Extracted text (via pymupdf)
118331 characters
DATE:
May 8, 2025
TO:
Planning & Zoning Commission
From:
Nick Schlimm, Planner
SUBJECT:
Z240006 – Goldhawk at the Preserve
Agenda Item: #5
!
" !!
#
"
! "
"
!! "$
! #
%"&'
( )*"+ )
,
-./),-.0! 1
)
!2 34
%*"
),-.
1
),-.!
1
%*"# 3
56+ 7
!),-.
%
*"
"!
18%"9
3
! ),-.
"
!
%*"
"(:! !
"
1 $ ),-.
8%"&
"! )
, 7
!
$
!
!
$
;
* /(
0
,
/(
0
* )*"+ ),-./
0
<
;),-.=9=/&
0
+
!
+
5),-.&=(>:=/&
0
+ <
5*8
/:
0
wr@berryriddell.com
Direct: (480) 682-3902
May 1, 2025
Via Email to:
Arizona State Senate
Attn: John Kavanagh
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
jkavanagh@azleg.gov
Re:
Goldhawk at The Preserve (Case No. Z240006)
Dear Senator Kavanagh,
Maricopa County has shared with us the letter you provided to them dated March 27th,
2025 (sic). I represent Grayhawk Development, the applicant for the downzoning of the
approximate 1,941-acre site within Goldfield Ranch. I sincerely wish you had taken a moment
to contact us prior to sending your letter so we would have had an opportunity to share some
of the facts with you directly.
You claim that we have not been working with the tribal communities and the other
interested stakeholders prior to moving this case forward. You should know that this case was
first filed on July 12, 2024, more than nine months ago, and we in fact voluntarily agreed to
continue the Comprehensive Plan Amendment three times at the request of the tribal
communities so that it could be heard concurrently with the zoning case. Most recently we
agreed to continue the rezoning case once before the Planning & Zoning Commission because
the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community believed that notice had not been sufficient.
While the County, who is responsible for providing this notice maintains that the notice was
indeed sufficient, we nonetheless voluntarily agreed to continue the case out of respect for the
Community’s concern.
Further, while the County’s Zoning Ordinance does not require us to host neighborhood
meetings, we in fact hosted two of them regarding this development at the Fountain Hills
Community Center, a location suggested by an involved community stakeholder. The first was
attended by approximately forty-five (45) people, and the second by significantly less - twelve
(12) people. In addition to these two neighborhood meetings, we have had at least two meetings
BERRY RIDDELL LLC
May 1, 2025
Page 2
with each of the tribal communities, as well as significant dialogue outside of those meetings.
There are ample letters and emails demonstrating that robust dialogue has been occurring since
the Fall of 2024 with all interested stakeholders.
I was also very startled by your assertion that there is no clear path for fire protection.
As the representative for this area, I would have thought you knew about the Goldfield Ranch
Fire District. My client is a long-time contributing member to the District and has been since
its’ formation. With the site developing as we are proposing, this contribution would increase
by at least five times, which will in turn give a significant financial boost to the ultimate fire
provider. You should also know that it is my client who currently allows the District to use
their well and tank for fire suppression, providing the only viable means of fire suppression
for Goldfield Ranch today. Additionally, we have committed to sprinkler each proposed home
and bring fire hydrants to Goldfield Ranch. The reality is that this proposal will bring much
needed fire infrastructure that is currently not present anywhere within Goldfield Ranch. It will
also increase revenue to the Fire District making fire infrastructure for the rest of Goldfield
Ranch possible and sustainable.
I was also surprised by your statement that our proposal “will have” at least two large
production wells directly adjacent to the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation. You should know
that the wells on our site exist today and have since 1985. You should also know that the Verde
River adjudication court has already determined that our wells are outside the sub flow zone.
Additionally, my client has had an Analysis of Assured Water Supply from the Arizona
Department of Water Resources for 731.69-acre feet of water since 2007, though with this plan
we would use substantially less water. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we have
committed to obtaining a Certificate of Assured Water Supply before developing this site
through the subdivision process.
Lastly you claim that this project should not move forward because my client is not
proposing “a modern wastewater treatment plant” on site. We have been very transparent
throughout our extensive outreach that such a treatment plant is cost prohibitive without
substantially more density which is not supported by the stakeholders in the area. We have
also suggested to these same stakeholders that the use of septic within a controlled master
planned community with oversight is a preferable alternative to the unregulated septic systems
that exist throughout the rest of Goldfield Ranch. Incidentally this same logic would apply to
our proposed water solution – developing the site and utilizing production wells and a water
provider is a significantly better outcome than the proliferation of individual exempt wells that
currently exist through the rest of Goldfield Ranch.
BERRY RIDDELL LLC
May 1, 2025
Page 3
I trust now that we have provided this information, you would agree that nine months
is not an “expedited pace of planning and zoning deliberations” and that a large-lot master
planned community done by a well-respected developer with the commitments I have outlined
above is a much better alternative to the inevitable wildcat subdivisions that would otherwise
occur. We are of course happy to discuss any of this with you.
Sincerely,
Wendy Riddell
cc: Jimmy Lindblom
Larry Lazarus
Stephen Anderson
Tom Ellsworth
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Wendy Riddell <wr@berryriddell.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, May 6, 2025 11:24 AM
To:
Darren Gerard (PND)
Cc:
Tom Ellsworth (PND); Nicholas Schlimm (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND); Chris Harrison
(charrison@grayhawk.com); ttryhus@grayhawk.com; Sarah Sawyer; Elyse DiMartino
Subject:
RE: Z240006 Goldhawk
Attachments:
RE: The Preserve at Goldfield aka Goldhawk
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Darren – Do you have our response to the Kavanaugh letter included as well?
You should also know that my clients met with the Goldfield Ranch Fire District this morning, a meeting that they
had been trying to set up since January. Please see the attached email.
Regarding the stipulations, we are still working on these with SRP-MIC, and I think we need to hear from them
before I can agree to stipulations. Please note that there is also a typo in the last stipulation.
More to come!
Best,
Wendy R. Riddell, Esq.
BERRY RIDDELL LLC
6750 E. Camelback Road, Suite 100
Scottsdale, Arizona 85251
480-682-3902 direct
602-616-8771 cell
480-385-2757 fax
wr@berryriddell.com | www.berryriddell.com
This message and any of the attached documents contain information from Berry Riddell LLC that may be confidential and/or
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information, and no privilege
has been waived by your inadvertent receipt. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply
e-mail and then delete this message. Thank you.
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Greg Laney <GLaney@spray-eri.com>
Sent:
Friday, January 24, 2025 10:56 AM
To:
Chris Harrison
Cc:
Taylor Tryhus; chrisvan50@hotmail.com
Subject:
RE: The Preserve at Goldfield aka Goldhawk
Mr. Harrison,
I have received your email. If this meeting could be scheduled for the week of March 10th in afternoon that would
be preferred. We could meet at your oƯice if that is acceptable.
Thank you,
Greg Laney
Goldfield Ranch Fire District
&ƌŽŵ͗ ŚƌŝƐ,ĂƌƌŝƐŽŶфĐŚĂƌƌŝƐŽŶΛŐƌĂLJŚĂǁŬ͘ ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗ dŚƵƌƐĚĂLJ͕ :ĂŶƵĂƌLJϮϯ͕ ϮϬϮϱϭϬ͗ ϱϭD
dŽ͗ 'ƌĞŐ>ĂŶĞLJф'>ĂŶĞLJΛƐƉƌĂLJͲĞƌŝ͘ ĐŽŵх
Đ͗ dĂLJůŽƌdƌLJŚƵƐфƚƚƌLJŚƵƐΛŐƌĂLJŚĂǁŬ͘ ĐŽŵх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ dŚĞWƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚ'ŽůĚĨŝĞůĚĂŬĂ'ŽůĚŚĂǁŬ
Hi Mr. Laney-
My name is Chris Harrison/Grayhawk Development, and I am working on the Goldhawk at the Preserve project. I
hope to twist your arm for an in-person meeting in the next couple of weeks. We are currently pursuing a DMP
Amendment and Rezoning, with hearings expected towards the end of 1Q. As members of the Goldfield Ranch
Fire District, we are interested in understanding how our presence can be of benefit, as well as addressing the
questions/concerns you tendered and opening a dialogue for measures we might incorporate into our planning to
mitigate future fire danger. We are happy to come to see you or host you at our oƯice; whichever is most
convenient. Grayhawk OƯice is located in the Gainey Ranch area of Scottsdale. For this intro meeting, we’d have
two or three people from our end. Please let me know a couple dates and times you are available and we can go
from there. Note the week of Feb 2-8 will be challenging for us so next week or after Feb 12 works best.
Regards
Chris Harrison
Grayhawk Development
480-694-8434
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
jim mcneil <jlmau2010@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Thursday, May 1, 2025 7:28 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Case number--Z240006 or CPA2024004---GoldHawk
Attachments:
JM-preserve case -Z240006- Copy.docx
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Good Day Nicholas,
I am submitting my opinions and comments for GoldHawk--
Thank You
Jim McNeil
21511 E Northwood Pass
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
:ŝŵDĐEĞŝů
Ϯϭϱϭϭ EŽƌƚŚǁŽŽĚWĂƐƐ
&ŽƌƚDĐŽǁĞůů͕ ϴϱϮϲϰ
:>DhϮϬϭϬΛLJĂŚŽŽ͘ ĐŽŵ
WĂƌĐĞůηϮϭϵͲϭϲͲϬϲϲ<
DĂLJϭ͕ ϮϬϮϱ
EŝĐŚŽůĂƐ^ĐŚůŝŵŵ
WůĂŶŶŝŶŐ
DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂŽƵŶƚLJ
ϯϬϭtĞƐƚ:ĞīĞƌƐŽŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ
WŚŽĞŶŝdž͕ ƌŝnjŽŶĂϴϱϬϬϯ
ĞĂƌEŝĐŚŽůĂƐ^ĐŚůŝŵŵ͕
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů͕ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂů͕ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐZĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝŶ'ŽůĚĮĞůĚZĂŶĐŚ
ŬŶŽǁŶĂƐ;dŚĞWƌĞƐĞƌǀĞͿ͘
/ĂŵǁƌŝƟŶŐƚŽĞdžƉƌĞƐƐŵLJƐƚƌŽŶŐĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨĂϭ͕ ϳϬϬͲĂĐƌĞƉĂƌĐĞůŝŶƚŚĞ'ŽůĚĮĞůĚ
ZĂŶĐŚĂƌĞĂŬŶŽǁŶĂƐΗdŚĞWƌĞƐĞƌǀĞ͘ ΗdŚĞƉůĂŶƚŽŵŽĚŝĨLJƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůnjŽŶŝŶŐĨƌŽŵŽŶĞƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞƉĞƌĮǀĞĂĐƌĞƐ
ƚŽŽŶĞŚŽŵĞƉĞƌĂĐƌĞ͕ ĂůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶŽĨŚŝŐŚͲĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ͕ ĐŽŶĚŽŵŝŶŝƵŵƐ͕ ĂŶĚĂŐŽůĨĐŽƵƌƐĞ͕ ƌĂŝƐĞƐ
ƐŝŐŶŝĮĐĂŶƚĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů͕ ŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂů͕ ĂŶĚĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐŝƐƐƵĞƐ͘ dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉŽƐĞƐĂƐĞǀĞƌĞƚŚƌĞĂƚƚŽƚŚĞůŽĐĂů
ĞĐŽƐLJƐƚĞŵ͕ ǁĂƚĞƌƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͕ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͕ ĂŶĚĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐƐƚĂďŝůŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞƌĞŐŝŽŶ͘ dŚŝƐůĞƩĞƌŽƵƚůŝŶĞƐƚŚĞ
ŶĞŐĂƟǀĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĐŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞŽŶƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĚĞƐĞƌƚĞĐŽƐLJƐƚĞŵ͕ ƉĂƌƟĐƵůĂƌůLJĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞ
ŽŶŐŽŝŶŐĂŶĚƉŽƐƐŝďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĚƌŽƵŐŚƚĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐĂŶĚƚŚĞĨƌĂŐŝůĞǁĂƚĞƌƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐŝŶƚŚĞƌĞŐŝŽŶ͘
ϭ͘ tĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐĂŶĚKŶŐŽŝŶŐƌŽƵŐŚƚ͘
dŚĞ^ŽŶŽƌĂŶĞƐĞƌƚŚĂƐďĞĞŶĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐŝŶŐĂƐĞǀĞƌĞĚƌŽƵŐŚƚƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞŵŝĚͲϭϵϵϬƐ͕ ŵĂƌŬŝŶŐĂϯϱͲLJĞĂƌƉĞƌŝŽĚŽĨǁĂƚĞƌ
ƐĐĂƌĐŝƚLJ͕ ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐƚŚĞǁŽƌƐƚŝŶŽǀĞƌϭϭϬLJĞĂƌƐŽĨƌĞĐŽƌĚĞĚŚŝƐƚŽƌLJ͘ dŚŝƐƉƌŽůŽŶŐĞĚĚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĂƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJƐŝŐŶŝĮĐĂŶƚůLJ
