Extracted text (via pymupdf)
36391 characters
Nov 15, 2021
RE: Santa Barbara Ranch Morristown
Dear Commissioners:
Please take a moment to watch this succinct video about this history of the iconic Arizona Saguaro which
has survived for thousands of years but is now under threat.
https://megaphone.link/AZUSA9682698212
There is no mitigation plan for their loss.
Sincerely,
Sheryl Hamlin
Wickenburg, Arizona
From:
stacy mcknight
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Santa Barbara Subdivision
Date:
Saturday, November 13, 2021 9:38:46 AM
I have lived in Morristown for 15 years
We own a horse property on 255th ave.
I moved here to be able to ride and have like minded nieghbors with room for privacy. Please
do not approve the Zoning changes permitting more than one home per acre for the new
proposed Santa Barbara Subdivision. This area is a horse property community we do NOT
want Subdivisions here. We moved here to get away from that congestion.
Thank you for your time
Konstanze Mcknight
From:
Francis Wiedemann
To:
Clint Hickman (BOS)
Cc:
PND On Call Planner; Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Santa Barbara Ranch Zone Change Z2021078 & 2021009. NO!
Date:
Friday, November 26, 2021 10:43:03 AM
I live on Castle Hot Springs Rd in Morristown and am strongly against rezoning the referenced property for a higher
density housing community. Undoubtably, it will be a major eye sore I.e. low cost track homes ruining the rural
environment that the current community treasures. In addition, there are many infrastructure issues such as water,
waste water and traffic.
Local wells are currently under stress requiring deeper drilling. Most current wells are in the 350 ft range and can
not keep up in the summer. I recently had a new well drilled to 700 ft at a cost of $27,000. Many folks in the
community can not afford that expense. The proposed rezoning will exacerbate the problem. Not to mention waste
water/sewage management!
Please do not agree to this rezoning.
Francis Wiedemann
42210 N Castle Hot Springs Rd.
Morristown, AZ 85342
6023187108 / fjw7@hotmail.com
Sent from my iPad
From:
MF Koffee
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Santa Barbara Ranch Zone Change Application Z2021078 and CPA 2021009
Date:
Friday, May 13, 2022 10:57:16 AM
Hello Ray Banker,
Regarding: WALDEN AND SANTA MARIA DEVELOPMENTS WITTMANN
CPA2022001 CPA2022001 ZONE CHANGES Z2022040 Z2022041.....
and....MORRISTOWN CIRCLE CITY.
I live in Circle City, Arizona (Morristown,AZ) and oppose having any of the above
mentioned zone changes implemented.
Kevin Matteson
Owner
Matteson Family LLC DBA MF Koffee
(480)416-9460
www.mfkoffee.com
From:
Tudor, Matthew
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Walden and Santa Maria developments
Date:
Friday, May 13, 2022 10:20:40 AM
I’m just writing a quick note to let you know that I am against rezoning and over development of our
land and resources. Reference CPA2022001, Z2022040, Z2022041, CPA2021009 and Z2021078.
From:
Linda Myrick
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Wittmann Developments
Date:
Friday, May 13, 2022 4:03:51 PM
Mr Banker,
I as a resident of Wittmann and I am opposed to the developments allowing 5 and 6 houses on
an acre. This proposed re-zoning will do the following…
1. Effect the ecosystem of our flora and desert animals. This development of this many homes
in such a small area will be destroying the coyotes, ground squirrels, owls, hawks, road
runners, reptiles and many more. You will be destroying so much of our natural desert flora.
2. Highway 60 and Patton Roads are over crowded and very dangerous at the present due to
Surprise being allowed to over build when the infrastructure was not in place. Please don’t
continue this path due to many more lives will be lost due to the over crowded roads.
3. This is one of the few rural areas around Phoenix that allows farmers and ranchers to
continue the lifestyles that brought people out west to begin with. Let’s not lose that. Let’s not
lose the right to allow cattle to free range.
4. Bringing in that many homes will bring street lights and so many more homes lighted up
whereby you are depriving the residents that live here now the enjoyment of our beautiful
sunrises, sunsets, and Mountain View’s.
5. Water shortages are here and now. Our state several years ago said they were going to stop
the building of swimming pools and HOA water displays. That never happened. Already
communities adjacent to Scottsdale will have their water supply cut off by the end of this year.
