, which now includes the proposed traffic solution, the necessary access for the lift station decommissioning— that an internal issue for them but we assisting them with and the respectful aesthetics between the two communities There have been times and there will be times for new members when there are a parade of neighbors up here that say we been disrespected You've not paid attention. You've not listened to us.

You are not providing any type of buffer between your use and our use. We did simulations for these neighbors, they showed before and after. We worked with them very carefully and it's great to hear them say respectful aesthetics between the two communities. Now their request for you, which they make on their own when they speak, but they have it in this email, they hope this plan gets final approval and is put into motion. Now the first step in that process is in your lap.

It's in your hands this evening. And that is to make a recommendation for approval to the city council to make this change with all the benefits we've identified. We hope that we have earned that support from you with this proposal.

Acting chair, I'm happy to answer questions now, and I know usually, traditionally, Acting chair and commissioners, you typically wait until after council, or I mean after neighborhood comments and public comment, but whatever the pleasure of the commission is, I'm happy to do. Thank you, Mr. Berry. I don't know. Do we have any questions right now for Mr. Berry? We can go ahead and move on to public comments.

Commissioner Gonzalez, if we could direct public comment to the lectern on the other side of the room. Yes, sir. Thank you. On the opposite side. I think that the first person is Ryan Orth. Could you enunciate your last name for me? Thank you, sir. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm not opposed to developing this property.

My concern, and I live across the Pima Road in the Alto Sonora community, my concern is whether 77 homes with lots as small as 26,000 square feet are appropriate for this environmentally sensitive location. There are really two issues, open space and traffic. First, the NAOS figures used to establish the project's principal benefit need to be reconciled, and we heard that from the council, the Shays Council, a minute ago.

The report says 21.94 acres are required and 23.9 acres are provided about 9% above the requirement. The applicant claims approximately 30% more by using a lower requirement after applying a drainage credit. The council and the public deserve one clear calculation showing the requirement, all credits, and any overlap among NAOS drainage easements and the scenic corridor. Also about 14.4 acres, 60% of the NAOS, would be located on private residential lots.

And over time, these areas may face pressure from pools, walls, grading, landscaping, expanded backyards. And if they count as permanent open space, they need clear boundaries, homeowner disclosures, and meaningful enforcement. We should also know how much of the NAOS will remain undisturbed native desert and how much will be revegetated or used for drainage. These areas do not provide the same environmental value. Traffic is the other major concern.

The development is expected to generate 887 weekday trips, 714 more daily trips than the development allowed under the current zoning. This matters because the city recently made a major investment in widening Pima Road and building the regional drainage facility. The proposal says access points were planned during those improvements, but what level of development did the city assume? 19 homes, the proposed 77, 98 allowed under R135 or something else.

The added lane may keep traffic moving, but it does not necessarily make entering Pima Road easier. The applicant's own study projects level of service F for residents turning from the southern driveway during the morning and evening peak hours. That could cause long delays, risky gap taking, U-turns, or traffic shifting to Happy Valley Road or nearby routes. And so taken together, these concerns suggest that this plan is trying to place too many homes on this property.

A reasonable compromise would require lots of at least one acre, 43,560 square feet. Larger lots would mean fewer trips, more room to preserve washes in native desert, better separation from protected NAO as in the development pattern, more consistent with the area's rural character. I respectfully ask the commission not to approve the R135 proposal as presented.

Please direct the applicant to return with one acre or larger lots Unenforcible open space protections and traffic improvements based on the actual design assumptions of the completed Pima Road project. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Ryan. Next request to speak is Adam Werner. You have three minutes sir. Thank you very much and it's nice to meet you all and I appreciate the opportunity to be able to address the council.

You heard a lot from Shay when they were talking about the development of that community and the submission. Well, we learn about it through the normal process that Scottsdale uses, where you get a postcard in the mail saying something's going on around you, and if you want to attend or meet, here's your project manager. Well, I'm with Solitude. My name is Adam Warner, and I'm the president of the Solitude Property Owners Association.