ĂīĞĐƚĞĚƌŝnjŽŶĂ͛ ƐǁĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůŝĞƐ͕ ůĞĂĚŝŶŐƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞĚĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJĨŽƌĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂů͕ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů͕ ĂŶĚĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůŶĞĞĚƐ͘
dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͕ ĐŽƵƉůĞĚǁŝƚŚǁĂƚĞƌͲŝŶƚĞŶƐŝǀĞĂŵĞŶŝƟĞƐƐƵĐŚĂƐĂŐŽůĨĐŽƵƌƐĞ͕ ǁŝůůŽŶůLJ
ĞdžĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞƚŚĞƐƚƌĂŝŶŽŶĂŶĂůƌĞĂĚLJŽǀĞƌďƵƌĚĞŶĞĚͬ ĚĞƉůĞƚĞĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞ͘
'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌůĞǀĞůƐŝŶƚŚĞƌĞŐŝŽŶĂƌĞĐƌŝƟĐĂůůLJůŽǁĚƵĞƚŽƉƌŽůŽŶŐĞĚƉĞƌŝŽĚƐŽĨƌĞĚƵĐĞĚƉƌĞĐŝƉŝƚĂƟŽŶ͘ dŚĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚ
ĚĞŵĂŶĚĨŽƌǁĂƚĞƌƚŚĂƚǁŝůůƌĞƐƵůƚĨƌŽŵƚŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚŚƌĞĂƚĞŶƐƚŽĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĚĞƉůĞƚĞƚŚĞĂƋƵŝĨĞƌƐ͕ ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƚŚĞƉƌŝŵĂƌLJ
ƐŽƵƌĐĞƐŽĨǁĂƚĞƌĨŽƌůŽĐĂůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐĂŶĚĞĐŽƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ͘ ƐĂƌĞƐƵůƚ͕ ƚŚŝƐĐŽƵůĚůĞĂĚƚŽƚŚĞĚƌLJŝŶŐƵƉŽĨǁĞůůƐ͕ ƌĞĚƵĐĞĚ
ǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJĨŽƌĞdžŝƐƟŶŐƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͕ ĂŶĚƚŚĞĚĞƚĞƌŝŽƌĂƟŽŶŽĨůŽĐĂůǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJĚƵĞƚŽŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌ
ƉƵŵƉŝŶŐ͘ DŽƌĞŽǀĞƌ͕ ĂŶLJƌĞĚƵĐƟŽŶŝŶŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌůĞǀĞůƐĐŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞůŽŶŐͲůĂƐƟŶŐĞīĞĐƚƐŽŶƚŚĞĚĞƐĞƌƚΖƐŶĂƚƵƌĂů
ǀĞŐĞƚĂƟŽŶ͕ ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJƵŶĚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐĨƌŽŵĚƌŽƵŐŚƚĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐ͕ ƚŚĞƌĞďLJĂůƚĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂŶĚĞĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůďĂůĂŶĐĞ͘
ƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJ͕ ƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞǁĞůůƐŝŶƚŚĞĂƌĞĂĂƌĞƌĞĂĐŚŝŶŐĚĞƉƚŚƐŽĨĂƌŽƵŶĚϴϬϬĨĞĞƚ͘ /ĨƚŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽĐĞĞĚƐ͕ ŝƚ
ĐŽƵůĚůĞĂĚƚŽĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĚĞƉůĞƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĂƋƵŝĨĞƌƐ͕ ƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJƌĞƋƵŝƌŝŶŐĞdžŝƐƟŶŐŚŽŵĞŽǁŶĞƌƐƚŽĚƌŝůůŶĞǁǁĞůůƐďĞLJŽŶĚϭ͕ ϬϬϬ
ĨĞĞƚ͘ dŚĞĐŽƐƚŽĨƐƵĐŚĚĞĞƉĚƌŝůůŝŶŐŝƐƉƌŽŚŝďŝƟǀĞ͕ ǁŚŝĐŚĐŽƵůĚƌĞŶĚĞƌƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐǀŝƌƚƵĂůůLJǁŽƌƚŚůĞƐƐĚƵĞƚŽ
ƚŚĞĮŶĂŶĐŝĂůďƵƌĚĞŶŽĨĂĐĐĞƐƐŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ͘ 'ŝǀĞŶƚŚĞĚĞĐĂĚĞƐƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞƉĂƐƐĞĚƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůnjŽŶŝŶŐĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůͶůŽŶŐ
ďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĚƌŽƵŐŚƚĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐͶŝƚŝƐĐƌƵĐŝĂůƚŽĐŽŶĚƵĐƚŶĞǁ͕ ŝŶĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƐƵƌǀĞLJƐƚŽĂƐƐĞƐƐƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ
ƐŝƚƵĂƟŽŶĂŶĚƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĂŐĞ͘
^ĞǀĞƌĂůŽĨƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐŝŶƚŚĞ'ŽůĚĮĞůĚĂƌĞǀĞƌLJĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚĂďŽƵƚŽƵƌǁĂƚĞƌǁĞůůƐĂŶĚŶŽƚƚŽŚĂǀĞĂƐŝŵŝůĂƌ
ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĂƐEŽƌƚŚ^ĐŽƩƐĚĂůĞƌĞĐĞŶƚůLJĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĚ͘ /ĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌŶĞǀĞƌĚĞƐŝƌĞƚŽƉŚĂƵůǁĂƚĞƌĂŶĚŽƵƌƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐŶĞĞĚƐƚŽďĞ
ƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĂŶĚĞǀĂůƵĂƚĞĚ͘
Ϯ͘ /ŵƉĂĐƚŽŶ>ŽĐĂů&ůŽƌĂĂŶĚ&ĂƵŶĂ͘
dŚĞ^ŽŶŽƌĂŶĞƐĞƌƚŝƐŚŽŵĞƚŽĂƵŶŝƋƵĞĂƌƌĂLJŽĨƉůĂŶƚĂŶĚĂŶŝŵĂůƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ͕ ŵĂŶLJŽĨǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞĂĚĂƉƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƌĞŐŝŽŶΖƐ
ĂƌŝĚĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐĂŶĚƌĞůLJŽŶƐƉĞĐŝĮĐĞĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐƚŽƚŚƌŝǀĞ͘ dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚŚƌĞĂƚĞŶƐƚŽĚŝƐƌƵƉƚƚŚĞƐĞ
ĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐďLJŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐŚƵŵĂŶƉƌĞƐĞŶĐĞĂŶĚĂůƚĞƌŝŶŐůĂŶĚƵƐĞŝŶǁĂLJƐƚŚĂƚĐŽƵůĚůĞĂĚƚŽŚĂďŝƚĂƚůŽƐƐ͕ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚ
ƉŽůůƵƟŽŶ͕ ĂŶĚƚŚĞŝŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶŽĨŝŶǀĂƐŝǀĞƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ͘
WĂƌƟĐƵůĂƌůLJĂƚƌŝƐŬĂƌĞƚŚĞůŽĐĂůǁŝůĚůŝĨĞƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐ͕ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞǁŝůĚŚŽƌƐĞĂŶĚŵƵƐƚĂŶŐŚĞƌĚƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞĂůƌĞĂĚLJ
ƐƚƌƵŐŐůŝŶŐƚŽĮŶĚƐƵĸĐŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌĂŶĚĨŽƌĂŐĞŝŶƚŚŝƐƉƌŽůŽŶŐĞĚĚƌŽƵŐŚƚ͘ dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĐŽƵůĚƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚƚŚĞŝƌŶĂƚƵƌĂů
ƌŽĂŵŝŶŐĂƌĞĂƐĂŶĚƌĞĚƵĐĞĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽǀŝƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͘ &ƵƌƚŚĞƌŵŽƌĞ͕ ƚŚĞŚŝŐŚͲĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĂŶĚŐŽůĨĐŽƵƌƐĞǁŝůů
ĨƌĂŐŵĞŶƚŚĂďŝƚĂƚƐ͕ ŵĂŬŝŶŐŝƚŵŽƌĞĐŚĂůůĞŶŐŝŶŐĨŽƌǁŝůĚůŝĨĞƚŽŵŝŐƌĂƚĞĂŶĚĮŶĚĨŽŽĚĂŶĚǁĂƚĞƌ͕ ƚŚƵƐůĞĂĚŝŶŐƚŽĂĚĞĐůŝŶĞŝŶ
ďŝŽĚŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJ͘
ϯ͘ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌŝƐƉŽƐĂůĂŶĚ/ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ^ƚƌĂŝŶ͘
dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŝůůŶŽƚďĞĐŽŶŶĞĐƚĞĚƚŽĐŝƚLJƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ ƌĂŝƐŝŶŐƐĞƌŝŽƵƐĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞĚŝƐƉŽƐĂůŽĨ
ǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌ͘ dŚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶŽĨŽǀĞƌϭϬϬϬŶĞǁŚŽŵĞƐ͕ ĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ͕ ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐ͕ ĂŶĚĂŐŽůĨĐŽƵƌƐĞǁŝůůŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞ
ƐƵďƐƚĂŶƟĂůĂŵŽƵŶƚƐŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŚĂƚ͕ ǁŝƚŚŽƵƚƉƌŽƉĞƌŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͕ ĐŽƵůĚĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂƚĞůŽĐĂůŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůŝĞƐ͘
dŚŝƐƉŽƐĞƐĂƐĞǀĞƌĞƌŝƐŬƚŽƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůŚĞĂůƚŚŽĨƚŚĞƌĞŐŝŽŶĂŶĚƚŚĞǁĞůůͲďĞŝŶŐŽĨŝƚƐƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘
ĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůůLJ͕ ƚŚĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶĚĞŶƐŝƚLJǁŝůůƉůĂĐĞĂĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂďůĞƐƚƌĂŝŶŽŶƚŚĞůŽĐĂůŚŝŐŚǁĂLJŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͘ dŚĞ
ĞdžŝƐƟŶŐƚǁŽͲůĂŶĞŚŝŐŚǁĂLJŝŶĞĂĐŚĚŝƌĞĐƟŽŶŝƐŝŶĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞĨŽƌƚŚĞĂŶƟĐŝƉĂƚĞĚƚƌĂĸĐŝŶŇƵdž͘ ƉƉƌŽǀŝŶŐƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůǁŽƵůĚ
ŶĞĐĞƐƐŝƚĂƚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŶŐĂĐĐĞůĞƌĂƟŽŶĂŶĚĚĞĐĞůĞƌĂƟŽŶůĂŶĞƐĂŶĚůŝŬĞůLJĞdžƉĂŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĞŚŝŐŚǁĂLJƚŽƚŚƌĞĞƚŽĨŽƵƌůĂŶĞƐŝŶ
ĞĂĐŚĚŝƌĞĐƟŽŶĂůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJƐƚŽƉůŝŐŚƚƐĂƚĂůůĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐ͘ &ƵƌƚŚĞƌŵŽƌĞ͕ ƚŚĞďƌŝĚŐĞĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐƚŚĞsĞƌĚĞZŝǀĞƌ
ŵĂLJŶĞĞĚƚŽďĞƌĞďƵŝůƚƚŽŚĂŶĚůĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƚƌĂĸĐĂƐŝƚŝƐŽŶůLJƚǁŽůĂŶĞƐŝŶďŽƚŚĚŝƌĞĐƟŽŶƐ͕ ĞdžĂĐĞƌďĂƟŶŐƚŚĞŶĞŐĂƟǀĞ
ŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĂƌĞĂ͘
ϰ͘ /ŵƉĂĐƚŽŶ^ĐŚŽŽů^LJƐƚĞŵƐ͕ ŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ ĂŶĚdĂdž/ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐ͘
dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐĐŚŽŽůĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚŝƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJĂƚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJĂŶĚĐĂŶŶŽƚĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞƚŚĞƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůŝŶŇƵdžŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐƌĞƐƵůƟŶŐĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ dŚŝƐĐŽƵůĚŶĞĐĞƐƐŝƚĂƚĞƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶŽĨŶĞǁƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͕ ĂďƵƌĚĞŶƚŚĂƚƐŚŽƵůĚĨĂůůŽŶƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌ͕
ŐŝǀĞŶƚŚĞƐƚƌĂŝŶƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŝůůƉůĂĐĞŽŶĞdžŝƐƟŶŐĞĚƵĐĂƟŽŶĂůŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͘
dŚĞƌĞŝƐĂůƐŽĂƐŝŐŶŝĮĐĂŶƚĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞůĂĐŬŽĨĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞĮƌĞĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƚŽƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ
ƐƵĐŚĂĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ ƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJ͕ ĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂƌĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞ&ŽƌƚDĐŽǁĞůůzĂǀĂƉĂŝ/ŶĚŝĂŶdƌŝďĞ͕ ǁŚŝĐŚĚŽĞƐ
ŶŽƚŚĂǀĞƚŚĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJƚŽŵĞĞƚƚŚĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚĚĞŵĂŶĚĨƌŽŵƚŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐŶĞǁĮƌĞƐƚĂƟŽŶƐĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJ
ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐǁŝůůďĞŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƐĂĨĞƚLJ͘
&ƵƌƚŚĞƌŵŽƌĞ͕ ƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚΖƐĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŶĞĞĚƐ͕ ƐƵĐŚĂƐĞdžƉĂŶĚĞĚƌŽĂĚƐ͕ ďƌŝĚŐĞƐ͕ ĂŶĚƉƵďůŝĐƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕
ĐŽƵůĚůĞĂĚƚŽĂŶŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶůŽĐĂůƚĂdžĞƐ͘ dŚŝƐƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůƚĂdžŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞǁŽƵůĚƉůĂĐĞĂŶƵŶĚƵĞĮŶĂŶĐŝĂůďƵƌĚĞŶŽŶĂůů
ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͕ ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJƚŚŽƐĞǁŚŽĂƌĞƌĞƟƌĞĚĂŶĚůŝǀŝŶŐŽŶĮdžĞĚŝŶĐŽŵĞƐ͘ ,ŝŐŚĞƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƚĂdžĞƐƚŽĨƵŶĚƚŚĞŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJ
ŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚĞdžƉĂŶĚĞĚƉƵďůŝĐƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐǁŽƵůĚďĞƉĂƌƟĐƵůĂƌůLJĐŚĂůůĞŶŐŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞƐĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͕
ƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJĨŽƌĐŝŶŐƚŚĞŵŽƵƚŽĨƚŚĞŝƌŚŽŵĞƐĚƵĞƚŽƌŝƐŝŶŐĐŽƐƚƐ͘
ϱ͘ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůĂŶĚ>ĞŐĂůŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶƐ͘
dŚĞ^ŽŶŽƌĂŶĞƐĞƌƚŝƐŚŽŵĞƚŽĂƵŶŝƋƵĞĂƌƌĂLJŽĨƉůĂŶƚĂŶĚĂŶŝŵĂůƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ͕ ŵĂŶLJŽĨǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞĂĚĂƉƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƌĞŐŝŽŶΖƐ
ĂƌŝĚĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐĂŶĚƌĞůLJŽŶƐƉĞĐŝĮĐĞĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐƚŽƚŚƌŝǀĞ͘ dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚŚƌĞĂƚĞŶƐƚŽĚŝƐƌƵƉƚƚŚĞƐĞ
ĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐďLJŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐŚƵŵĂŶƉƌĞƐĞŶĐĞĂŶĚĂůƚĞƌŝŶŐůĂŶĚƵƐĞŝŶǁĂLJƐƚŚĂƚĐŽƵůĚůĞĂĚƚŽŚĂďŝƚĂƚůŽƐƐ͕ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚ
ƉŽůůƵƟŽŶ͕ ĂŶĚƚŚĞŝŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶŽĨŝŶǀĂƐŝǀĞƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ͘
WĂƌƟĐƵůĂƌůLJĂƚƌŝƐŬĂƌĞƚŚĞůŽĐĂůǁŝůĚůŝĨĞƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐ͕ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞǁŝůĚŚŽƌƐĞĂŶĚŵƵƐƚĂŶŐŚĞƌĚƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞĂůƌĞĂĚLJ
ƐƚƌƵŐŐůŝŶŐƚŽĮŶĚƐƵĸĐŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌĂŶĚĨŽƌĂŐĞŝŶƚŚŝƐƉƌŽůŽŶŐĞĚĚƌŽƵŐŚƚ͘ dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĐŽƵůĚƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚƚŚĞŝƌŶĂƚƵƌĂů
ƌŽĂŵŝŶŐĂƌĞĂƐĂŶĚƌĞĚƵĐĞĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽǀŝƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͘ &ƵƌƚŚĞƌŵŽƌĞ͕ ƚŚĞŚŝŐŚͲĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĂŶĚŐŽůĨĐŽƵƌƐĞǁŝůů
ĨƌĂŐŵĞŶƚŚĂďŝƚĂƚƐ͕ ŵĂŬŝŶŐŝƚŵŽƌĞĐŚĂůůĞŶŐŝŶŐĨŽƌǁŝůĚůŝĨĞƚŽŵŝŐƌĂƚĞĂŶĚĮŶĚĨŽŽĚĂŶĚǁĂƚĞƌ͕ ƚŚƵƐůĞĂĚŝŶŐƚŽĂĚĞĐůŝŶĞŝŶ
ďŝŽĚŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJ͘
>ĞŐĂůůLJ͕ ƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĐŚĂŶŐĞƐƚŽnjŽŶŝŶŐĂŶĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉůĂŶƐ͕ ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĚĞĐĂĚĞƐĂŐŽ͕ ŶĞĐĞƐƐŝƚĂƚĞƚŚŽƌŽƵŐŚ
ƌĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶŐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐĂŶĚƌĞŐƵůĂƟŽŶƐ͘ 'ŝǀĞŶƚŚĞƐŝŐŶŝĮĐĂŶƚĐŚĂŶŐĞƐŝŶǁĂƚĞƌ
ĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJĂŶĚĞĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͕ ŶĞǁĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚƵĚŝĞƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚ
ƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƐƚĂƚĞĂŶĚĨĞĚĞƌĂůĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůůĂǁƐ͕ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞEĂƟŽŶĂů ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůWŽůŝĐLJĐƚ;E WͿ
ĂŶĚƚŚĞ ŶĚĂŶŐĞƌĞĚ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐĐƚ; ^Ϳ͘ tĞŵƵƐƚŬĞĞƉŝŶŵŝŶĚƚŚĞĚĞůŝĐĂƚĞŶĂƚƵƌĞŽĨƚŚŝƐĂƌĞĂƚŚĂƚĞŶĐŽŵƉĂƐƐĞƐƚŚĞ^Ăůƚ
ZŝǀĞƌ͕ sĞƌĚĞZŝǀĞƌ͕ ĂŶĚ^LJĐĂŵŽƌĞƌĞĞŬǁĂƚĞƌďĂƐŝŶ͕ ĂŶĚƚĂŬĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐƚŽƉƌŽƚĞĐƚƚŚŝƐƵŶŝƋƵĞĂƌĞĂŽĨƚŚĞƐƚĂƚĞŽĨ
ƌŝnjŽŶĂ͕ ŝƚŝƐƚƌƵůLJŽŶĞŽĨƌŝnjŽŶĂ͛ ƐƚƌĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ͘
ϲ͘ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂů WŽǁĞƌ͘ ^ŽĨĂƌ^ZWĂŶĚ&ŽƌƚDĐŽǁĞůůŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŐŝǀĞŶƉĞƌŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƚŽƵƉŐƌĂĚĞƚŚĞϭϮŬsƉŽǁĞƌůŝŶĞƚŚĂƚ
ĐƌŽƐƐĞƐƚŚĞƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶǁĞŚĂǀĞŚĞƌĞƚŚĂƚŝƐŵĞĂŶƚƚŽƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĂďŽƵƚϯϬϬŚŽŵĞƐƚŽƚĂů;ǁĞŚĂǀĞĂƌŽƵŶĚϭϰϬĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJͿ͘
dŚĞƚƌŝďĞŝƐŶŽƚŝŶĨĂǀŽƌŽĨƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚĞŝƚŚĞƌĂƐŝƚǁŝůůƐŝƚŽŶƚŚĞŝƌďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĂƐǁĞůů͘
ϳ͘ dŚĞůĂŶĚŝŶƚŚŝƐƌĞŐŝŽŶŝƐĐŚŽƉƉLJǁŝƚŚŚŝůůƐĂŶĚŵĂŶLJǁĂƐŚĞƐ͘ dŽŚĂǀĞĂŶLJƚLJƉĞŽĨĚǁĞůůŝŶŐŽŶŽŶĞŽƌƚǁŽĂĐƌĞƐŝƐ
ĚŝĸĐƵůƚ͘ dŚĞĂƌĞĂƐŽĨĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞĂŶĚƐĞƉƟĐůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐĂƌĞĂĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĂƐƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐŝƚĞƐǁŽƵůĚďĞĚŝĸĐƵůƚŝŶŵĂŶLJĂƌĞĂƐ
ĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƟŽŶŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƐƉĂĐĞŽƌŝŶĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞƐŽŝůƉĞƌŵĞĂďŝůŝƚLJ͘
ϴ͘ >ĂǁĞŶĨŽƌĐĞŵĞŶƚŝƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďLJDĂƌŝĐŽƉĂŽƵŶƚLJƐŚĞƌŝīŽĸĐĞĂŶĚǁŽƵůĚƐůŝŐŚƚůLJŝŵƉĂĐƚƚŚĞŝƌƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂƐǁĞůů͘ &Žƌƚ
DĐŽǁĞůůŚĂƐŶŽũƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƟŽŶŝŶƚŚŝƐƐĂŵĞĂƌĞĂĂƐǁĞůů͘
ϵ͘ &ŝƌĞƉƌŽƚĞĐƟŽŶĂŶĚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐǁŽƵůĚĂůƐŽďĞŝŵƉĂĐƚĞĚĂƐǁĞůů͘ dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝƐƚŽŽĚĞŶƐĞĨŽƌƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ
ĂŶĚƌŽĂĚƵƐĂŐĞǁŽƵůĚŐƌĞĂƚůLJďĞŝŵƉĂĐƚĞĚĂƐƚŚĞŝƐŶŽĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚƌŽĂĚĨŽƌĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƵŶůĞƐƐƵƐŝŶŐ
ĞdžŝƐƟŶŐƌŽĂĚƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞŽǁŶĞĚďLJƚŚĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐŽĨ'ŽůĚĮĞůĚZĂŶĐŚͶŶŽƚƚŚĞĐŽƵŶƚLJŽĨDĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ͘
ŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶ
ŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƐĞǀĞƌĞĂŶĚƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJŝƌƌĞǀĞƌƐŝďůĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽŶǁĂƚĞƌƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͕ ůŽĐĂůŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͕ ƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ͕
ĂŶĚƚŚĞĮŶĂŶĐŝĂůǁĞůůͲďĞŝŶŐŽĨƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͕ /ƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJƵƌŐĞƚŚĞƌĞůĞǀĂŶƚĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƟĞƐƚŽƌĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝŶƚŚĞƉĂƌƚŽĨ'ŽůĚĮĞůĚZĂŶĐŚŬŶŽǁŶĂƐƚŚĞ͞ WƌĞƐĞƌǀĞ͘͟ /ƚŝƐĐƌƵĐŝĂůƚŽƉƌŝŽƌŝƟnjĞƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐƚŚĂƚƌĞƐƉĞĐƚƚŚĞƵŶŝƋƵĞĂŶĚĨƌĂŐŝůĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞ^ŽŶŽƌĂŶĞƐĞƌƚĂŶĚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƚŚĞĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĂŶĚƐŽĐŝĂů
ŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͕ ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJƚŚŽƐĞŵŽƐƚǀƵůŶĞƌĂďůĞ͘
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌLJŽƵƌĂƩĞŶƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ͘ /ƚƌƵƐƚƚŚĂƚƚŚŽƌŽƵŐŚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶǁŝůůďĞŐŝǀĞŶƚŽƉƌŽƚĞĐƟŶŐŽƵƌŶĂƚƵƌĂů
ĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ͕ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͕ ĂŶĚĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐƐƚĂďŝůŝƚLJ͘
^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůLJ͕
:ŝŵDĐEĞŝů
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Larry Webster <larry.webster.az@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, May 1, 2025 8:51 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Goldhawk Letter of Concern
Attachments:
Goldhawk Preserve Letter of Concern.pdf
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Hello Mr. Schlimm,
Please see our attached letter of concern for the Goldhawk Project
Larry Webster
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Larry Webster <larry.webster.az@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, May 1, 2025 9:23 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Gold Hawk Letter of concern with Parcels
Attachments:
Goldhawk Preserve Letter of Concern Showing Parcels.pdf
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Hi Nick,
Here is my protest letter showing the Parcels we own
Larry Webster
Larry & Margaret Webster
21731 E. Thirsty Earth Trail,
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
480-601-8029
Larrry.Webster.AZ@gmail.com
Parcel #’s:
219-16-050D
219-16-050C
219-16-051H
Nicholas Schlimm
Planning
Maricopa County
301 West Jefferson Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Dear Nicholas Schlimm, Me and my wife currently own 30 acres in Goldfield ranch. One of our
lots borders the preserve land in question.
Subject: Environmental, Infrastructural, and Economic Concerns Regarding Proposed
Development in Goldfield Ranch
known as (The Preserve).
I am writing to express my strong concerns about the proposed development of a 1,700-acre
parcel in the Goldfield
Ranch area known as "The Preserve." The plan to modify the original zoning from
one single-family home per five acres
to one home per acre, along with the addition of high-density apartments, condominiums, and a
golf course, raises
significant environmental, infrastructural, and economic issues. The development poses a
severe threat to the local
ecosystem, water resources, community infrastructure, and economic stability of the region.
This letter outlines the
negative impacts this development could have on the surrounding desert ecosystem,
particularly considering the
ongoing and possible future drought conditions and the fragile water resources in the region.
1. Water Resources and Ongoing Drought.
The Sonoran Desert has been experiencing a severe drought since the mid-1990s, marking a
35-year period of water
scarcity, which is the worst in over 110 years of recorded history. This prolonged drought has
already significantly
affected Arizona’s water supplies, leading to reduced availability for agricultural, residential, and
environmental needs.
The proposed increase in housing density, coupled with water-intensive amenities such as a golf
course, will only
exacerbate the strain on an already overburdened/depleted water table.
Groundwater levels in the region are critically low due to prolonged periods of reduced
precipitation. The increased
demand for water that will result from this development threatens to further deplete the aquifers,
which are the
primary sources of water for local communities and ecosystems. As a result, this could lead to
the drying up of wells,
reduced water availability for existing residents, and the deterioration of local water quality due
to increased
groundwater pumping. Moreover, any reduction in groundwater levels could have long-lasting
effects on the desert's
natural vegetation, which is already under stress from drought conditions, thereby altering the
landscape and ecological
balance.
Currently, single-family home wells in the area are reaching depths of around 800 feet. If this
development proceeds, it
could lead to further depletion of the aquifers, potentially requiring existing homeowners to drill
new wells beyond
1,000 feet. The cost of such deep drilling is prohibitive, which could render surrounding
properties virtually worthless
due to the financial burden of accessing water. Given the decades that have passed since the
original zoning
approval—long before the current drought conditions—it is crucial to conduct new, independent
water surveys to
assess the current situation and potential impact of increased water usage.
Several of the current residents in the Goldfield are very concerned about our water wells and
not to have a similar
concern as North Scottsdale recently experienced. I and other never desire top haul water and
our resources needs to
be research and evaluated.
2. Impact on Local Flora and Fauna.
The Sonoran Desert is home to a unique array of plant and animal species, many of which are
adapted to the region's
arid conditions and rely on specific ecological conditions to thrive. The proposed development
threatens to disrupt these
conditions by increasing human presence and altering land use in ways that could lead to
habitat loss, increased
pollution, and the introduction of invasive species.
Particularly at risk are the local wildlife populations, including the wild horse and mustang herds
that are already
struggling to find sufficient water and forage in this prolonged drought. The development could
restrict their natural
roaming areas and reduce access to vital water sources. Furthermore, the high-density housing
and golf course will
fragment habitats, making it more challenging for wildlife to migrate and find food and water,
thus leading to a decline
in biodiversity.
3. Wastewater Disposal and Infrastructure Strain.
The proposed development will not be connected to city services, raising serious concerns
about the disposal of
wastewater. The addition of over 1000 new homes, apartments, commercial businesses, and a
golf course will generate
substantial amounts of wastewater that, without proper infrastructure, could contaminate local
groundwater supplies.
This poses a severe risk to the environmental health of the region and the well-being of its
residents.
Additionally, the increased population density will place a considerable strain on the local
highway infrastructure. The
existing two-lane highway in each direction is inadequate for the anticipated traffic influx.
Approving this proposal would
necessitate constructing acceleration and deceleration lanes and likely expanding the highway
to three to four lanes in
each direction along with the necessary stop lights at all entrances. Furthermore, the bridge
crossing the Verde River
may need to be rebuilt to handle increased traffic as it is only two lanes in both directions,
exacerbating the negative
impact on the surrounding area.
4. Impact on School Systems, Emergency Services, and Tax Increases.
The current school district is already at capacity and cannot accommodate the potential influx of
students resulting from
this development. This could necessitate the construction of new schools, a burden that should
fall on the developer,
given the strain the development will place on existing educational infrastructure.
There is also a significant concern regarding the lack of adequate fire and emergency services
infrastructure to support
such a development. Currently, emergency services are provided by the Fort McDowell Yavapai
Indian Tribe, which does
not have the capacity to meet the increased demand from this development. Building new fire
stations and emergency
services facilities will be necessary to ensure community safety.
Furthermore, the development's additional infrastructure needs, such as expanded roads,
bridges, and public services,
could lead to an increase in local taxes. This potential tax increase would place an undue
financial burden on all
residents, especially those who are retired and living on fixed incomes. Higher property taxes to
fund the necessary
infrastructure improvements and expanded public services would be particularly challenging for
these residents,
potentially forcing them out of their homes due to rising costs.