That could very likely happen here in Wittmann. Surprise is wanting all these homes built to
increase their tax revenue. How is that fair to the people living on one or more acres. You are
going to take away their lively hood of raising, livestock and having gardens to feed their
families.
6. We don’t want Wittmann to look like what is happening in Queen Creek. The farms are
gone and housing projects are taking over what was a lovely ranching farming community.
7. We have a flooding problem in so many areas during the monsoon seasons. Bringing in 5
and 6 homes on one acre will just increase the flooding issues and cause people who do not
have problems with flooding now will have it with this over growth.
We beg of you that if you must allow these wealthy developers to destroy Wittmann, the
desert and Maricopa County that you postpone this re-zoning until the highways and roads can
accommodate this number of people, that you can come up with a way to save the desert
animals and flora, and that AZ finds other sources of water to accommodate this number of
homes.
We appreciate your desire of wanting to make Maricopa County better for those of us here and
for others that want to be here.
Thank you,
Linda Kay Myrick, Maricopa County Resident
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From:
Phyd Papin
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Re: Newest subdivision near Wittman
Date:
Saturday, May 14, 2022 3:14:25 PM
Mr. Barker regarding this newest community that is being built. I have one question. Has
everyone lost their minds?
We are in a severe drought, one we may not recover from and yet the powers that be see fit to
build something this big with no regard to the fact that we are running out of water. What is
the 5 year plan ?
Just where do they plan on getting it from! What source are they going to suck dry?
Pine and Strawberry are in this situation now! So many valley residents go up there, decide oh
let’s spend the summer. The wells dry up and they leave the locals high and dry. Those
communities have like, 48 wells however I believe that there less than 18 still working.
Where do you draw the line? We know that big money talks and because of this people and
common sense get left in the dust.
When is enough, enough?
The state should impose moratorium on any more developments until there’s sufficient water
available to allow it to happen!
We have conserved water for years, We are in the minority, doesn’t really matter does it as
what we have saved will be used to spray the ground so another subdivision can go in.
Situation, in my book, is disgusting!
Sincerely,
Phyllis Papin
Concerned resident of Arizona
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
May 11, 2022
Dear Supervisors:
Re: SANTA BARBARA RANCH
Case #: CPA2021009
KJZZ recently hosted a “Conversation on Water”. I compiled the questions and answers from the
panelists in the following notes. The notes also contain my questions and a link to the video.
Arizona does not have the water for large master planned communities that destroy acres of carbon
sequestering desert vegetation while adding impermeable surfaces that disrupt the even distribution of
the limited water supplies.
Please read attached notes.
Sincerely,
Sheryl Hamlin
Wickenburg, Arizona
760.668.2956
KJZZ's Mark Brodie and a panel of experts discussed the future of water in Arizona on May
5, 2022.
Panelists (Left to right)
Rep. Morgan Abraham, Democrat, Arizona House of Representatives
Dave Roberts, chief water resources executive, Salt River Project
Rep. Regina Cobb, Republican, the Arizona House of Representatives
Kathryn Sorensen, director of research, Kyl Center for Water Policy at Morrison Institute
Question 1: How important is water?
Answers: very important, security and infrastructure
Question 2: What trade-off must be made to live in Arizona with less water?
Answer: Cobb: Must make sacrifices, must have enough water for development, conservation
planning.
Question 3: Is the point at which we cannot reconcile growth with water here?
Answer 3: Sorensen: dense, more plumbing improvements, landscaping, suburban sprawl uses
more water
Question 4: Would your district like more density?
Answer 4: Abraham: low hanging fruit is agriculture before we cut residential.
Question 5: Is it mostly agriculture that has to change?
A5: Roberts: yes
Question 6: How will we know if we have enough water?
A6: The growth and water supply in Phoenix is ok because of storing water underground.
A6: Sorensen: Groundwater table improving. (No source given) We have enjoyed Colorado river
water so there will be hardships for some.
Question 7: What about groundwater regulation
A7: Rural management bill; not in AMA, farmers from California, Saudi Arabia and more; no
rules; hedge funds involved too. Farmers have not embraced it.
Question 8: Arizona Water Authority, is this to xxx stress?
