09.04.2018 Pasco BOCC Meeting - Afternoon Session (2 of 2)

[Music] thank you I'd like to call backdoor to the Board of County Commissioners meeting September 4th item P 12 madam clerk we have proof we do have proof Tampa Bay Times August 15 2018 mr. chairman this is a quasi judicial appeal which means that no new fact testimony may be heard or presented to this board review is limited to the transcript and the record from the Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners may reweighed ensuite asleep resented to the Planning Commission and may modify adopt or reverse legal conclusions and conditions of the Planning Commission to those in the audience please be advised that the Planning Commission's record below as part of the package that's attached to the agenda memorandum for this item if you spoke before the Planning Commission your comments are already in the record and that this board that is before the Board of County Commissioners as to as those comments are contained within the verbatim transcript of the prior hearing if you've submitted an item into the record and plenty Commission such as a picture or petition that too is in the record in front of the board at this time and need not be resubmitted do other presentations shall be as followed an introduction by the county planning staff each appellant representative that would be the pound's representative for pca 1801 followed by the accounts representative for PC 1802 the appellees representative public comment and then rebuttal by the appellant once that is concluded it will be up to this board to consider whether or not to affirm remand add conditions of the conditional of the special exception that is before you each representative of the appellant and the appellation of one hour apiece to be used in a manner of their choosing each member of the public that chooses to speak has three minutes to do so all comments must be combined to the record and made during the Planning Commission hearing or you will be prohibited from speaking this Blair has some additional comments good afternoon commissioners Elisabeth Lera senior assistant county attorney I had a couple of items to take care before we begin the of the appeal hearing first I'd like to submit to the clerk for the record an email dated August 28 2018 for the purposes of disclosure pursuant to section 286 point oh one one five florida statutes in Section 303 point eight of the land of element code which may be construed as some as some as an ex parte communication further if any other commissioners have had ex parte communications other than those already disclosed in the record now would be the time to make those No lastly the appellant subject to Commissioner Oakley participating and voting on this matter stating that he has demonstrated bias and prejudgment of the ultimate adjudicated facts in advance of the hearing on this appeal we have researched this assertion in our of opinion that Commissioner Oakley has not

demonstrated bias and prejudgment of the ultimate adjudicated facts in advance of the carrying on this appeal and he may participate and must vote on the matter pursuant to section one twelve point three one four three Florida Statutes a Commissioner is required to vote absentee voting conflict of interest which is required to be of a financial nature it is not believed that Commissioner Oakley has a voting conflict of interest thank you thank you No good afternoon good afternoon Viviana Martinez Planning and Development Department I am v12 PDD 1283 is an appeal hearing in the name of two separate accounts PCA 1801 Gordon and Kathleen comer and flat road farms C 878 LLC and PCA 1802 under the name of Sandra noble this is an appeal of paying Commission's decision to approve special exception petition number seven 3:09 Mountain View solar project on April 13 2018 the proposed location is in North Central and Northeast Pasco County it is also located in the Northeast and north and east market areas as you can see date city's just south east of the property located the adopted site plan proposes to put site solar panels on the approximately 359 acre property these are some of the types of conditions that were approved during the Planning Commission on April 13th and some of them include site development limitations Pasco County and Swift mud wetland buffer requirements conservation of falls Eagle's Nest some requirements for the height setback and buffers of a survey requirement for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission as well as a United States Fish and Wildlife Service required glare analysis some noise limitations decommissioning plan for the solar panel and some permit requirements aside from that to conditions conditions 13 and 15 have been modified as well to have as well as having two that were added condition 13 will be as follows if the applicant decided to no longer operate the solar energy farm power plant if it ceases to function properly or is abandoned the applicant shall be responsible for the decommissioning of the solar solar plant decommission shall be complete within 180 days following the end of the operations and shall include the removal and dispose of all materials and equipment from the development site in a manner consistent with industry standards and practices this shite site should be restored to the condition that existed immediately following the initial site clearing and grading condition 15 will be the applicant shall obtain and maintain all required county and state permits including but not limited to swift mud and FDEP permits as applicable licences individual health certificates and inspections and temporary use permits the first proposed addition would discuss indefinite indemnification in defense of the county and the second one pertains to exactions also additionally I'd like to say that exhibit a to the order issued by the Planning Commission will be replaced by

overbite revised Exhibit A as an attachment number five on the appeal agenda memo I will now read the alternatives and analysis or the outcomes of the appeal the first one deny the appeal and uphold a special exception based on the Board of County Commissioners determination that a solar energy fire farm power plant meets the criteria in the land development code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan the second one deny the appeal in a pulled a special exception based on the board of the county commissioners determination that a solar energy farm power plant needs the criteria in the land development code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with the added conditions three remand the matter to the Planning Commission for additional evidence and for grant the appeal and overturn the special exception thank you thank you how I'd like to come forward good afternoon mr. chair commissioners my name is Gordon chef 1211 Northwest Shore Boulevard Tampa Florida I represent coordinate Kathleen comer and Platt Road farm 78 LLC the appellant in case PCA 18-0 one I think you decide to and I have a couple of things at the outset mr. chair and I have been in contact with your County Attorney's Office regarding some pre hearing objections that I've had I've made those objections to that contrary to typical procedure they actually already responded to one objection before I made it but I still want to put that in the record and also I have a PowerPoint that I will present and I also will give a record copy of that to your Clerk as well as as well as the PowerPoint itself and I have a motion summarizes my objections which I'll pay into the record at this point we need a motion to thank you I don't know what he's giving away he said the PowerPoint do you have the PowerPoint electronically is well sir you can email that later he's like yes I do I have it together but I think but I do have copies of my of my motion and I guess it will be while the clerk is passing out my pre-hearing objections of motions I'll summarize them for you the first one is a motion to disqualify or form accusal of Commissioner Oakley I'd summarize this in my initial filing which is as part of the record and I provided the case law I would I would just summarize it with one sentence due process trumps any statute due process is a guarantee under the federal and state constitutions if a judge before a proceeding announces what they are going to do that qualifies as being bias of such a degree that the judge should recuse him or herself that is the point it's nothing personal it's just that there was an article published the right after the Planning Commission decision and Commissioner Oakley made a comment and the comment was substantial enough to show that he exhibits bias in this proceeding he favors approval in fact he wants approval and that's what the article shows and that's why in this in this case Commissioner Oakley should