And myself and Richard, a fellow board member, met with Jeff Barnes to talk about exactly what was going to happen with that particular piece of land, and that was in April of this year. And I don't think that anybody in the solitude or frankly in the entire neighborhood were surprised that there was going to be a development, a residential development being put out forward for that particular lot. But how is it going to be handled? Would it fit within the community?

And frankly, I think one of the biggest concerns that we had was traffic congestion. And how is traffic going to be managed with an additional development right at that intersection of Happy Valley and Pima? And how that impacted the Solitude folks really was around the fact that without a shade development, without any development right there at that land, it was very difficult for us to exit our property and turn left.

And it was difficult, even though Happy Valley had just been, a few years earlier, redone all the way to the other side of the McDowell Mountains. But it became challenging for the Solitude residents because it was difficult to get around, make a left out because of the bend in Happy Valley Road. And we couldn't see the oncoming traffic. So it was kind of harrowing to leave.

When we brought some of these and other concerns to Shea and their representatives, they didn't say, well, that's what comes with additional homes and additional residents. They acted. They took all of our concerns and they acted on every single one of them, including not only proposing changes to traffic patterns, but also saying, and we'll fund those changes. We're not going to ask Scottsdale to do that or Solitude to do that, but they stepped up and did it.

Things like we have a lift station for sewage to go to that's built in our community because it was too difficult with the prior ownership to be able to run straight down through that land. Mr. Warner, can you hear a little bit over your three minutes? I'll let you go ahead and wind up right now. Thank you, sir. Okay, sure. So what we found is that Shea is a very candid, very solutions-oriented, very transparent company that wants to be a good neighbor.

And has gone, frankly, I think, were very, very happily and pleasantly surprised at the accommodations that they were willing to make, So that their neighbors felt like their neighborhood was being accreted rather than taken away from. Very good. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your time. Chase Weisem? Weisem? How's it going? My name is Chase Weisem. Thank you guys for your time today.

I'd just like to say as a proud Scottsdale resident, I'm fully in support of this project that Shea Holmes is putting forward. And I like to add that Shea Holmes has an outstanding reputation for building beautiful high homes and creating communities that we all proud to be a part of Thank you guys Thank you, sir. Next is Sultan. Excuse me. Sultan. Thank you, sir. Good? Just making sure. I want to first off start by saying thank you guys. I appreciate your time.

I am also, just like Chase said, in full support of Shea's motion to change and rezone. I think that it's good for the community. They have the ability in their original zoning plans to do the full 95 some odd homes. I think that that being changed to 77 is great and it shows their creativeness to the community and not trying to, you know, overbuild in that area.

Like the first gentleman said, it is a very nice high-end area and with Shea being able to deliver three to five million dollars $10,000 homes will only support the area itself financially, but also with the commercial behind it, just south, they will also be a benefit to the area. And also I want to point out with that land being vacant as long as it has, I've lived in Scottsdale for the last 26 years.

I'm glad that it's not going to be zoned for more commercial, which would, you know, increase traffic in that area significantly more than what's going to be going on with the residential development. So I just want to show my support for the rezoning and Che itself. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for your time. Commissioner Gonzalez, it's my understanding that Commissioner Reid just joined us at 6.06 p.m. Thank you. Very good. Thank you, sir. We want to meet Connor Allen. Hello, everyone.

My name is Connor Allen. I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. Like the last couple gentlemen, I am putting my support behind the project being passed as well. As a Scottsdale resident, just as the last few gentlemen were, I have seen the community and the city grow over the last five years very significantly, and I would like to see that continue to happen.

And as someone who's looking to potentially purchase a home up in that area, I don't think that there's a better candidate to develop the land than Shea Homes would be. I've been to a couple of their communities and I think that they do an incredible job as far as just building nice communities and lovely homes. And I thought the potential water saving was extremely important as well as that's obviously been a hot topic in Arizona over the last decade or so.