A8: Abraham: designed by bring water in and conserve, maintain and build. (no xxx)
Questions 9: 1980 Groundwater Management Act
A9: Roberts: AZ, CA, Sonora Mexico will have water challenges
A9: Sorensen: must be regional cooperation, conserve; no one wants to talk about using less.
Question 10: What is the reason for the Water Authority?
A10: Cobb: collaboration, build desal in Mexico and cut back on Colorado river water delivered
Question 11: Dave, do we get more water?
A11: Roberts: there was lots of water in the 1970’s and 1980’s, watershed provided water,
forests produced water (many trees then); SRP working on could seeding in the White
Mountains.
Question 12: It will be a decade before we see desal benefits.
A12: Sorensen: Capital investment, rate of return, conservation better policy in short run.
A12: Cobb: Urgency; must do something now; conservation immediate.
Questions 13: Ag and Tech use lots of water
A13: Lush landscaping down to 10% in Phoenix
A13: The problems on the Colorado river are so vast all must conserve; Ag big user;
Question 14: What do farmers say?
A14: Willing but not able; need incentives to convert from flood irrigation to drip. $20 million for
Pinal County.
Question 15: Is there evaporation of water loss on the canal system. Would solar panels covering the
canals help?
A15: Roberts, yes, loss due to evaporation is large; drinking water so we cannot use chemicals;
looking at solar panels
Q16: Is the water issue party based or urban versus rural?
A16: Abraham: Rep Cobb’s bill usable solution and has the votes;
Q17: Are there people who don’t believe in the water problem?
A17: Cobb: Yes, people who view do nothing as an option. Working with Abraham on bipartisan
bill.
Q18: $1 Billion in bill, how will this be used?
A18: There is a $4-$5 billion surplus, so how do we spend this? What about piping water from
the Mississippi?
Q19: Dave, conservation is water management; how to spend?
A19: California sends effluent to the ocean. Mexico desal. AZ is popular; no natural disasters;
Q20: How should Arizona be pitching itself to perspective employers?
A20: Sorensen: water managers work for stability. Native Americans hand built the canals. Great
quality of life.
Q21: Toilet-to-Tap? How to sell it?
A21: We are already doing it. Water from Las Vegas; many cities working on it; need to invest
more in wastewater. (Note: the person answering this obviously does not know the difference
between DPR (direct potable reuse) and IPR (Indirect potable reuse) and the state of the Arizona
regulations for DPR).
Q22: How to market toilet-to-tap?
A22: Not a PR person.
A22: Roberts: evolving, exists today.
Q24: Rep Abraham, do we need more regulations?
A24:
Q25: Do we need regulations for toilets and showers?
A25: grow dense
A25: Cobb: must show stability
A25: Sorensen: regulations and mandates are ok but pricing does a lot. For example, in Phoenix,
they charge more for water in the summer and over time, there has been a reduction of lawns.
Q26: Pricing water by season?
A26: As pricing increases, use decreases.
Q27: Is the drought the new normal?
A27: Roberts: cycles of 50 to 60 years, extreme heat and wet periods.
A27: Abraham: models should be worst case scenario
A27: Cannot spent 40 years without a new policy?
Q28: Are we remiss in not adding new laws for 40 years?
A28: yes, sad day to see recreation on Colorado river die
Q29: 1980 Groundwater Management Act, not much new since then
A29: Roberts: can share water supplies; 1994 Water banking Authority; Tribal water
settlements; Water Authority will expand tools
Q30: Role of Tribes
A30: very important; they were here first; partnerships; exchanges via pipes reclaimed water for
Colorado River water; partnerships in water infrastructure, not rights
A30: Roberts: conserving water at Lake Meade; work with federal government and stored 1.8
acre feet of water
Q31: Rep Cobb, what are conversations with the tribes?
A31: difficult conversation
Q32: Are we growing the right crops here in AZ?
A32: look at crop switching
Q33: Rep Abraham, would it be in their best interest to change crops?
A33: yes, but they need help.
Q34: If no desal, then what happens?
A34: Must happened before the end of session; hold everyone’s feet to the fire.
A34: Must have this. Conservation bill at a minimum.
Q35: How to incentivize change?
A36: Abraham: Pima County leads in conservation. (He noted his professional involvement in
low-income housing development.)