5. Environmental and Legal Considerations.
The Sonoran Desert is home to a unique array of plant and animal species, many of which are
adapted to the region's
arid conditions and rely on specific ecological conditions to thrive. The proposed development
threatens to disrupt these
conditions by increasing human presence and altering land use in ways that could lead to
habitat loss, increased
pollution, and the introduction of invasive species.
Particularly at risk are the local wildlife populations, including the wild horse and mustang herds
that are already
struggling to find sufficient water and forage in this prolonged drought. The development could
restrict their natural
roaming areas and reduce access to vital water sources. Furthermore, the high-density housing
and golf course will
fragment habitats, making it more challenging for wildlife to migrate and find food and water,
thus leading to a decline
in biodiversity.
Legally, the proposed changes to zoning and development plans, approved decades ago,
necessitate thorough
reconsideration considering current environmental conditions and regulations. Given the
significant changes in water
availability and ecological conditions since the original proposal, new environmental impact
studies should be conducted
to ensure compliance with state and federal environmental laws, including the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We must keep in mind the delicate nature of this area
that encompasses the Salt
River, Verde River, and Sycamore Creek water basin, and take measures to protect this unique
area of the state of
Arizona, it is truly one of Arizona’s treasures.
6. Electrical Power. So far SRP and Fort McDowell have not given permission to upgrade the 12
kV power line that
crosses the reservation we have here that is meant to support about 300 homes total (we have
around 140 currently).
The tribe is not in favor of this project either as it will sit on their boundary as well.
7. The land in this region is choppy with hills and many washes. To have any type of dwelling on
one or two acres is
difficult. The areas of drainage and septic locations are a concern as the building sites would be
difficult in many areas
due to the restriction of surface space or inadequate soil permeability.
8. Law enforcement is provided by Maricopa County sheriff office and would slightly impact their
services as well. Fort
McDowell has no jurisdiction in this same area as well.
9. Fire protection and services would also be impacted as well. This proposal is too dense for
the current environment
and road usage would greatly be impacted as the is no designated road for access to the
development unless using
existing roads that are owned by the residents of Goldfield Ranch—not the county of Maricopa.
Conclusion
Considering the severe and potentially irreversible impacts on water resources, local
infrastructure, the environment,
and the financial well-being of residents, I strongly urge the relevant authorities to reconsider the
proposed
development in the part of Goldfield Ranch known as the “Preserve”. It is crucial to prioritize
sustainable development
practices that respect the unique and fragile environment of the Sonoran Desert and consider
the economic and social
impact on the community, especially those most vulnerable.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns. I trust that thorough consideration will be given
to protecting our natural environment, community infrastructure, and economic stability.
Larry & Margaret Webster
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Kathy and Randy Haines <randyhaines@outlook.com>
Sent:
Thursday, May 1, 2025 4:23 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
Wendy Riddell; llazarus@lslawaz.com; Stephen Anderson; scott@carpenter.law;
Benjamin Timm; Darren Gerard (PND)
Subject:
Z240006 Goldhawk Rezoning
Attachments:
SchlimmLtrMay1WithDibbleReport.pdf
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Dƌ͘ ^ĐŚůŝŵŵ͕ ĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚŝƐĂƌĞƉŽƌƚĨƌŽŵ'WKΖƐdƌĂĨĨŝĐ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ͕ ^ĞƚŚŚĂůŵĞƌƐ͕ W ͕ ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌŽĨdƌĂĨĨŝĐ
ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ͕ ŝďďůĞ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ͘ /ƚŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞƐƐĞǀĞƌĂůŵĂũŽƌĚĞĨŝĐŝĞŶĐŝĞƐƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŝƌĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ͕ ƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĂŶĚ
ĂĐĐĞƐƐŝŶƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐĐĂƐĞϮϰϬϬϬϲ͘
dŚŝƐŝƐĂŵĂũŽƌƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞŽďũĞĐƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚ'ŽůĚĨŝĞůĚWƌŽƉĞƌƚLJKǁŶĞƌƐƐƐŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŚĂƐƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐ
ĂŶĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ /ĂŵŽŶĞŽĨƚŚĞŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐŽĨ'WKĂŶĚĂŵƐƵďŵŝƚƚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐƌĞƉŽƌƚŽŶŝƚƐďĞŚĂůĨ͘ /ĞdžƉĞĐƚƚŚŝƐ
ƚŽďĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƵƉĚĂƚĞĚƐƚĂĨĨƌĞƉŽƌƚLJŽƵǁŝůůƐŽŽŶďĞƚƌĂŶƐŵŝƚƚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŽŶŝŶŐ
ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŝŶĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚĨŽƌDĂLJϴ͘
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌLJŽƵƌĂƚƚĞŶƚŝŽŶ͕ ĂŶĚŚĂǀĞĂŚĂƉƉLJDĂLJĂLJ͘
ZĂŶĚLJ,ĂŝŶĞƐ
ϭϮϭϰϬE͘ ^ŝŶsĂĐĂƐdƌĂŝů
&ŽƌƚDĐŽǁĞůů͕ ϴϱϮϲϰ
;ϲϬϮͿϯϵϬͲϯϬϳϬ
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
May 1, 2025
Mr. Nicholas Schlimm, Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: Z240006 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve, Planning Review
Dear Mr. Schlimm:
I am one of the Directors of the Goldfield Property Owners Association (“GPOA”).
GPOA is the “local authority” responsible for maintaining the roads on the originally platted
easements in Goldfield Ranch, which includes all of the land proposed for rezoning in Z240006
as well as the adjacent subdivision that is proposed to provide secondary access and emergency
egress from the rezoned property.
GPOA engaged Seth Chalmers, PE, Director of Traffic Engineering at Dibble
Engineering, Inc., to evaluate the traffic, access and circulation issues raised by the proposed
rezoning. Attached are his CV and his draft report, which should be included in the record
Planning and Development provides to the Planning and Zoning Commission in advance of the
hearing currently scheduled for May 8.
Some of Mr. Chalmers’ key observations include:
The proposed development “needs to include an additional connection to SR 87.”
Using Vista del Oro [in the adjacent subdivision] as the “only second access is not
desirable” because it is “too long and circuitous to offer good functionality and availability.”
The additional access to SR 87 “should be supported by appropriate turn and
accelerations lanes that mitigate the high-speed conflicts of this divided high speed rural
highway.”
The proposed development “lacks a proper street network.” “[T]here is only one main
collector street on the conceptual plan. What is really needed is a collector street that loops
around the the entire development, providing connections to the interior via local streeets and
possibly additional collector streets.” See the conceptual drawing attached behind Report page
27.
2
The “current conceptual site plan does not appear to be fully consistent with [Maricopa
County subdivision] regulation when it comes to the definition of a collector street and minor
[local] street.”
“There needs to be comprehensive plan on how this development will handle” vulnerable
road users including pedestrians, bicyclists, microtransportation vehicles and perhaps
equestrians.
“One of the worst aspects of the Conceptual Site Plan . . . is the amount of traffic it will
funnel onto Palo Pinto and Burnt Water streets. This will cause significant vehicle noise and
visual impacts,” “will change the character of the neighborhood to be more urban with higher
residential intensity,” and “will also encourage higher speeds, necessitating some form of
neighborhood speed management program.”
“Allowing housing intensity like this without a future plan to reduce dependency on SR-
87 is simply urban sprawl.” “This is similar to what happened” in Anthem, which “caused
significanct problems on I-17.” Maricopa County had to build an additional arterial street to
relieve this traffic fiasco.”
Mr. Chalmers’ report stands on its own to demonstrate why this rezoning, narrative,
conceptual site plan and development should not be approved in their current form. It should
also be considered as “specific facts and evidence” showing how the proposed development will
“adversely affect adjacent properties,” in violation of Zoning Ordinance Article 1002.5(3), and
should also be considered as identifying numerous inconsistencies with the Goldfield Area Plan,
contrary to A.R.S.§ 11-814(A).
Sincerely,
Randolph J. Haines
cc: Ms. Wendy Riddell, Esq.
Mr. Darren Gerard, Planning Manager
Mr. Larry Lazarus, Esq.
Mr. Stephen Anderson, Esq.
Mr. Scott Carpenter, Esq.
Seth Chalmers, PE
1
seth.chalmers@dibblecorp.com • (602) 363-1854 • 1451 N El Camino Dr Tempe, AZ 85281
Work Experience
Dibble
Director of Traffic Engineering - Phoenix, AZ
March 2019 to Present
Director of Traffic Engineering, Senior Project Manager and Senior Engineer while working for Dibble
Transportation and Land Development Business Units. Dibble (or formally Dibble Engineering) is a
consulting engineering that has offices in Phoenix, Mesa, Goodyear, Tucson and Window Rock Arizona.
It also has an office in Denver, Colorado. Dibble client base in mostly in Arizona and consists of many
cities, counties, and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and numerous private companies
and educational and public health institutions.
• Led and managed over 33 Traffic Impact Studies (TIS), 8 traffic signal or HAWK design projects, 5 road
safety assessment, 3 roadway design project and 2 rural road safety projects for the Navajo Department of
Transportation.
• Conducted shared parking studies for commercial and institutional clients.
• Served as the contract and project manager for over 45 completed assignments with the City of Glendale
per their General Engineering Consultant (GEC) service contract.
• Within Glendale projects, developed and prepared Design Concept Reports (DCR), Project Assessments
(PA), scoping studies and designing projects, cost estimates, street lighting design guide, bike lanes,
sidewalk gaps, traffic signal and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) specification and standards, grant
applications, operations and maintenance policies and guidelines along with preparing Geographical
Information System (GIS) data maps, studies for Citywide safety, level of service and capacity
• Helped the City of Glendale win over $12 million dollars in grants from a variety of local and federal
funding programs such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Congestion Management Air
Quality (CMAQ), Road Safety Program (RSP) to design and construct multimodal transportation and traffic
safety and capacity and facility infrastructure improvements.
• Most recently assisted the City in applying for a Safe Streets and Road for All Grant (SS4A) to develop a
City-wide Vulnerable Road User (VRU) Safety Action Plan and Maricopa Association of Governments Road
Safety Program grants for two HAWKs and completing SAE International EDGE Report on the role that
Advance Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) in making road safer.
Public Works Division Manager
Pima County Department of Transportation - Tucson, AZ
January 2013 to March 2019
Public Works Manager for three different Divisions, the last two were during a major re-organization
of the Department as dictated by the County Executive. The TECH Services Division (8 months),
Analytics Division (6 months) and Traffic Engineering Divisions (5 years) for the Pima County
Department of Transportation (PCDOT). Main Office 201 North Stone Avenue, 4th Floor, Tucson,
Arizona 85701. Phone 520-724-6410
TECH Services Division - Asked by Department Management to take over this new
Division after the previous Division Manager abruptly retired and there was
immediate need for leadership and management (August 2018 to March 2019).
• Division Units include Survey, Materials Laboratory and Structures (Bridge and Culverts)
• Continued with the implementation of the Departments Transportation Improvement Plan by
developing Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to transfer Bridge & Culvert inspection program to
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), New Survey Monument Plan and a Pavement
Optimization Initiative as well as host of other process improvements. Developed a standard
operating procedure (SOP) program to organize, prioritize, schedule, develop and implement these
improvements.
• Help lead the Department to begin to migrate to AASHTO’s new Mechanistic-Empirical (ME)
Pavement Design approach.
• Oversees the Department’s Monthly Coordination Meetings with Pima County Sheriff Department to
discuss enforcement, crash analytics, safety, and projects.
• Overseeing 21 Employees with direct supervisorial responsibility for three managers and a Civil
Engineering Assistant Senior with an annual budget of $2.3 million.
Seth Chalmers, PE
2
• Attended and participated in Federal Highway Administrations (FHWA) National Dialogue on Highway
Automation – Developed and submitted a statement on what FHWA needs to consider from a local
government perspective on road readiness criteria for Automated Vehicles.
• Review and approve temporary speed regulations for permits and CIP projects
Public Works Manager of the new Analytics Division, Pima County Department of
Transportation (PCDOT) (January 2018 to August 2018)
• New Division created after reorganization of Pima County Department of Transportation that became
effective in January 2018.
• Division Units included Maps (GIS) and Records which includes Road Proceedings as defined in ARS
28-6701 through 28-6703 and Traffic Studies and traffic and Crash Data Collection and Processing
Services.
• Assisted in the scoping and development of the implementation of the Departments Transportation
Improvement Plan which includes Transportation Network Management System (TNMS) which a
combination of ESRI GIS and IBM Maximo Enterprise System. The goal of the TNMS is to help improve
how the Department allocates resources to achieve its mission: “Getting you there safely, efficiently, and
conveniently.”
• Help discover and develop methods and approaches to modernize the Pima County ESRI GIS mapping
and asset inventory systems to be more consistent and in line with Federal Highway Administrations
(FHWA) Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE)
and All Roads Network of Linear Reference Data (ARNOLD)
• Oversaw the Department’s Monthly Coordination Meetings with Pima County Sheriff Department to
discuss enforcement, crash analytics, safety, and projects.
• Reviewed and approved temporary speed regulations for permits and CIP projects
• Oversaw annual meeting with School Districts and individual schools to discuss traffic and parking
issues and special event permits.
• Researched and promoted adoption of American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) Transportation Asset Management (TAM).
• Participated in Tucson and Pima County Bike Advisory Committee (BAC) meetings are a regular basis.
• Oversaw 30 employees with direct supervisorial responsibly for 4 managers and a budget of $2.1 million.
• Participated on Pima County Association of Governments (PAG) SMART growth task group.
Public Works Manager of the Traffic Engineering Division (TED), Pima County Department
of Transportation (PCDOT) (January 2013 to January 2018 (beginning of Department Re-
organization)
• Division units included Traffic Studies and Data Unit, Safety Management System (SMS) Unit, Signals
and Lighting Unit, Intelligence Transportations Systems (ITS) Unit, Pavement Marking Unit, Signing Unit,
Administration Unit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Program.
• Oversaw 50 employees with direct supervisorial responsibility for five managers and an annual
budget of $6.3 million.
• Cultivated a strong and productive workplace culture by pursuing and completing multiple
improvement initiatives including: attention to team building (inside and outside the Division),
restructure of all TED units to enable better leadership and opportunity, continue to evaluate structure and
assignments based on turn-over and other needs (e.g. task and responsibility organization chart), updating
the SMS program to include latest FHWA requirements and AASHTO Highway Safety Manual processes
including a program approach to improvement projects, developing and implementing Division
guidelines, established a formal standards program, establishing budget setting and tracking processes,
developed a 5-year capital budget plan for facilities and equipment, implementation of
a strong administration unit and promoting and arranging for leadership and technical training and
technical conference attendance (e.g. Roads and Streets, ITE / IMSA Spring Conference, ATSSA, etc.).