So, yes, I am voting in support as well. Thank you. Very good. Thank you, sir. Our next is Joaquin Garcia. I guess he's not here right now. So, in any case, that was our last one. Let's go ahead and move to Mr. Berry. All right, now we got it. Action Chair Gonzales, commissioners, including Commissioner Reed. I obviously don't have any comment on the support. We appreciate that. I do want to thank Mr. Orth for coming down today or this evening and appearing.

And I know you're heavily involved in your homeowner's association and your wife is and there'll be others that are involved will be getting involved. So we want to extend to you the same approach that we demonstrated with Solitude to at least get together and listen very carefully to your community's concerns and see if there's exchange of information that would result in better analysis by both us and by your neighborhood as well.

And if there's opportunities we'd certainly like to take advantage of that. But we have someone from Technical Solutions I think you have a card from Prescott this evening you have my card to arrange to try and get that done soon to explore that and to listen more carefully to your concerns and update you on what we doing as well So thank you very much for taking the time. I get paid. All of you don't.

So I would have wished, speaking of that, I would have wished you would have talked longer, but okay. Acting Chair Gonzales, members of the commission, no other comments from me. Happy to answer any questions from the commission. from the commission. Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Berry. I think we have a few questions here from the commissioners. Thank you, Mr. Berry. That was an excellent presentation, but I do have one question for clarification.

One of the homeowners brought up a question that I want to have clarified for the record, And that is that if someone decides to build a pool in an NAOS, they have to redesignate an additional part of their land for NAOS. Is that true? Acting chair and commissioner Joyner, that is absolutely correct. And in order to build that pool, you have to get a permit from the city.

And you've got to go down to the city and demonstrate to them that you're not building or doing anything inside that NAOS area. So it's a good concern and there's certainly been examples, Mr North, where neighbors or neighborhoods and HOAs have not paid attention to that and it's become a problem and staffs aware of that as well. So we understand that. But I think the enforcement process has come a long way since then. So but anyway, we'll happy to discuss.

But yes, Commissioner Joyner, absolutely correct. That's all my questions. I'll make comments later after the rest of the commission speaks. Very good. Anybody else has questions? Commissioners? Yes, sir. Doug? Thank you, Mr. Berry. Appreciate your presentation. Question along Pima Road. What kind of screening is provided besides the 200 or the setback between the community and the roadway? Acting Chair Gonzalez, Commissioner Craig.

It's not been decided yet, but we are looking at alternatives which could include some type of perimeter wall that would meet the standards and requirements of ESLO. But that's one of the things that we're considering. We haven't made that decision yet in terms of the Pima Road frontage. Even like a view wall, I don't think necessarily a solid builder wall, perimeter wall, would be necessarily required.

But I'm just wondering what kind of, almost thinking more for the homeowners than for the travel. Acting chair Gonzales, Commissioner Craig. It's interesting because Mr. Orr's neighborhood worked very hard with the city collaboratively to help convince the city to spend significant dollars to put in that sound wall directly across the road from our project. So, and part of his neighborhood's concerns was exactly what you described as noise from the expanded Pima Road.

So we just haven't gotten that far yet. We would like to see if we have a project before we spend that money. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Anybody else? I have a few questions if I could. One of the questions I had, sir, is that is the southernmost entrance point off of Pima, that drive that comes in? Commissioner Gonzalez, yes. Is that an access for the fire department to come in that way too? Acting Chair Gonzalez, yes. Okay.

And then is that access going to be used as a normal access or is it for emergency purpose only or what's its usage then I guess? Acting Chair Gonzalez, it will be full access for fire department, any public safety, visitors, guests, residents and others. Will that be, are you planning on having like an automatic gate that just focuses on vehicles leaving or do the vehicles have to be marked to get in and leave that space? Great question. Action Chair Gonzalez, don't know.