A36: Cobb: all options are on the table
Q37: Incentives to conserve?
A37: Roberts: use it wisely
Host: End with Rural Management Area Large $$ incentive. Is this enough?
Answer: Maybe Going b to d bad???
Q: where does this put Arizona in 5 to 10 years?
A: Roberts: Health of forest; huge ??; in 5 to 10 years something with Mexico and CA; CAP will
never run dry. (You heard it here)
A: Cobbs: just a start; legislature must step up.
Q: Is there a fear of complacency?
A: Abraham: still more to do even if desal and RMA happen.
Watch video here: https://kjzz.org/water
Sheryl Hamlin’s questions sent prior to meeting: water@kjzz.org
Thank you for organizing this meeting. Water is the most important topic in our lifetimes.
1. What would be the effect of a fast-track rollout of vertical farming on the water use for obvious crops,
such as tomatoes, kale and other green vegetables? Perhaps AZ could also attract new ag business for
these crops. Even coffee is now grown vertically which could be a new market.
2. It has been reported that the water source for the Palo Verde Nuclear plant is problematic. Perhaps
now is the time to migrate to small, modular nuclear reactors that use less water, can distribute the load
and will distribute the security risks (cyberattacks) to a smaller set of customers? Just like the Internet
topology distributed data and risk, we should be thinking about the distribution of energy and risk...
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-
nuclear-power-
reactors.aspx#:~:text=Small%20modular%20reactors%20(SMRs)%20are,production%20and%20short%2
0construction%20times.
3. When I was growing up in Arizona, the mantra was "where water flows Arizona grows". For the past
40 years, the unfettered development policies of Arizona have depleted groundwater, produced
subsidence, and destroyed thousands of acres of carbon sequestering desert vegetation. Maricopa
County is now a heat sink. When will we realize that a pool in every house, a yard with a lawn, and miles
of master planned communities with faux lakes are antiquated concepts?
4. The proposed I-11 road is 2000' wide and consists of miles of asphalt heat sink, water flow disruption
and a path of environmental destruction. The Center for Biological Diversity has issued a statement
challenging the project. https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/lawsuit-challenges-
federal-ok-of-arizona-freeway-that-will-harm-climate-wildlife-public-lands-2022-04-21/email_view/
What will it take to design and embrace transportation planning for the next century? The I-11 as
proposed is a relic of 1950. And every new off-ramp will create acres of sprawl.
5. Waters of the US regulations
https://www.naco.org/advocacy/action-centers/waters-us-action-
center#:~:text=Waters%20of%20the%20United%20States,federal%20and%20state%20permitting%20au
thority....
Counties gearing up for legal battles...this is complex. Is Maricopa County prepared for the new WOTUS
definition?
....The WOTUS definition directly impacts local governments as owners and operators of local
infrastructure, co-regulators and stewards of the environment. Counties own and operate public safety
water conveyances, stormwater municipal separate stormwater sewer systems (MS4), green
infrastructure construction and maintenance projects, water reuse and infrastructure, and emergency
management readiness. Depending on the final definition of WOTUS, counties may need to apply for a
federal permit to maintain or build new infrastructure projects...
6. California is betting its water future on the use of recycled water to be injected directly into drinking
water, even though its own expert committee has said it cannot identify all of the PFA chemicals, cannot
eliminate all virus living in the wastewater and has been unable to quantify the massive amounts of
energy required to recycle all major wastewater operations. Arizona's DPR (direct potable reuse)
project appears to be stalled. Is Arizona waiting for California or will the recycled waste water be used
for other non-potable purposes, which of course will still require processing.
Hamlin – Santa Barbara Ranch Critique
Page 1 | P a g e
November 22, 2021
Dear Maricopa County Supervisors:
RE: Santa Barbara Ranch # CPA2021009
Applicant Justification: Master Planned Communities (MPC) Only Way to Develop
On November 18, 2021, the Applicant of # CPA2021009 presented information to the Maricopa County Planning
Commission which focused on comparing his project “Santa Barbara Ranch” to other MPCs which have been approved.
The Santa Barbara ranch will include 5,000 homes on 1,000 acres with 3,000 square foot lots.
The slide below is taken from this applicant’s presentation to the Maricopa County Planning Commission.