• Improvement initiatives included improved special event permitting process, a master routine
maintenance schedule for all units, improved field asset data bases, transformation of the SMS into a
front line defense tool for tort claims, instituting a staff technical training program, modernization of
work order and tracking systems, updating signing, marking, signal and lighting standards and work
approaches.
• Implemented and aggressively pursued developing a program of applying for and achieving potential
safety related funding that included the Governor’s Office for Highway Safety (GHOS), Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP), Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) and Pima County Association of
Government (PAG) Project Development and Assessment Funds (PDAF).
• Implemented a goal to have two Road Safety Assessment (RSA) done every year for the Department
Seth Chalmers, PE
3
through either ADOT or PAGs program.
• Achieved HSIP Grant to have all the roads in the County Scanned with LIDAR to update the traffic sign
inventory along with retroreflectivity and conditions assessment. Results were used to develop a sign
panel replacement plan. LIDAR scan was also post-processed to audit and establish a more
complete and up-to-date inventory of other Pima County road features. Achieved numerous other HSIP
grants and STP funding for spot safety improvements.
• Collaborated with Pima County Development Services Department (DSD) on updating the
Subdivisions Streets Standard and developing DSD traffic and transportation engineering capabilities so
they are more self-sufficient. Revamp the left turn warranting process along with setting criteria for safety
analysis and requirements for mitigations that have Crash Modification Factors (CMFs).
• Led the development of a long-range capital improvement plan for Tucson Mountain and Saguaro
National Park (east and west) roadways to better position both the County and the Park Service to
develop and submit Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant proposals.
• Promoted and developed a strong working relationship and student intern program with the University
of Arizona College of Engineering and Civil Engineering Department including implementing an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for research and intern employment.
• Worked with Pima County Risk Management and Attorney Office on numerous tort liability claims and
lawsuits.
• Traffic and Transportation Representative on Pima County Emergency Operation Center (EOC)
Planning and Response team.
• Worked with Pima County Sheriff Department on a variety of projects which included monthly
coordination meetings, crash data analysis, critical crash follow-up studies, special events, school
issues and enforcement.
• Oversaw improvements and restructuring in the Division’s Arizona 811 (Blue Stake) Services.
Founder, President and Owner Chalmers
Engineering Services
-
Tempe, AZ
September 2001 to January 2013
• As President and sole owner ran the entire business side of the company via the business plan. This
included bookkeeping, accounting processes, billing, accounts payable/receivable, taxes, Corporate
matters, company HR, insurance at the same time conducting project management and engineering
billable work for variety of clients.
• Designed, managed, and completed numerous traffic and transportation engineering projects for
the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Traffic Engineering Group, Traffic Operations,
Traffic Design and Traffic Safety Section, ADOT Transportation Research Center (ATRC), ADOT
Arizona Technical Assistance Program (AzLTAP), Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), Arizona Attorney Generals (AG) Office, and other private and public
clients. Highlighted project accomplishments were as follows:
• Develop procurement specification for traffic related products and services for ADOT including traffic
signal control cabinet.
• Project Manager and Engineer for a complete revision to ADOT Traffic Signal and Lighting (TS)
Standard Drawings.
• Developed and conducted a number of pavement marking and traffic signing test projects for ADOT that
included the I-10 Deck Tunnel retroreflective raise pavement marker (RRPM), I-17 Dugas to Cherry paint
test deck.
• Develop and taught technical training classes for ADOT on topics light Street Lighting, pavement
marking inspection, signing, and Syncro.
• Project manager and engineer for over 100 HSIP projects for ADOT and local governments all over the
state. Develop procurement approach and specifications for count down pedestrian signal, traffic sign
inventory / replacement, pavement marking and guardrail projects. Tasks included developing and
finalizing Joint Project Agreements (JPA), environmental clearances, utility clearances, material
clearances, right of way clearances, authorization documents, and close out certifications.
• Conducted numerous Road Safety Assessment (RSA) for ADOT and local governments.
• Helped AG and other private law firm clients win settlements as a consultant or expert witness on a
number of road defect cases
Co-Founder, President and Co-Owner TASK
Engineering Company
-
Phoenix, AZ May
1995 to August 2001
Seth Chalmers, PE
4
• As President and co-owner ran the entire business side of the company via the business plan. This
included bookkeeping, accounting processes, billing, accounts payable/receivable, taxes, Corporate
matters, company HR, insurance at the same time conducting project management and engineering
billable work for variety of clients.
• In-house consultant for ADOT Traffic Engineering Group's reviewing and designing traffic control,
signing and pavement marking plans and special provisions; reviewing project assessments
and roadway design plans; reviewing and developing engineering scopes of work and cost estimates;
preparing and developing specifications and evaluating bids for procurement
contracts; developing and participating in the test installation and evaluation of a variety of pavement
marking, signing, traffic signal and roadway lighting products. Developing and preparing stored
specifications, standard specification and standard drawing updates; providing technical assistance
to ADOT staff and on-call consultants, especially in the areas of pavement markings, signing, traffic signals,
roadway lighting and procurement policy.
• Project manager and principle investigator for the Intelligent Vehicle Systems (ITS) and the Electrical
Approved Product List (EAPL) project for ADOT-Arizona Transportation Research Center (ATRC).
• Provided technical assistance on ADOT's behalf to the AZTECH ITS Model Deployment team on
developing a traffic signal coordination system along Grand Avenue (US 60).
• Designed freeway, arterial street, residential street, park and parking lot lighting systems for a
variety of clients that included: ADOT, Phoenix, Gilbert, Mesa, Peoria and Chandler.
• Developed and taught a two-day course "Roadway Lighting Design" for the Tennessee Transportation
Assistance Program (TTAP) and ADOT.
Project Manager
Lee Engineering -
Phoenix, AZ
August 1993 to April 1995
• April 1994 to April of 1995 served as ADOT Traffic Design Section in-house consultant. Conducted
numerous traffic control product evaluations (as part of the traffic product evaluation program), wrote
specifications and did a variety of traffic engineering-related design projects (temporary traffic control,
pavement marking, signing, traffic signal, and lighting). Started attending Traffic Control Product
Evaluation Committee (TCPEC) meetings in March of 1994.
• Project Manager/Engineer on design of traffic signals for Home Depot at Thunderbird Rd and I-17, for
Bashas' new store in Thatcher; the Nevada Department of Transportation at the diamond interchanges of I-
95 and Horizon Road and College Road in Henderson, Nevada; City of Phoenix Signal System
• Economic and Feasibility Study; design of traffic control plans and special provisions for I-10 San Simon
and signing plans and special provisions for US 191 Douglas Pan-American Highway; improvement and
traffic study for Taxiway "X" at Sky Harbor International Airport; and North Las Vegas Boulevard (The
Strip) Pedestrian Study for the Nevada Resort Association
Project Manager & Engineer
BRW -
Phoenix, AZ
May 1992 to August 1993
• Project Manager/ Engineer for the design of construction traffic control, signing and pavement
marking plans for variety of projects for ADOT state-wide on numerous state routes.
• Assisted in the preparation of pavement marking, signing, traffic signal and lighting plans for the
redevelopment of downtown Flagstaff.
• Developed the "universe" of alignment alternatives for the I-17 Extension Study, which explored the
feasibility of extending 1-17 north from Flagstaff to I-15 in Utah to provide a Canada and Mexico
connection through Arizona.
• Developed a BRW engineering student summer intern program.
Project Manager & Engineer
Tudor Engineering Company (ICF Kaiser) -
Phoenix, AZ
October 1990 to May 1992
Seth Chalmers, PE
5
• Project Manager/ Engineer for the Grand Avenue TSM project - reconstruction of pavement marking,
signing, traffic signals, minor roadway improvement, at grade railroad crossing signaling, signing and
marking upgrades and lighting for 18 intersections in Phoenix, Glendale and Peoria. Successfully
confronted the challenge of upgrading traffic control at intersections having 5-6 legs and being adjacent
to an active Santa Fe rail line. The project involved traffic studies, plan preparation and extensive
coordination work with four jurisdictions and twelve utility companies.
• Conducted a traffic study for the General Services Administration for developing safety and vehicle
capacity improvement strategies for border stations along the Mexican/USA California border.
Design Engineer
Arizona Department of Transportation -
Phoenix, AZ
October 1988 to October 1990
• Design Engineer in the Urban Highways Section for the East Papago/Hohokam/Sky Harbor/Red
Mountain freeway corridors.
• Assisted in the management and coordination of all aspects of design of 15 miles of urban freeways
which include the channelization of the Salt River, on and off site drainage, design concepts, traffic
studies, public participation, environmental clearances, utility clearances, roadway geometry, utility
relocations (water, sewer, power, communications & gas) structures, signing, pavement marking, traffic
signals, roadway lighting and construction sequencing and traffic control.
• Worked on the Urban Highway Design Procedure Manual update, value engineering studies, directed the
traffic pole standard drawing update project
Civil Engineer
HNTB Corporation -
Phoenix, AZ
January 1983 to October 1988
• Responsible for managing five design consultants in preparing pavement marking, signing,
traffic signal and roadway lighting plans as member of HNTB I-10, Inner Loop/Papago Freeway
management consultant team.
• Developed and prepared numerous traffic signal and signing plans and specifications for a variety
of projects and clients.
Affiliations – Present and Past
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Member
Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Arizona Section - Past Chair ITE / IMSA Arizona Section’s Annual Spring Conference (2004-2009),
Currently Member of Conference Program Committee and Safety Subcommittee (2019 to present).
ITE Nation - Past member of the ITE LED Traffic Ball, Arrow and Pedestrian Signal Specification
Committee (2005 -2010)
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Member of D04 Road and Paving Materials Committee / D04.38 Traffic Control Materials Subcommittee
American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA)
Member and Chair of Traffic Signal Committee and Chair of the Vulnerable Road Users (VRU) Task Force
University of Arizona (UArizona) – College of Engineering
Chair of Civil Architectural Engineering and Mechanics (CAEM) Department Industrial and Alumni
Council (AIC)
Boy Scouts of America (BSA)
Former Scoutmaster, Venture Crew, Committee Chairperson, and Merit Badge Council for Road Safety.
Also, was volunteer Civil Engineer for Grand Canyon Council’s Camp Geronimo summer camp.
Seth Chalmers, PE
6
\
Education
Bachelor's in Civil Engineering
University of Arizona
-
Tucson, AZ
January 1980 to December 1982
Associate in Transfer
Phoenix College
-
Phoenix, AZ
August 1977 to December 1979
Certifications/Licenses
Professional Engineer (Civil) in Arizona #21668
Since October 1988 to present
Honors
Boy Scouts of American (BSA)
Eagle Scout with Bronze Palm
Wipala Wiki Lodge 432 Order of the Arrow – Tomahawk Award for Camp Building
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
1994 Construction Excellence Award for Grand Avenue US 60 Transportation Management System
University of Arizona (UArizona)
J.R. Van Horn Scholarship for Transportation
1
GoldfieldRanchPropertyOwnersAssociation(GRPOA)
Comments,Questions,&SuggestionsRegardingtheProposedGrayhawkatthePreserveͲDRAFT
MaricopaCounty,Arizona
04/30/2025VersionBySethChalmers,PE
DirectorofTrafficEngineeringDibble
3020EastCamelbackRoad,Suite201Phoenix,Arizona85016
Seth.chalmers@dibblecorp.come/602Ͳ363Ͳ1854
Purpose&Scope
Thepurposeofthisreportistooffercomments,questions,andsuggestionsregardingthisproposedGoldhawkatthe
Preservedevelopment.ThisinputisofferedonbehalfoftheGoldfieldRanchPropertyOwnersAssociation,whohave
hiredDibbletodothis.
#1–LackofRedundantAccesstoStateRoute87(SR87)Issue
TheproposedHilgartWilsonGoldhawkatthePreserveResidentialUnitPlanofDevelopmentConceptualSitePlanFigure
3needstoincludeanadditionalconnectiontoSR87.UsingVistadelOroasit’sonlysecondaccessisnotdesirable,asits
routetoSR87istoolongandcircuitoustooffergoodfunctionalityandavailability.Becauseofthis,mosttrafficwilluse
theBurntWateraccessinstead,asitdoesnotmakesenseforthemtouseVistadelOro,especiallyiftheyareentering
fromthenorthandexitingtothesouth.Hence,tobalancetrafficdemand,anotherconnectiontoSR87isneededinthe
southwestcornerofthisproposeddevelopment.ThisaccesstoSR87shouldhaverightͲin,rightͲout,andleftͲinaccess,
supportedbyappropriateturnandaccelerationlanesthatmitigatethehighͲspeedconflictsofthisdividedhighspeed
ruralhighway.
#2–Street/RoadNetwork&SR87Issues
Theproposedsiteplan,withitsresidentialintensity,isveryvehicleͲcentricandisnotconsistentwithmodernstreet
networkplanninganddesignpractices.ItappearstolackconsiderationforVulnerableRoadUsers(VRUs)andthemodes
oftraveltheyuse(suchaswalkingandrolling).Theproposedintensityofresidentialdevelopmentalsosignificantly
changesthecharacterofthisareafromaruralsettingtoamoreurbanenvironment.
Thus,itisverymuchathrowbacktothelessdesirablestreetnetworkplansanddesignsofthe1960s,70s,and80s,
whentheconceptsoflocalandcollectorstreetswereknownbutoftenignoredornotwellunderstoodbydevelopers
andmanycivilengineerswhoprovideddesignsforthosedevelopers.Figure1illustratesthebasictheorythatstrikesa
balancebetweenmobilityandlandaccess.Thekeyistohaveanetworkoflocalstreets,whicharetypicallynotvery
long,thatthenconnectintoanetworkofcollectorstreets,whichtypicallydonothaveresidentiallanduseaccess
(privatedriveways).Thesecollectorstreetsthenconnectintothearterialnetwork,whichsubsequentlyconnectsto
highwaysandfreeways.