We're not sure about the wall yet either and the mechanics of the gate, but I think we'd want to use later The technology to allow us to do that So by the time if this gets approved by the time it built it probably two to three years out before this this is open And there could be significant changes in technology when it comes to that But I don know if I addressed your question or not chair Gonzalez Well, I guess maybe one thing I would ask is the gate, the gate that's going to be in that in that on that placement.

Do you know how what the basic measurement would be from that gate to the to Pima Road? I will. I don't know if our land planner could take a look at that and estimate that or if Michelle could do that. But what I do know is whatever that requirement is, what you see on your plans already incorporates the fire department's requirements and the city planning and traffic staff's requirements.

So as you know, they've got very specific requirements, that stacking distance and also the width of the gates, how they're open by public safety, all those types of things. Acting Chair Gonzalez, hot off the press, approximately 150 feet from Pima Road. Okay, very good. I appreciate that. And then the front entrance gate that comes off of the main entrance gate, Does it have a happy valley? Does how do you know about proxy?

Is that about the same proximity measurement wise as far as what the entrance would be or load factor would be as far as how many cars or anything to that nature? Chair Gonzalez, members of the commission, just to clarify, our major access, our main access, our primary access is the southern one on Pima Road. So that's our main access.

We really wanted to reduce as much as possible the traffic onto Happy Valley, again in conjunction with Solitude, and also recognizing that that intersection can sometimes get complicated. So our major access and primary access signage, all that will be on that access on the south, closest to the shopping center. But yes, it's 150, approximately 150 feet as well for the Happy Valley Gate. Very good. And then do you have a design or anything on that gate yet?

Or have you just kind of left that up right now as far as the application? Chair Gonzalez, members of the commission, we have not designed the gate yet. Very good. Well, that ends my questions. Thank you, sir. Anybody else? I have one quick question. Certainly. Are there any retained washes that are happening on the site, like a 404 wash basin that are being retained, or is it all modified drainage pathways through the city?

Chair Gonzalez, Commissioner Brand, unfortunately I don't have my civil engineer with us this evening, but my understanding is there are no 404 washes that we're impacted. Now, please, I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express to give you any idea whether that's valid or not, but just from remembering I think that is the case. We can certainly give you an answer after this evening if that helps. No, that's fine.

I was just in looking at the site plan, it appears like the site planning and the placing of the lots has been responsive to natural area wash corridors. I didn't know if those were designated or not.

But, um, Chair, Action Chair Gonzalez, Commissioner Brand, um, our land planner on this is Swabak Partners, Jeff Denzak, and Jeff and Swabak are extremely familiar with North Scottsdale residential development, all development, and, uh, this really is a very well done design plan that's been very sensitive and attuned to exactly what you, what you've described. Okay, thank you Mr. Berry. Anybody else have any questions? I have a few comments. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Berry.

First of all, I'm thrilled that Shay is involved in this project. I'm, I think on the commission, I live in that neighborhood and I think I'm the only one that I live the closest to it. And I have suffered through it was going to be a retirement community. It was going to be apartments. Then it was going to be a retirement community. It was going to be commercial all the way up and down Pima Road.

So when I finally got the packet, my concern continued to be traffic just like everybody else's was. So I am thrilled with the ingress and egress that has been provided and that Shea is actually paying for it. I think that speaks very highly of them. So with that in mind, I am ready to make a motion.

I'd like to recommend a motion for request by owners of for a zoning district map amendment from single family residential environmentally sensitive lands are one one ninety zoning to single family residential environmentally sensitive lands zoning with amended development standards for a seventy seven lot subdivision on a plus or minus ninety four point gross acre soft Site located at the southeast corner of East Happy Valley Road and North Pima Road. Staff con- oh, you don't need that.