Notable in this slide is the use of the Master Planned Community (MPC), which according to the Applicant, is how
development occurs in Arizona. Names of some of these MPC may be familiar to you:
Spurlock Ranch:
https://roselawgroupreporter.com/2019/10/sources-bill-gates-affiliate-connected-to-west-
valley-land-buy/ 2,800 acres and 8,500 homes
Lake Pleasant:
https://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/content/water-supply-limbo-new-luxury-community-lake-
pleasant 8,711 acres approved in 2006.
Copper Mountain:
https://www.pinalcentral.com/casa_grande_dispatch/area_news/copper-mountain-ranch-a-
community-in-the-making-for-decades-may-have-movement-soon/article_080810f0-7f1f-577d-8449-
476484e30367.html
Douglas Ranch:
https://www.douglasranchaz.com/ 37,000 acres, 100, 000 homes and commercial Although
the website provides no information, there is some detail here: https://patch.com/arizona/phoenix/douglas-ranch-
project-expected-bring-100k-homes-phoenix
Other MPCs mentioned in the Applicant’s presentation:
1. Santa Barbara Ranch
2. Anthem
3. Festival Foothills
4. Douglas Ranch
5. Tartesso
6. Estrella Mtn Ranch
7. Belmont
8. Broadstone Ranch
9. Johnson Ranch
10. Rainbow
11. Lake Pleasant 5000
Hamlin – Santa Barbara Ranch Critique
Page 2 | P a g e
Hamlin – Santa Barbara Ranch Critique
Page 3 | P a g e
Applicant’s Proposed Source of Water
Hamlin – Santa Barbara Ranch Critique
Page 4 | P a g e
The water travels from the City of Surprise Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) via the broken line uphill through the
Walden Ranch Water campus to the Circle City Water Campus to a southern point in the Santa Barbara Ranch. The
sewer in dotted lines takes the same path in reverse. There was no mention if this long trajectory would deplete or
affect in any manner the water at (7) Walden Ranch, (8) Rancho Maria, (9) Broadstone Ranch and (11) Grand Oasis.
And, note that the Circle City Water company was originally destined to support Lake Pleasant. Read about the
condemnation and annexation here: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/surprise/2019/05/23/lake-pleasant-
5000-project-uncertain-surprise-condemns-circle-city-water-rights/3753141002/
It appears that the left hand is stealing from the right hand.
Furthermore, this drawing implies that treated wastewater will be sent up the line at some time in the future, but does
not elaborate. This needs to be clarified.
Project Narrative Speaks Vaguely to Water
The City of Surprise issued a letter/statement that is soley based on what the developer has told the City about the
project according to the applicant:
…..“[t]he solutions currently being proposed appear to provide a logical regional solution for water and sewer in this
area. . . Based on the information provided by the developer to date, the Water Resource Management Department
supports the proposed amendment.”…
Furthermore, the applicant states:
…The City of Surprise Water Resource Management Department provided a letter of support for the CPA which confirms
their belief that the City will ultimately be capable of supplying water to the Property….
The important word in the last sentence is “ultimately”, which is used six (6) times in the applicant’s summary. What is
the plan for reaching this timeline and with what technology? Where are the hydrology studies? It is obvious that the
City of Surprise is aware there are no water studies by telling the reviewers that the information used to justify this
project came from the developer.
Surprise Water Sources Limited
According to Surprise documents, its sources of water are limited: 1) Groundwater for potable water and Colorado for
surface water recharge. 2) The City has limited reclaimed water capability. So by its OWN admission, the path through
several planned and existing communities, up north to the Santa Barbara Ranch is unproven and potentially costly.
…Water System
The City is located in the Phoenix Active Management Area (AMA). The City has two available water resources. Currently,
the city relies solely on groundwater for potable water but also has water from the Colorado River (surface water
provided by the Central Arizona Project) currently used to recharge groundwater. The City also has a limited reclaimed
water distribution system for agricultural and irrigation purposes. Figures 3, 4, and 5 summarize water facilities
throughout the City and within SPA 1 (Figure 4) and SPA 2 (Figure 5)….
Source: https://www.surpriseaz.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21835/Surprise-IIP---Preliminary-Report-and-
Appendix?bidId=
Cumulative Water Usage Requirements for all Approved but Unbuilt MPC
Where is the water consumption plan for each MPC and the cumulative water consumption after each approval? This is
common sense. Who is the keeper of this data for the County and the State?