Figure1–AccesstoMobilityRelationship
Theissuerelatedtothisproposeddevelopment,andindeedtheentireGoldfieldRancharea,isthatitlacksaproper
streetnetwork.Instead,ithaslocalstreetsthatareverylong(sometimesmilesinlength)andconnectdirectlytoa
2
majorhighway,SR87,whichislikelytobecomeafreewayinthefuture.ThisisevidencedbythegradeseparationofSR
87withtheBushHighway,whichfeaturesafreewayͲgradeseparatedtrafficinterchange.ItislikelythatmoregradeͲ
separatedtrafficinterchangeswillbeaddedinthefuture.Figure2presentsatablefromthePimaCountyDepartmentof
Transportation’sSubdivisionStreetDesignManual,providingevidenceandspecificdetailsofthecurrentapproachto
designingastreetsystemforaproposeddevelopmentlikeGoldhawkatthePreserve:
Figure2–PCDOTSubdivisionStreetDesignCriteria
ItisimportanttonotethatthiscriterionwasdevelopedinconjunctionwiththeSouthernArizonaHomeBuilders
Association(SAHBA).Itwouldseemreasonableforthisdevelopmenttoconsiderthesecriteriainitsproposedsiteplan.
Thecurrentconceptualsiteplandoesnotappeartoembraceanyofthesecriteria.Additionally,asitstands,thereisonly
onemaincollectorstreetontheconceptualplan.Whatisreallyneededisacollectorstreetthatloopsaroundtheentire
development,providingconnectionstotheinteriorvialocalstreetsandpossiblyadditionalcollectorstreets.Thesingle
streetwillactasafunnel,withallentryandexitingtrafficusingit.
ItisimportanttonotethatMaricopaCountySubdivisionRegulations,datedOctober23,2024,doesembracethe
conceptoftheroleoffunctionclassifications,seetheMaricopaCountyappendixformoreinformationonthis.Itdoes
notgetintoasmuchdetailasthePimaCountymanualdoes.Itcallsalocalstreetaminorstreet.However,thecurrent
conceptualsiteplandoesnotappeartobefullyconsistentwiththisregulationwhenitcomestothedefinitionofa
collectorstreetandminorstreet.Thewholedevelopmentappearstobemostlybasedontheminorstreetdefinition
whilefullyembracingthesecondaryrolethatacollectorstreetcanprovidedirectresidentiallotaccess.
AsSR87continuestoevolveintoafreeway,itishighlyprobablethatfrontageroadswillbeconstructedonbothsidesto
maintainlocalaccess.Thesefrontageroadswouldconnecttointerchanges,liketheexistingtrafficinterchangesetupat
theBushHighway,ratherthanprovidingdirectaccesstoSR87.
ItisalsoimportanttonotethatwhentheGoldfieldRanchareawasoriginallydeveloped,SR87initsruralareaswasa
twoͲlane,twoͲwayruralhighway.However,fromthe1980sthroughtheearly2000s,itunderwentalmostcontinuous
improvementandisnowafulltwoͲlanehighway/freewayineachdirectionbetweenMesaandPayson.Alongwiththese
3
improvementsandthegrowthinArizona,trafficvolumeshavecontinuedtoincrease,asshowninFigure3,which
presentsagraphandtableobtainedfroma2019ArizonaDepartmentofTransportation(ADOT)study.
Figure3–SR87TrafficGrowthͲSource:ADOTSR87CorridorDevelopmentStudy–September2019DraftFeasibilityReport
TheConceptualSitePlanproposedbyHilgartwilson,datedJuly2024,featuresmainaccessroadsthatarefarfrom
desirable.Thislayoutwillnotmeetthevehicletransportationneedsgiventheproposedlanduseanditsintensity.
Instead,itwillfunctionallycreateahugeculͲdeͲsac,funnelingalltrafficontoPaloPintoandBurntWaterroadways
leadingtoHighway87.Additionally,thelocalstreetsarewaytoolongandwillcreatespeedingissues.Thus,thecurrent
conceptualsiteplanmustundergosignificantrevisionstoenhanceitsfunctionalityandavoidrepeatingthemistakes
madeinpastresidentialdevelopments.
#3ͲConsiderationofVulnerableRoadUsers(VRUs)
Asalreadystated,whatconsiderationisbeinggiventopedestrians,bicyclists,microtransportationvehicles,andperhaps
equestrianstoaccesstheseareas?Arethesevulnerableroadusers(VRUs)alsosupposedtousethestreetsandroads
directly?Whataboutaseparatedpathsystemalongwithsidewalks?Whataboutroadcrossing,wherewillthesebe,
andwhattreatmentswillbeprovidedtoensureVRUshaveequalopportunitytocrosstheroad?
ThereneedstobeacomprehensiveplanonhowthisdevelopmentwillhandleVRUs.Simplystatingthattheywilluse
thestreetsandroadsisnotsufficient.ItishighlyrecommendedthatseparateoffͲroadpathsandoffͲstreetsidewalksbe
included;otherwise,thepastmistakesofsimilardevelopmentswillberepeated.
4
#4–TrafficNoise&VisualImpactMitigations
OneoftheworstaspectsoftheConceptualSitePlanproposedbyHilgartwilson,datedJuly2024,istheamountoftraffic
itwillfunnelontoPaloPintoandBurntWaterstreets.Thiswillcausesignificantvehiclenoiseandvisualimpactsfrom
vehiclesmovingtoandfromthesestreets.Oneofthereasonspeoplechoosetoliveinruralareaslikethisistoescape
trafficissues.However,thecurrentplanfailstoaddressthisconcernandinsteadresembleslivinginamoreurban
environment.Thisdevelopmentwillchangethecharacteroftheneighborhoodtobemoreurbanwithhigherresidential
intensity.Thelongstreetsegmentswillalsoencouragehigherspeeds,necessitatingsomeformofneighborhoodspeed
managementprogram.Abetterapproachwouldbetomakethelocalstreetsshorterandprovideacollectorroadthat
loopsaroundtheentiredevelopment,takingadvantageoftheterraintobelessvisibleandbelowtheelevationofthe
houses.TheDoveMountaindevelopmentinTucsonisaprimeexampleofhownottodesignacollectorstreetfora
developmentlikethis.
#5ͲAccessTo/FromSR87atBurntWater&VistadelOroIssues
TheexistingaccessatbothBurntWaterandVistadelOrowillneedtobefullyimprovedtoprovidemodern,safe,
efficient,andeffectiveaccesstoandfromSR87.ThiswouldincluderebuildingtheconnectorroadstocurrentADOT
standardsandpossiblyprovidingmergelanesfortrafficenteringSR87.Thesemergelaneswillhelpmitigatethechances
ofhighͲspeedrearͲendcollisionsthatcanresultinseriousinjuriesorfatalities.Additionally,itmightbedesirableto
providestreetlightingattheseintersectionswithSR87tohelpmakedriversawareofpotentialconflicts.Researchhas
shownthistobeaneffectivesafetyimprovement.
Fromasafetyperspective,itmightalsobeadvantageoustochangebothoftheseaccessestorightͲin/rightͲout
configurations.ThiswouldincludeindirectleftturnsandthroughmovementssupportedbyrestrictedcrossingUͲturns
(RCUT)andmedianUͲturns(MUT),asshowninFigure4.
Figure4–IndirectleftturnsandthroughMovements
5
AsafetytreatmentlikethishelpsreducethechancesofhighͲspeedangleorleftͲturncrashes,whichoftenresultin
seriousinjuriesorfatalities.
#6–FuturePotentialCollectororArterialAccesses
AllowinghousingintensitylikethiswithoutafutureplantoreducedependencyonSR87issimplyurbansprawl.Thisis
similartowhathappenedinMaricopa,Anthem,andmanyotherlocationsinArizona,especiallyinMaricopaandPima
Counties,andwhatisnowhappeninginPinalCounty.MaricopacausedhugeissuesonSR349andthatsectionofIͲ10,
whileAnthemcausedsignificantproblemsonIͲ17.AlthoughAnthembuiltnewinterchanges,thetrafficassumptionsfor
theTrafficImpactAnalysis(TIA)doneforthismajordevelopmentwerewayoffregardingthenegativeconsequenceson
theIͲ17mainline.MaricopaCountyhadtobuildanadditionalarterialstreettorelievethistrafficfiasco.
#7–CommentsonAccessRegulationPast,Present&Future
SomemightsaythattheGoldfieldRanchaccessestoSR87areallgrandfatheredin,andnothingcanbedonetochange
them.Thatisnotcorrect. ArizonaRevisedStatutes(ARS)Title33,Chapter22,Article1(§33Ͳ2401)governsthissubject.
Keyprovisionsinclude:
x
ReasonableAccess:Thestateoranypoliticalsubdivisioncannotdenyreasonableaccesstoprivateproperty.
x
RightͲofͲWay:Ifprivatepropertyissurroundedbystateorpoliticalsubdivisionland,theownercanrequesta
nonexclusiverightͲofͲwayforatleast30years.
x
GrantingAccess:ThestateorpoliticalsubdivisionmustgrantthisrightͲofͲwaytoensurelegalaccesstoprivate
property.
x
LocationandWidth:Thestateorpoliticalsubdivisionwilldeterminetheappropriatelocationandwidthofthe
rightͲofͲwayafterconsultingwiththepropertyowner.TheycanalsorelocatetherightͲofͲwayattheir
discretion.
Reasonableaccessmeansthestate,county,city,ortownhasregulatoryauthoritytoexerciseaccessmanagement,or
partialcontrolofaccess,onitsstreets.Thisauthorityistypicallyconfirmedinmunicipalcodesunder"Streetsand
Sidewalks."Theseregulationsapplytoarterialstreets,collectorstreets,orlocalstreets.
Accessmanagementallowscertainrestrictionsonhow,where,andhowmuchaccesscanbegainedtoastreet.Full
controlofaccessmeansnoprivatedrivewayaccesstoadesignatedroadway,typicallyahighͲspeedfreewayora
highspeeddividedhighwaytowhichSR87hasbecomeinthisarea.
Thus,thetermreasonableaccessregulationsapplytonewandexistingdriveways.Thestateorsubdivisioncanimpose
partialaccesscontrolonexistingdrivewaysiftrafficoperationalorsafetyissuesarise.ProvisionDof§33Ͳ2401states:
“Followingreasonableconsultationwiththeowneroftheprivateproperty,thisstateoranypoliticalsubdivisionof
thisstateshalldeterminetheappropriatelocationandwidthoftherightͲofͲwaytobegrantedandmayrelocatethe
rightͲofͲwayafterthegrantatthediscretionofthisstateorthepoliticalsubdivisionofthisstate.”
Thisprovisionallowsthestateorsubdivisionofthestate(likeMaricopaCounty)toreevaluateandreconfigureaccessto
addressissuesonpublicstreets,includingdrivewayclosuresandconsolidationsorotheraccessapproacheswhichmight
havebeenokbackintheday,buthavebecomeundesirabletoday.
6
Attachments:
AppendixA–ArizonaDepartmentofTransportation(ADOT)Related
Reference:ADOTSR87CorridorDevelopmentStudy–September2019DraftFeasibilityReport
7
AppendixBͲMaricopaCountyRelatedPlans&RelatedDocuments
8
9
10
Reference:MicrosoftWordͲGoldfieldAreaPlan.doc
TransportationPortionoftheComprehensivePlan:
11
12
13
Reference:
VISION2030.pub
TheEnd
MaricopaCountySubdivisionRegulations:SubdivisionͲRegulationsͲPDF
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Theend
DATE:
May 8, 2025
TO:
Planning & Zoning Commission
From:
Nick Schlimm, Planner
SUBJECT:
Z240006 – Goldhawk at the Preserve
Agenda Item: #5
!
" #
$
%
&
'$ &(
) *
'
(
+
,
'-. (
,
!
'/ (
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the
county.
From:
Darren Gerard (PND)
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject:
FW: Goldhawk at the Preserve Z240006 Conditions
Date:
Tuesday, May 6, 2025 4:13:45 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
2025-05-06 Draft FMYNConditions LS Redline.docx
2025_05_01 Memo to File on Septic Fund Calculations (Goldhawk) (002).docx
From: Larry Lazarus <llazarus@lslawaz.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 1:34 PM
To: Darren Gerard (PND) <Darren.Gerard@Maricopa.Gov>
Cc: Nicholas Schlimm (PND) <Nicholas.Schlimm@maricopa.gov>; Tom Ellsworth (PND)
<Tom.Ellsworth@maricopa.gov>; dbenally@fmyn.org; Susan Montgomery
<smontgomery@milawaz.com>; Michelle Green <mgreen@lslawaz.com>
Subject: Goldhawk at the Preserve Z240006 Conditions
Darren, Attached please find our proposed edits to the rezoning conditions for the above-noted zoning case. I am also attaching a memo prepared by Montgomery & Interpreter which explains the figures we used in the proposed condition that
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Darren,
Attached please find our proposed edits to the rezoning conditions for the above-noted zoning case.
I am also attaching a memo prepared by Montgomery & Interpreter which explains the figures we
used in the proposed condition that requires a fund be set up to pay for the ongoing inspection,
maintenance, and repair of the septic systems. We have spoken with Wendy and let her know that
we are sending a copy of our proposed edits to you and Stephen Anderson.
Please review our suggestions and let us know if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Larry
Larry S. Lazarus
Lazarus & Silvyn, P.C.
206 E. Virginia Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-1110
(602) 340-0900
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential
and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any
reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please
immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy
format. Thank you.
5/7/2025 10:09 AM
GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE
MARICOPA COUNTY CASE NUMBER Z240006
-
SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITYFORT MCDOWELL
YAVAPAI NATION
PROPOSED EDITS TO REZONING CONDITIONS
Recommendation:
1.
Staff recommends the Commission adopt a motion recommending that the Board
of Supervisors approve Z240006 subject to the following conditions ‘a’ – ‘o’:
a.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the
Zoning Exhibit entitled "Goldhawk at the Preserve," consisting of one full-
size sheet, dated April 8, 2025, and stamped received April 9, 2025, except
as modified by the following conditions. A revised zoning exhibit that
includes the Rural-43 RUPD development standards shall be submitted to
Planning & Development staff within 30 days of Board approval. Minor and
major amendments will be determined in accordance with Chapter 3 of the
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
b.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the
Narrative Report entitled "Goldhawk at the Preserve," consisting of 13
pages, dated April 9, 2025, and stamped received April 9, 2025, except as
modified by the following conditions. A revised narrative report that
includes the updated hillside development standards shall be submitted to
Planning & Development staff within 30 days of Board approval. Minor and
major amendments will be determined in accordance with Chapter 3 of the
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
c.
The total number of residential dwelling units shall not exceed 696. To help
ensure compliance, the cumulative number of dwelling units permitted to
that point shall be identified on each preliminary and final plat.
d.
The following Planning Engineering conditions shall apply:
1.
Without the submittal of a plat, no development approval is inferred
by this review, including, but not limited to number of proposed
5/7/2025 10:09 AM
building
lots/units,
drainage
design,
access
and
roadway
alignments. These items will be addressed as development plans
progress and are submitted to the County for further entitlement (i.e.
preliminary & final plats).