And of course adding the stipulations that you alluded to in the presentation of ingress and egress. I'm sorry, Acting Chair and Commissioner Joyner, Mr. Curtis and I were just trying to make sure that we heard you say that the recommendation wasn't just a recommendation, but a recommendation for hopefully approval. Yes. Okay, thank you. I'll second that.

The one thing I wanted to mention on top of everything else is that I've been familiar and tried to work with that property for many, many, many years. It's gone through a lot of different renditions. The previous owner was infamous, was famous in his ability to to upset some people and and the neighborhood and and what I was always looking forward to was a development that would the neighbors would support and it sounds like we're getting that support. So I would like to second that motion.

Caryl Anderson- I'm just checking everybody. I'm going to call for a vote. Okay. Yes Yes commissioner Joyner Yes commissioner Reed Yeah commissioner Drake Yes commissioner Brand Yes commissioner Craig Yes commissioner McCurdy Yes motion passes Thank you Thank you all very much Thank you for your time. Okay, we're going to have the election for the officers now. Mayor Redekop, M.D.: Yeah, Commissioner Gonzalez, members of the commission. We have both officer positions open.

Typically the chair goes first and then the vice chair. So you could open it up for nominations and then gather those nominations and then you could close those nominations and call for a vote on each nomination. Very good. I'd like to open now for the nominations. Yes, I would like to nominate Joyner for the chair. Very good. Well, I also would like to nominate Michael Joyner, and I prepared a statement, if I may. Go ahead.

It is my honor to nominate Commissioner Michael Joyner to serve as the next chair of Scottsdale Planning Commission. Throughout her many years of service, both at our wider Arizona community and in our city of Scottsdale, Commissioner Joyner has provided steady, thoughtful leadership.

She brings experience fairness and a deep respect for the residents and applicants who come before this commission Those are exact qualities we need in the chair and I believe she is the right person to lead us in this next term Therefore, I formally nominate Commissioner Joyner as chair of the Scottsdale Planning Commission. Very good. Anybody else have any recommendations? I concur. Very good. I would like to I'd also like to nominate her.

She has been a very good asset for the city volunteer program as such as this commission and for the DR review board. And I think she's put in the time and the ability and the education to perform this job. So in other words, I think that she would do a very good job. Thank you. I'm just gonna make sure. Yep, I'll call for a vote. Commissioner Gonzalez. Yes. Commissioner Joyner. Yes. Commissioner Reed. Yes. Commissioner Drake. Yes. Commissioner Brand. Yes. Commissioner Craig. Yes.

Commissioner McCurdy. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. I did not pay him for that speech. But I'm very honored. Thank you. Very good. Thank you very much. Now we go for this second nomination. I'd like to nominate Jeff Brand as vice chair, please. I'll second it. David, do you have anything to say one way or another? Is he on the phone? Yes. I'm sorry, I didn't. Yeah, thank you. Okay, very good. Thank you, David.

I like to go with Jeff also I think he very knowledgeable there again He has a lot of energy a lot of ability He volunteered for a lot of things He served the city very well I think And I think he brings on an added ability of being an architect I think he understands the problems that we have brought forward to us. So I would like to nominate him also. Anybody else have any questions or comments? Very good. Might as well have a roll call. Commissioner Gonzalez? Yes. Commissioner Joyner?

Proudly yes. Commissioner Reid? Yes. Commissioner Drake? Yes. Commissioner Brand? Yes. Commissioner Craig? Yes. Commissioner McCurdy? Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think that covers everything. Hopefully you haven't had too much tedium through this. This is kind of a new situation for me today. But I appreciate your time and I'll just go ahead and end in this meeting. We'll have a roll call. Motion to adjourn. Yes. You don't need a vote to adjourn. Okay, very good.

We'll adjourn the meeting then. Thank you, sir. I can't even get into the conversation in that one. But they've got to keep it original. And Malcolm White, Lorraine White's a very lovely lady. Yes, she is. And she comes by and yaks with me every so often about different things. And it is a