Hamlin – Santa Barbara Ranch Critique
Page 5 | P a g e
Since 1960 when Del E Webb broke ground on his first Sun City project, there has been a flurry of activity to emulate the
Del E Webb model. In fact, this applicant’s chart shows Maricopa County as a puzzle consisting of MPC’s.
How long do the entitlements for the unbuilt MPC’s last? Considering that this is the first year of water reduction from
the Colorado, this time period is an essential part of the water modeling. Note that Chandler is so concerned about
water they are cutting back or refusing new data centers:
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/chandler/2021/11/22/chandler-wants-ban-more-data-centers-after-
years-complaints/8627569002/?utm_source=azcentral-
AZ%20Briefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=baseline_greeting&utm_term=newsletter_greeting&utm_content
=1531AR-E-NLETTER02
Potable Water Reuse is Decades Away
The Holy Grail of Public Works agencies is Water Reuse. There are standards for non-potable reuse specifically in
landscaping and agriculture. But the standards for potable reuse are years away. Dr. Charles Gerba of the UofA is on the
California Standards team of experts. California leads the way and their team of experts is still debating the regulations.
Arizona is allowing pilot projects for DPR (direct potable reuse) for study purposes only. There are two types of DPR: 1)
water purified to high standards is sent to the city water treatment plant for another processing step and then
distributed and 2) water purified to the new high standards is piped directly into the drinking water system. Both
scenarios are problematic due to the existence of antibiotic resistant bacteria and genes, virus longevity and deadly
microplastic. For non-potable reuse, there are two types: 1) ground water recharge and 2) surface water augmentation.
Read more about this here: https://www.citizensjournal.us/california-toilet-to-tap-criteria/
ADEQ is concerned about contaminants in Arizona drinking water, so how would the addition of treated waste water
exacerbate the solution?
https://static.azdeq.gov/wqd/apec_emerging_cont_final.pdf
Will MPC Survive the Exclusionary Moniker?
Gated communities used to be for the wealthy, but during the last 40 years, the MPC has become known for small,
cookie cutter homes surrounded by country club amenities. But are the high HOA fees a barrier to entry to the working
class? Can teachers afford to live in an MCP?
Here are two articles: a) http://www.newtowninstitute.org/spip.php?article1055 and b)
https://www.millionacres.com/real-estate-basics/what-is-exclusionary-zoning/
The MPC As Investment
The initial developer of the MPC assembles the parcels subject to conditions, but can tie up land for years without much
cash as the pieces of the project are assembled. He then sells blocks of the land to actual builders who will relieve the
MPC developer of some of the debt. Infrastructure for the MPC is passed on to the homeowners through fees and taxes.
The Howard Hughes Corporation (HHC) has a convoluted history. Before Hughes' death, Hughes Tool Company was
IPO'd and the parent company renamed to Summa Corp ("highest" in Latin) who then sold and renamed the remaining
assets to the Howard Hughes Corporation which was subsequently sold to Rouse Company which was sold to GGP and
who then went full circle and spun off the Howard Hughes Corporation (HHC) in 2010. Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Corporation
The MPC is a haven for investors needing tax shelters. The HHC EPS (earnings per share) is officially negative, but
potentially cash flowing over a longer period of time. Thus, the MPC is a favorable development tool for investors, but
may have a problematic future culturally. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/HHC?p=HHC&.tsrc=fin-srch
Hamlin – Santa Barbara Ranch Critique
Page 6 | P a g e
.
Maricopa County as a Heat Sink
There is no question that Maricopa has become the hottest county for most of the year. As more and more MPCs are
built with more and more acres of impermeable surfaces (roofs and roads) and acres of carbon sequestering desert
vegetation removed, there is no stopping the heat or the bad air. The Arizona Corporation Commission (AZCC) is
studying electrification and clean hydrogen as a potential solution, but the Chair realizes that their purview is limited. It
is the local governments who approve the tracts without plans to improve the air. Read the letter from ABAQ, who
states that EV’s and electrification are just one prong of the solution: https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000016507.pdf
Other than ripping out or coating all asphalt roads and roofs, this article suggests other paths to the heat problem:
https://bigthink.com/technology-innovation/la-is-painting-its-streets-white-to-cool-down-the-city/
But, as long as there are no stipulations put on developers to “cool” the MPC, it will be business as usual, because the
cost of creating a “cool” MPC will make the cookie cutter homes unsellable.