2.
A traffic impact study (“TIS”) must be submitted with future
entitlement preliminary plat application. The TIS shall comply with
MCDOT requirements and shall address development phasing and
the offsite improvements necessary to accommodate the
anticipated traffic demands. The TIS must be approved before
subsequent approval of any roadway improvement plans. The TIS
shall be updated prior to any final plat approvals and with each
development phase to document significant changes to the
development
plan.
The
project
must
comply
with
all
recommendations in the MCDOT-approved TIS.
3.
Applicant should notify ADOT of any development proposal (SR 87).
The Developer shall provide written documentation of ADOT's review
and response. ADOT documentation shall be received before any
preliminary plat approval.
4.
Engineering review of re-zone cases is conceptual in nature. All
development and engineering design shall be in conformance with
Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage
Policies and Standards; Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County;
MCDOT Roadway Design Manual; and current engineering policies,
standards, and best practices at the time of application for
construction.
e.
The following Rural-43 RUPD standards shall apply:
1.
Minimum Lot Width: 120'
2.
Hillside Height Regulations: The height of all buildings and
structures, including retaining walls, shall not exceed 30' from
finished pad grade(s) through any building cross section at any point,
but in no instance shall any building or structure exceed 30' in height
as measured from the highest point of natural grade on the
respective lot. Construction permits for each lot shall include an
engineered plan with a cross-section through the primary structure
at the highest point of the proposed height elevation, finished pad
grade(s), and identification of the maximum natural grade of the
respective lot shown on the plan.
5/7/2025 10:09 AM
3.
Any parcel within the Rural-43 RUPD zoning district that is not
created by a recorded subdivision plat shall adhere to the
development standards of the Rural-190 zoning district.
f.
Noncompliance with any of the conditions assigned to the approval of this
Zone Change by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors may be grounds
for revocation in accordance with the requirements and procedures as set
forth in the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
g.
The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request
of the applicant, with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this
approval allows the property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by
the zoning existing on the date of application, subject to conditions. In the
event of the failure to comply with any condition, the property may be
considered for revocation to the zoning that existed on the date of
application. It is, therefore, stipulated and agreed that either revocation due
to the failure to comply with any conditions, does not reduce any rights that
existed on the date of application to use, divide, sell or possess the property
and that there would be no diminution in value of the property from the value
it held on the date of application due to such revocation of the Zone Change.
The Zone Change enhances the value of the property above its value as of
the date the Zone Change is granted and reverting to the prior zoning results
in the same value of the property as if the Zone Change had never been
granted.
h.
The owner shall develop the property as a “subdivision” as defined in A.R.S.
§ 32-2101 that requires an Assured Water Supply in accordance with A.R.S.
§ 45-576 and A.A.C. 12-15-701 et. seq. The owner shall submit
documentation to the Planning Director demonstrating an Assured Water
Supply for each final plat. The owner shall submit documentation to the
Planning Director demonstrating an Assured Water Supply for 1,941 acres,
which may be developed in phases.
i.
Each septic system will be installed by a certified third-party contractor as
approved by a Homeowners’ Association (“HOA”) that will be established
and in accordance with the requirements established by the Arizona
Administrative Code and the Maricopa County Environmental Services
Department. The HOA will regularly inform homeowners of their obligation
to have a certified third-party contractor annually inspect, regularly maintain
(e.g., regularly pump) and, if necessary, repair or replace their septic
systems pursuant to best practices in the industry. required maintenance
and inspection of their septic systems. The HOA will retain an updated list
of certified inspectors third-party contractors for this purpose. that can be
Formatted: Font: Italic
5/7/2025 10:09 AM
used by homeowners to regularly annually inspect and maintain their septic
systems in accordance with a homeowner’s use. Homeowners will be
required to annually provide written confirmation to notify the HOA of their
compliance with each of their obligations outlined in this Condition (i.e., to
annually inspect, maintain, repair or replace their septic systems pursuant
to best practices in the industry)regular maintenance. If a homeowner fails
to annually notify confirm in writing to the HOA that they have of met each
of thesetheir septic system compliance of regular maintenanceobligations,
or if the HOA for any reason becomes aware of the need to inspect,
maintain, repair, or replace a homeowner’s septic system (including due to
a failure of said system, i.e., the system can no longer effectively treat and
dispose of wastewater), the HOA will use a certified third-party contractor
company to inspect, maintain, repair, or replace the homeowner’s and
maintain the septic system within three (3) months, at the homeowner’s
expense. In addition, any A failure of any septic system shall be reported
by the homeowner to the HOA within ninety thirty (390) days of learning of
such failure. The records associated with the HOA’s and homeowner’s
compliance obligations under this Condition I(i) shall promptly be made
publicly available upon written request. The obligations set forth in this
Condition 1(i) shall be included in the HOA covenants, conditions, and
restrictions (CC&Rs). If the homeowner fails to comply and maintain, repair
or replace a failed septic system, the HOA shall maintain, repair, or replace
the failed septic system within six (6) months of issuance of notice of
failure, at homeowner’s expense.
j.
Before the sale of any lot, the Developer shall place an easement on each
lot to be recorded in the Maricopa County Recorders office authorizing the
Homeowners Association to enter the lot toand inspect maintain, repair, or
replace any septic system in conformance with the requirements of
Condition 1(i)if the owner of the lot does not repair the septic system within
the six (6) months specified above.
i.k.
To ensure the HOA has sufficient resources available to meet its obligations
under Condition 1(i), tThe developer applicant shall, prior to final plat,
establish a fund the following funds for the benefit of the Homeowners
AssociationHOA: (i) a Septic Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair Fund in
the amount of $3.94 million to support as any obligation on the part of the
HOA to annually inspect, maintain, or repair needed maintenance and the
annual inspectionhomeowner septic systems; and (ii) a Septic System
Replacement Fund in the amount of $1.85 million to support any obligation
on the part of the HOA shall b e established for the purpose of ensuring that
the Homeowners Association has sufficient resources available to replace
a homeowner’s failing septic systems or systems that have reached the end
of their useful life as required by this condition. Both funds shall be invested
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold
5/7/2025 10:09 AM
in interest bearing accounts in an Arizona financial institution and shall be
made available to the Homeowners Association soleyHOA solely for the
septic system inspection, maintenance, repair or replacement purposes set
forth in this Condition 1(i) and condition and for no other purpose.
j.l.
A maximum total of 2 acres of turf in the aggregate shall be permitted
across all common areas. All non-turf landscaping on common areas must
utilize only plants from the Arizona Department of Water Resources Low
Water Use & Drought Tolerant Plants List for the Phoenix Active
Management Area. The HOA shall prohibit the use of natural turf for front
lawns on all lots within the Association.
k.m.
Pre-determined Building Envelopes will be established on each lot to restrict
single family development to a maximum 60% disturbance per lot,
excluding driveways and utilities. Permit a maximum 10% revegetation.
l.n.
Construction. To preserve on lot and adjacent open space, construction
activities will be restricted to occur only within the pre-determined Building
Envelope and designated driveway and utility area. Native plants that are
suitable for salvage shall be maintained during construction and replanted
upon completion for on-site revegetation. Areas outside of pre-determined
Building Envelopes or revegetated areas will be preserved and maintained
in their native condition.
m.o.
Until annexation of the entire Goldhawk at the Preserve, the master
developer shall notify all future residents that they are not located within an
incorporated city or town, and therefore will not be represented by, or be
able to petition a citizen-elected municipal government. Notification shall
also state that residents will not have access to most municipally-managed
services. Such notice shall be included on all plats, and be included in all
Homeowner Association covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs).
n.p.
Prior to final plat, fFire protection shall be established for the propertyfor
the Goldfield Ranch Fire District through evidence of a binding services
agreement covering 696 lots signed byexecuted by the Goldfield Ranch Fire
District and a both the developer and a local Fire Department (the Fort
McDowell Yavapai Nation Fire Department or another similarly located Fire
department) prior to final plat. The Developer shall, prior to fFinal pPlat,
submit evidence of the service agreement required by this Condition 1(q)
and that mutual and automatic aid agencies are aware of this services
agreement.
q.
Developer ensure sufficient fire flow is available for the Development, will
commit toshall sprinkler each home, and to construct fire hydrants at key
5/7/2025 10:09 AM
locations throughout the development, and near entrances and accessible
to all of Goldfield Ranch in accordance with applicable provisions of the
Arizona State Fire Code and NFPA 1142 Standards on Water Supplies for
Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting..
r.
Given the sedimentation problems experienced by Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation (“Nation”) in the Verde River and on their Reservation, Developer
shall provide a copy of the final Grading and Drainage Plan (“Plan”) prepared
by their Civil Engineer to the Chairperson of the Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation, with a copy to the Nation’s Environmental Department Manager,
prior to submission of the Plan to the County, and shall meet and confer
with the Nation upon request to discuss and if possible, address, any
concerns raised by the Nation about the Plan and any potential
downgradient impacts to the Verde River or the Nation’s Reservation from
the Development.
s. The entire property, and all individual sites identified by SWCA in 2006 and
their relationships within the parcel shall be evaluated as a Traditional
Cultural Landscape (TCL) as defined in Bulletin 38 (National Register
Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural
Properties; 1990 Revised 1992; 1998) and prior to approval of any
preliminary plat for Goldhawk at The Preserve, the developer shall submit
documentation
from
SHPO
regarding
the
TCL
evaluation.
The
documentation shall indicate whether the entire site will either be included
in the National Register of Historic Places or how a data recovery program
will be implemented during construction.
t.
The developer shall avoid AZ U:6:288 (ASM) referenced in the January 2006
report [An Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Approximately 2,420
Acres for The Preserve at Goldfield Ranch Development, Maricopa County,
Arizona] as prepared by SWCA Environments Consultants. If avoidance is
not possible, the developer shall first notify the Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of this fact and
meet and confer with the Tribes upon request, prior to performing additional
archaeological work (such as data recovery) to mitigate adverse effects of
development on the site. Prior to approval of any preliminary plat for
Goldhawk at The Preserve, the developer shall submit documentation from
SHPO regarding disposition of archaeological site AZ U:6:288 (ASM). The
documentation shall indicate whether the site will either be included in the
National Register of Historic Places or how a data recovery program will be
implemented during construction.
o.
The Developer shall notify the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and the Salt
River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community a minimum of 60 days prior to
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Font: Roboto
Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or
numbering, Adjust space between Latin and Asian text,
Adjust space between Asian text and numbers
Formatted: Font: Roboto
Formatted: Normal, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Font: Roboto
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", No bullets or numbering
5/7/2025 10:09 AM
performing any additional archeological work such as data recovery on the
property.
3301 E. Thunderbird Rd., Phoenix, Arizona 85032
PHONE: (480) 513-6825 x FAX: (480) 513-6948 x
www.milawaz.com
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FILE
FROM:
Montgomery & Interpreter, PLC
DATE:
May 7, 2025
RE:
Preliminary Proposal for Septic System Replacement and Maintenance
Funds for Goldhawk at the Preserve Stipulations
Overview
This Firm has been retained to assist the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation (“Nation”) in
reviewing the Goldhawk at the Preserve development proposal which was introduced to
the Maricopa County Development Services in 2024 for comprehensive plan amendment
and zoning case change. The current Goldhawk at the Preserve development plans for
individual septic systems to be constructed for each residential housing unit instead of a
centralized sewer collection system and wastewater treatment plant.
This memo was prepared as part of this preliminary review, and contains information
documenting our basis for calculating the Septic System Inspection, Maintenance, and
Report Fund and the Septic System Replacement Fund included in the Nation’s
proposed stipulation. Ideally, the septic stipulation should provide for mechanisms and
funding which would substantially limit the possibility of the individual septic systems from
leaking, contaminating local groundwater supplies, and migrating towards the Verde
River.
Discussion and Research
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (“ADEQ”) documents that “onsite
wastewater treatment facilities” (a.k.a. septic systems) generally have a useful lifespan of
40 years, if properly designed, installed, and maintained.1 However septic systems can
also be a significant source of contamination to local groundwater and surface water
supplies. The EPA “identifies leaking septic tanks, compromised leachfields and
1 ADEQ Onsite Wastewater Treatment Facilities Proposed Regulatory Framework,
Version 1, page 6 (January 2024).
MONTGOMERY & INTERPRETER, PLC cont.
May 7, 2025
Page 2 of 3
___________________________
2
cesspools as the third leading cause of groundwater contamination.”2 Review of a small
sample size of septic systems by ADEQ revealed that up to 80% of systems currently
operating fail inspection. ADEQ further reports that out of all the system owners surveyed
in 2023, “one-third indicated having issues with their septic system, such as sewage
backing up into the home or surfacing in the yard.”3 It appears that approximately 1 out
of every 3 septic systems in Arizona is in failure, regardless of age.
Similarly, large-scale failures in septic-dependent communities have been seen across
Arizona, and in the Verde River Watershed upstream of the Nation. For example, the
Verde Village community of the Verde Valley is experiencing significant issues with
leaking septic tanks threatening to contaminate groundwater and the Verde River. The
community, in partnership with Yavapai County, is currently assessing options for
replacing 4,500 units of septic systems with a unified sewer system.4 The community of
Chino Meadows also experienced issues with leaking septic tanks threatening to
contaminate the Little Chino aquifer in the Verde River Watershed.5
Preliminary Calculations
Typical costs to install, maintain, repair, and replace an individual anaerobic septic system
are shown below:
Typical cost of new conventional (anaerobic) septic system
Aerobic septic systems use oxygen to break down waste.
They are more efficient, but more expensive and require more
maintenance. Anaerobic systems do not use oxygen, less
efficient, less expensive.
Approximately $8,000
($21,480 by 2070
assuming 2.5%
inflation)
Typical cost of septic system pumping (every 3-5 years)
Approximately $500
Annual inspection & maintenance costs
Approximately $100
1. Septic System Replacement Fund
We are contemplating the creation of a Septic System Replacement Fund to be
funded by the developer. Applying ADEQ’s estimate that 1 out of every 3 septic
systems in Arizona is in failure here, this fund would need to be sufficient to pay
for the costs of replacing 232 septic systems at the end of their 40-year lifespan.
2 Id.
3 Id. at page 7.
4 Verde Villages discusses sewer study, Journalaz.com (October 19, 2023).
5 Chino Meadows sewer project gets off ground, DC Courier (April 13, 2007).
MONTGOMERY & INTERPRETER, PLC cont.
May 7, 2025
Page 3 of 3
___________________________
3
This fund would need to be invested at a minimum interest rate of 2.5% (the
average typical historical inflation rate) to cover these costs in future dollars.