Scenic Corridor on Highway 74 Threatened
As shown in the first image from the applicant’s presentation, the project does not extend to Highway 74, but a few
acquisitions could extend the Santa Barbara Ranch MPC to highway 74 devastating the Scenic Corridor, one of the few
left in the state. Please see the following document for a list of incompatibilities with the Scenic Corridor Ordinance:
http://roathdesign.com/azdocs/hamlin_commentary_questions_Santa_Barbara_Ranch_Z2021078_CPA2021009.pdf
Alternatives
The solution to the Heat Sink problem starts with the realization that there is a problem and it has been caused by
unfettered development. What are alternatives to the MPC? The obvious solutions are higher density in urban areas,
specifically repurposing unused or underused commercial or retail centers, such as Metro Center. Require larger and
larger lot sizes as the development moves away from the core urban area, thus proving an escape path for the heat.
Require and build a cumulative hydrology database for the entire county which would include water requirements for
each housing development, pool and commercial building. Require all development covering a certain number of acres
to be analyzed for heat producing elements which would then be offset by the insertion of carbon capturing vegetation.
Stop referring to the proposed Highway 11 as a “smart highway”. There is nothing smart about miles and miles of
impermeable asphalt devastating virgin desert. This whole project should be revisited in terms of what the end usage
will be in 20-30 years. What is now proposed will be considered primitive in several decades.
Detailed Hamlin Commentary Sent to Planning Commission
Please click on this link to find more detailed commentary about the Santa Barbara Ranch:
http://roathdesign.com/azdocs/
Sincerely,
sherylhamlin.com
From:
P.I.C.L. Do Not Reply
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
New Customer Inquiry.
Date:
Wednesday, June 8, 2022 12:14:26 PM
This is a form generated email, PLEASE DO NOT REPLY.
A Customer Request has been assigned to you in the Inquiry Tracking
System.
Customer Name: Ina Dill-Engemann
Preferred Contact: Email
Customer Email: iengemann@yahoo.com
Customer Phone: 6024254957
Description: I live Morristown Az. I am concerned about the water use the traffic and air quality. Adding that many homes
will destroy the water table. As we are continuing to informed we are in a drought. So building a bunch of new homes will
destroy the water table. As well the wildlife habitat that will be destroyed. What is wrong with putting house on all the golf
courses you have. It would conserve water save wildlife habitat and give people the homes they want and need.
Date Received: 6/8/2022 10:00:15 AM
Address: 48432 NW Phx Hwy 60 Morristown Az 85342
Cross Streets:
Review Request
From:
P.I.C.L. Do Not Reply
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
New Customer Inquiry.
Date:
Wednesday, June 8, 2022 11:44:09 AM
This is a form generated email, PLEASE DO NOT REPLY.
A Customer Request has been assigned to you in the Inquiry Tracking
System.
Customer Name: Marilyn ClevelandCleveland
Preferred Contact: Phone
Customer Email: mcleveland0546@gmail.com
Customer Phone: 3082890546
Description: Rancho Maria, santaBarbara, and Walden Ranch need to be limited to 1 home per acre. Water needs, flood
control, wildlife and traffic cannot sustain more than that!
Date Received: 6/8/2022 11:21:23 AM
Address: 22432 W Peak View Rd Wittmann AZ 8536185361
Cross Streets:
Review Request
7/11/22, 1:48 PM
Request Details
https://picl.pnd.maricopa.gov/details?id=27921
1/2
Inquiry #: 27921
Status: Completed
Request Date:
7/11/2022 10:57:36 AM
Inquiry Type:
Land Use Planning and Zoning Applications
Customer:
Jeffrey August
Address:
28213 N 253RD DR, Wittmann, 85361,
WITTMANN, AZ, 85361
Contact Via:
Email
Email:
jeffreyaaugust@hotmail.com
Phone:
16512691019
Description:
PLEASE CONTINUE TO FILL FORM *** CLINK
LINK TO STOP 20,000 homes belong built off grande. This
will take all water and leave with dry wells, pollution, heat
bubble no rain or water & congestion as well as more
crime! Here us tge articles.
https://wickenburgsun.com/.../proposed-morristown.../
https://yourvalley.net/.../plan-for-5k-homes-north-of...
https://www.abc15.com/.../as-homes-move-in-a-rural-
west...
DEVELOPMENT UPDATE... Hi Neighbors😃as
previously posted Santa Barbara Ranch Walden Ranch &
Rancho Maria Developments have now been sent back to
Maricopa Planning and Zoning. We are instructed by Ray
Banker to..
[.submit their comments via the online contact
form: https://apps.pnd.maricopa.gov/contact/ .]
PLEASE
INCLUDE TMZONE & CPA
Walden Ranch - Zone case#
Z2022040 CPA case # CPA2022001
Rancho Maria - Zone
case # Z2022041 CPA case # CPA2022002
Santa Barbara
Ranch - Zone case #(Z2021078) CPA case # CPA2021009
Due to the seriousness of the matter I urge you to please
listen to the Maricopa Board of Supervisors Meeting Video
to hear the objections and reason why Mr Hickman of
Board resended Santa Barbara Ranch back to Planning &
Zoning PRIOR TO FILLING FORM. You will know better
what to focus complaint on.😉 Start it at 48 Min... runs
about 10 min.
https://youtu.be/1Fhu0fBGeLI
*OF COURSE
YOU WRITE YOUR ISSUES WITH DEVELOPMENTS AND
WHAT YOU FEEL IS ACCEPTABLE ON YIUR FORM.
*YOU DO
NOT NEED TO LIVE IN AFFECTED AREA TO FILE
COMPLAINT. ( IT IS ARIZONA’S WATER TGEY ARE
PILLAGING FOR A BUCK)
*PLEASE SEND IN BY JUNE 10TH
SO PLANNING & ZONING CAN SEE OBJECTIONS.
Images
of the 3 developments represented by William Lally's
Tiffany and Bosco Law Firm are attached.
Personally I am
requesting absolutely no homes in Santa Barbara Ranch
Morristown between 60 & 74. No more than 1 home per
acre in Wittmann with only Zeriscape allowed no grass
areas that pillage water, no development just houses 1 per
acre. 5 planted low water desert trees per home to stop
heat bubble, Upgrades to infrastructure to be paid for by
Entered By:
Web Inquiry - 7/11/2022 10:57:36 AM
Division:
Planning
Assigned To:
Rachel Applegate - 7/11/2022 1:48:08 PM
Subject:
Land Use Planning and Zoning Applications
Completed By:
Rachel Applegate - 7/11/2022 1:48:08 PM
Attach Files:
No file chosen
Choose Files
Upload
Notes/Comments:
Received. R. Applegate - Rachel.Applegate
-7/11/2022 1:48:08 PM
7/11/22, 1:48 PM
Request Details
https://picl.pnd.maricopa.gov/details?id=27921
2/2
Resolution/Action
Assign To / Completed By:
Notes / Comments:
Send Confirmation
Save Comments
Re-open Request
Success!
Record has been marked as Completed.
© 2022 - Maricopa County Planning and Development / Environmental Quality
Tiffany and Boscos client Developers so it is not on our
taxes. Second fire department paid for by developers.
Planning and Zoning as well as rfe Board already have my
conplaint... My Issues 1-8...
1. the developer is tapping into
aquifer with a water permit from 2005.
2. 5-6 homes per
acre. (1 home per 1-4 acres is standard in area)
3. building
on open range cattle land.
4. Stripping the desert floor
bare.
5. Protected Wildlife & Vegetation (desert tortoise &
more)
6. Most of Wittmann and all of Whispering Ranch
homes use personal wells that will be quickly depleted
leaving cost of new wells to residents & aquifer dry in a
few years.
7. Heat bubble / pollution are environmental
concerns.
8. Over development during water crisis.
Loc. Address:
28213 N 253RD DR
Loc. X-Streets:
Wittmann
Board of Supervisors:
Related By:
Permit Number:
Parcel Number:
Edit Customer
Department:
Planning and Developmen
Division:
Planning
Subject:
Land Use Planning and Zo
Person:
-------