$8,000 replacement cost in 2025
x 232 units
= $1.85 million initial investment at
2.5% annual compounding interest
$21,481 est. replacement cost in 2070
x 232 units
Needs to yield $4.9 million by 2070 for
replacements
$1.85 million initial investment by the developer
into the Septic System Replacement Fund
2. Septic System Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair Fund
We are also contemplating the creation of a second fund, a Septic System
Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair Fund, to be funded by the developer. This
may not have the same interest rate, since funds will be removed each year by the
HOA to cover the costs of annual inspections.
The homeowners will be required to perform regular maintenance and upkeep,
under terms to be specified in the community Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions
(“CC&Rs”). However, the System Maintenance Fund will also contain funds
sufficient to cover 33% of system maintenance costs, assuming approximately 1/3
delinquency and applying ADEQ’s estimated 1/3 failure rate.
(($500 cost of system pumping x 10 (times of pumping if done every 4 years over
40-year system lifespan))
x 232 units (assuming 1 in 3 system failure)
$1.16 million
+ $100 cost of annual inspections x 40 if done every year))
x 696 units (To be fully funded for use by HOA to ensure annual inspections)
$2.78 million
$3.94 million initial investment into Septic System Inspection,
Maintenance, and Repair Fund
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the
county.
From:
Stephen W. Anderson
To:
Darren Gerard (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND); Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
Wendy Riddell (wr@berryriddell.com)
Subject:
Goldhawk / Case Z24006
Date:
Tuesday, May 6, 2025 3:45:26 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
Litera Compare Redline - County Staff Recommendations for May 8 Hearing-5202177-v1 and 2025-05-05
Grayhawk Response - Modified Conditions Partially Agreed to by.pdf
All:
As you know, we represent the Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community with respect to the above-referenced case.
We have been discussing possible additional Conditions
with the Applicant and their counsel. We appreciate the
Applicant’s willingness to engage in these discussions. At this
time, we have not been able to reach complete agreement,
although we have been able to reach tentative consensus on
multiple items we have been discussing. To be clear, I do not
have authority to suggest that the Applicant has agreed to any of
these modifications as of this writing.
The document attached here is a redline of our latest
proposal to the Applicant, compared against the Staff’s
recommendation for the May 8 Planning Commission hearing.
(Note that these are the May 8 Staff recommendations, not the
April 24 Staff recommendations.) In other words, this document
includes some proposals the Applicant has not seen before. The
primary reason I am sharing these with you now is so that you
are aware that there are several additional possible Conditions
that may ultimately be agreed to in whole or part by parties
interested in this matter. Note that several of these new
Conditions are based on Conditions from prior County approvals,
so the language is intended to track historic County practice. We
did not wish to present these to Staff as a fait accompli on
Thursday morning, should we and the Applicant reach a partial or
complete agreement.
Please feel free to share this communication with
Chairman Lindblom and the Commissioners.
I have copied Ms. Riddell here in the event she wishes to
add anything.
-Stephen Anderson
Stephen W. Anderson
602.256.4422 Direct | SAnderson@gblaw.com
www.gblaw.com | Profile
40 North Central Ave., 20th Floor | Phoenix, AZ 85004
This message and any of the attached documents contain information from the law firm of Gammage & Burnham, P.L.C. that may
be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information, and
no privilege has been waived by your inadvertent receipt. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender
by reply e-mail and then delete this message.
[Different first page setting changed from off in original to on in modified.].
GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE
MARICOPA COUNTY CASE NUMBER Z240006
-
COUNTY STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MAY 8 HEARING
MODIFIED CONDITIONS PARTIALLY NEGOTIATED BY APPLICANT AND
SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY
SRP-MIC COMMUNITY’S COUNTER-PROPOSAL, MAY 6
PROPOSED REZONING CONDITIONS
Recommendation:
28.
28.
Staff recommends the Commission adopt a motion recommending that
the Board of Supervisors approve Z240006 subject to the following conditions
‘a’ – ‘go’:
a.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the
Zoning Exhibit entitled “"Goldhawk at the Preserve,”" consisting of one
full-size sheet, dated April 8, 2025, and stamped received April 9, 2025,
except as modified by the following conditions. A revised zoning exhibit
that includes the Rural-43 RUPD development standards shall be
submitted to Planning & Development staff within 30 days of Board
approval. Minor and major amendments will be determined in accordance
with Chapter 3 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
b.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the
Narrative Report entitled “"Goldhawk at the Preserve,”" consisting of 13
pages, dated April 9, 2025, and stamped received April 9, 2025, except as
modified by the following conditions. A revised narrative report that
includes the updated hillside development standards shall be submitted to
Planning & Development staff within 30 days of Board approval. Minor
and major amendments will be determined in accordance with Chapter 3
of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
c.
The total number of residential dwelling units shall not exceed 696. To
help ensure compliance, the cumulative number of dwelling units
[Different first page setting changed from off in original to on in modified.].
[Different first page setting changed from off in original to on in modified.].
permitted to that point shall be identified on each preliminary and final
plat.
d.
The following Planning Engineering conditions shall apply:
1.
Without the submittal of a plat, no development approval is inferred
by this review, including, but not limited to number of proposed
building lots/units, drainage design, access and roadway
alignments. These items will be addressed as development plans
progress and are submitted to the County for further entitlement
(i.e. preliminary & final plats).
2.
A traffic impact study (“TIS”) must be submitted with future
entitlement preliminary plat application. The TIS shall comply with
MCDOT requirements and shall address development phasing and
the offsite improvements necessary to accommodate the
anticipated traffic demands. The TIS must be approved before
subsequent approval of any roadway improvement plans. The TIS
shall be updated prior to any final plat approvals and with each
development phase to document significant changes to the
development
plan.
The
project
must
comply
with
all
recommendations in the MCDOT-approved TIS.
3.
A minimum of two (2) points of access shall be provided to serve
the subdivision. The main access must be paved. A second
access, which must consist of (at a minimum) an all-weather
access must be provided for each section that exceeds the
subdivision regulations for cul-de-sac length/number of units
served. (MCDOT P36)
4.
Applicant should notify ADOT of any development proposal (SR
87). The Developer shall provide written documentation of ADOT's
review and response. ADOT documentation shall be received
before any preliminary plat approval.
5.
3. Engineering review of re-zone cases is conceptual in nature. All
development and engineering design shall be in conformance with
Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage
Policies and Standards; Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa
County; MCDOT Roadway Design Manual; and current engineering
policies, standards, and best practices at the time of application for
construction.
e.
The following Rural-43 RUPD standards shall apply:
1.
Minimum Lot Width: 120’'
[Different first page setting changed from off in original to on in modified.].
6639.10.5202177.16639.10.5202574.2
2
[Different first page setting changed from off in original to on in modified.].
2.
Hillside Height Regulations: The height of all buildings and
structures, including retaining walls, shall not exceed 30’' from
finished pad grade(s) through any building cross section at any
point, but in no instance shall any building or structure exceed 30’'
in height as measured from the highest point of natural grade on
the respective lot. Construction permits for each lot shall include an
engineered plan with a cross-section through the primary structure
at the highest point of the proposed height elevation, finished pad
grade(s), and identification of the maximum natural grade of the
respective lot shown on the plan.
3. Hillside Disturbance Location: Hillside disturbance may extend to any
lot line but shall be limited to a maximum of 75,000 square feet per lot.
Disturbance envelopes for each lot shall be identified on an engineered
plan submitted at the time of initial construction permitting and shall
demonstrate an average disturbance envelope per lot of 25,000 square
feet.
3.
4. Any parcel within the Rural-43 RUPD zoning district that is not
created by a recorded subdivision plat shall adhere to the
development standards of the Rural190Rural-190 zoning district.
f.
Noncompliance with any of the conditions assigned to the approval of this
Zone Change by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors may be
grounds for revocation in accordance with the requirements and
procedures as set forth in the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
g.
The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request
of the applicant, with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this
approval allows the property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by
the zoning existing on the date of application, subject to conditions. In the
event of the failure to comply with any condition, the property may be
considered for revocation to the zoning that existed on the date of
application. It is, therefore, stipulated and agreed that either revocation
due to the failure to comply with any conditions, does not reduce any
rights that existed on the date of application to use, divide, sell or possess
the property and that there would be no diminution in value of the property
from the value it held on the date of application due to such revocation of
the Zone Change. The Zone Change enhances the value of the property
above its value as of the date the Zone Change is granted and reverting
to the prior zoning results in the same value of the property as if the Zone
Change had never been granted.
[Different first page setting changed from off in original to on in modified.].
6639.10.5202177.16639.10.5202574.2
3
[Different first page setting changed from off in original to on in modified.].
h.
The owner shall develop the property as a “subdivision” as defined in
A.R.S. § 32-2101 that requires an Assured Water Supply as defined in
A.R.S. § 45-576. Prior to or in conjunction with the first final plat, the
owner shall submit documentation to the Planning Director demonstrating
an Assured Water Supply, compliance with Maricopa County Subdivision
Regulations 303.2 and 303.3 for water and wastewater facilities for all
1,941 acres, and a guarantee that the entire 1,941 acres can and will
receive an adequate supply of potable water from a water system
operated by a Private Water Company as defined in A.R.S. § 45-402..
i.
Each septic system will be installed by the aforementioned Private Water
Company or a contractor it has approved in accordance with the
requirements established by the Arizona Administrative Code and the
Maricopa
County
Environmental
Services
Department.
The
aforementioned Private Water Company or a contractor it has approved
will regularly oversee the as-needed maintenance and annual inspection
of septic systems on the Site, and notify the Homeowners Association of a
failure of any septic system within ninety (90) days of learning of such
failure. The Homeowners Association will be responsible for replacing
any failed septic system within six (6) months of issuance of notice of
failure..
j.
A maximum total of 2 acres of turf in the aggregate shall be permitted
across all common areas. All non-turf landscaping on common areas
must utilize only plants from the Arizona Department of Water Resources
Low Water Use & Drought Tolerant Plants List for the Phoenix Active
Management Area. The HOA shall prohibit the use of natural turf for front
lawns on all lots within the Association.
k.
Pre-determined Building Envelopes will be established on each lot to
restrict single family development to a maximum 60% disturbance per lot,
excluding driveways and utilities. Permit a maximum 10% revegetation.
l.
Construction. To preserve on lot and adjacent open space, construction
activities will be restricted to occur only within the pre-determined Building
Envelope and designated driveway and utility area. Native plants that are
suitable for salvage shall be maintained during construction and replanted
upon completion for on-site revegetation. Areas outside of pre-determined
Building Envelopes or revegetated areas will be preserved and
maintained in their native condition.
m.
Until annexation of the entire Goldhawk at the Preserve, the master
developer shall notify all future residents that they are not located within
an incorporated city or town, and therefore will not be represented by, or
be able to petition a citizen-elected municipal government. Notification
[Different first page setting changed from off in original to on in modified.].
6639.10.5202177.16639.10.5202574.2
4
[Different first page setting changed from off in original to on in modified.].
shall also state that residents will not have access to most
municipally-managed services. Such notice shall be included on all plats,
and be included in all Homeowner Association covenants, conditions, and
restrictions (CC&Rs).
n.
Fire protection shall be established (services agreement covering 696 lots
signed by both the developer and Fire District) to the site prior to final plat
approval, and including specific confirmation from Fire District that mutual
and automatic aid agencies are aware of this services agreement.
o.
Developer will commit to sprinkler each home, and to construct fire
hydrants at key locations throughout the development, and near
entrances and accessible to all of Goldfield Ranch.
p.
The developer shall avoid AZ U:6:288 (ASM) referenced in the January
2006 report [An Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Approximately
2,420 Acres for The Preserve at Goldfield Ranch Development, Maricopa
County, Arizona] as prepared by SWCA Environments Consultants. If
avoidance is not possible, the developer shall perform additional
archaeological work (such as data recovery) to mitigate adverse effects of
development on the site, and prior to approval of any preliminary plat for
Goldhawk at The Preserve, the developer shall submit documentation
from SHPO regarding disposition of archaeological site AZ U:6:288
(ASM). The documentation shall indicate whether the site will either be
included in the National Register of Historic Places or how a data recovery
program will be implemented during construction. [THE PARTIES ARE
CONFIRMING THE SCOPE OF SWCA WORK, AND EXPECT TO BE
ABLE TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER PRIOR TO THE MAY 21 BOS
HEARING DATE.]
q.
The Applicant will provide notice of any submittal of a preliminary or final
plat to Maricopa County to the General Counsel of the Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.
[Different first page setting changed from off in original to on in modified.].
6639.10.5202177.16639.10.5202574.2
5
0
Table Insert
Changes:
0
Table Delete
0
Add
Intelligent Table Comparison: Active
Table moves to
42
0
Summary report:
Litera Compare for Word 11.10.0.38 Document comparison done on
5/6/2025 3:25:19 PM
Table moves from
0
Delete
Embedded Graphics (Visio, ChemDraw, Images etc.)
16
0
Original DMS: iw://gblaw.cloudimanage.com/ACTIVE/5202177/1
Embedded Excel
0
Move From
Format changes
0
0
Total Changes:
Modified DMS: iw://gblaw.cloudimanage.com/ACTIVE/5202574/2
58
Move To
Style name: Default Style
B
IA 5
1
$
%
87
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, (602) 506-3601
Document Path: \\gisteam.maricopa.gov\workgroup\patrick.dongarra\PND\OppositionCases\Z240006\Z240006.aprx
DISCLAIMER: This map is a graphical representation designed for general reference purposes only. Viewer/User agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Maricopa County, its officers, departments, employees and agents
from and against any and all suits, actions, legal or administrative proceedings, claims, demands or damages of any kind or nature arising out of the use of this map, or the data contained herein, in its actual or altered form.
www.maricopa.gov/planning
Maricopa County OET, GIS Division, 5/9/2025
Ü
1,000
0
1,000
500
Feet
Opposition and Support
Z240006
Parcel
Subject Parcel
300' Buffer
Opposition Parcel
Supporting Parcel
All Opposition Parcels
All Supporting Parcels
300' Buffer Interior
300' Buffer Selection
Eligible parcels: 94
Supporting parcels: 0
Opposition parcels: 19
Supporting parcels sq ft:
Opposition parcels sq ft: 5,849,241
Subject parcels sq ft: 84,445,721
All area inside the 300' buffer sq ft:
95,407,544
All area inside the 300' buffer -
excluding subject parcel,
ROW and excluded parcels sq ft:
10,805,653
No-response parcels sq ft: 0
Super Majority opposed parcel acres:
54%
Super Majority opposed parcel number:
20%