recuse himself and if not he should be disqualified there's a second tier analysis that sometimes has taken when a person who's sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity might want might might be considering recusing themselves and that is called the rule of necessity I did not put that in the in the in the pre hearing objections but if you couldn't have everyone recused himself because then you couldn't act but this is one person you still can act you can still have a quorum and again it's certainly nothing personal it's just that Commissioner Oakley announced his views on this matter before we even had a hearing and for that reason he should recuse himself and we just would make that a standing objection if you're if if there's no action taken the second level of objections is a violation but various violations of due process I've provided our objections to the county attorney's office through this process it didn't just come up today but there are real procedural problems in your ordinance both on its face and as applied one of the simplest items is that there is no definition of who the Appel year of Apple II is the Apple II could be the Planning Commission that's we're appealing the decision we're not appealing the application we're appealing the decision the appellee might be the the applicant well your county attorney's office made what I consider a totally arbitrary decision to make it the applicant but your ordinance doesn't say that and so this is just an incipient decision without any basis in law and under and for that reason there's a violation of due process there's also the need for specificity and the reason for specificity and ordinances is to ensure that there is not an opportunity for arbitrary actions the ordinance is lacking spaces specificity as well as spelled out in my motion and if you look at the if you look at the definitions and procedures there's no fundamental fairness in this process so with inadequate safeguards we are having an unfair hearing today one other thing that you should understand in this process we were you're a very specific process of what we had to do as the appellant we had to file everything that we were going to park you that's not a bad process the problem is the appellee whoever that is gets to show up today and spring their entire art legal argument on us we haven't seen anything that's an unfair process you wouldn't want to go through that process there should have been an easy and there's an easy solution your ordinance should have had a time frame for the appellee once they were defined to file they're responsive pleadings and cite to the record like we were required to do this is a very unfair process and violates due process on the United States and Florida constitutions finally I'll just summarize the third third area of objection was the defective notice somehow between the decision of the Planning Commission and today there's a staff report that says there's a piece of the property being removed

everything that was presented at the Planning Commission hearing showed that piece of property the notice for the original Planning Commission hearing he didn't have that piece of property it's being removed today so maybe that goes away but but I didn't want you to know the reason we filed the objection was because it was improper to approve an or you know an an order and approve that and have a decision where there was a parcel that hadn't been noticed okay so okay let's see you can see our pre hearing objections which I just summarized and we'll go to the next slide slide two we're reserving on rights and proceeding under protest this of course is an appeal of the Planning Commission decision approving a solar farm power plant as a special exception on April 9 and the order was dated April 12 2018 the standards overview which is which which are set forth in four oh seven point one point F of the LDC are the BCC should base its decision on applicable law the BCC should reverse a plankton Commission decision if then there's several possibilities any of which is a basis any conclusions are inconsistent with the code the Planning Commission conclusions are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan including those objectives and policies and the compatibility requirement under the Comprehensive Plan the Planning Commission conclusions are not a proper application of the code to the that's a plan or the Planning Commission conclusions are not a correct interpretation of the code for the Comprehensive Plan and the BCC is entitled to re-weigh the evidence to evaluate consistency with the code of the Comprehensive Plan that you should be familiar with but that's your role this and appellate quasi judicial body today the red outline is the pouch is the is the proposed power plant area the triangle in the lower southeast corner is the parcel that was removed even though it's on every document in the record this is showing where my clients property is located immediately to the west where the black arrows and the black outline are this slide seven is is we're going to we're going to go and take a look at mountain view from the record it's made up of rolling hills open space and agricultural areas and beautiful vistas as stated by my client at the hearing here's a photo submitted the hearing and I'm going to run through some photos that's that's slide 8 slide 9 slide 10 another photo of the mountain view area slide 11 another photo of the mountain view area slide 12 if I'm going faster you want me to slow down I think you're probably all pretty familiar with this so I'll go a little quicker 12 is another photo and here's a photo submitted by Laura Meyers that the Planning Commission needed here's a photo submitted also by Laura Meyers at the Planning Commission meeting number 14 and then we get to what are they asking for it's it's a petition for a solar farm power plant

and you may hear varying terms but it's up to seventy four point nine megawatts on approximately three hundred sixty acres this is their site plan all that blue area is parts of the air is is part of the area or more of the area than I just the photos that's where this power plant would go [Music] what would this propose our solar pallet plant look like from record evidence and testimony well here's a shot of a photo that is showing I think the word is the mo between Rose spray herbicide but the main thing that the purpose of this is to show you what it looks like what would it look like let's look at what the applicants expert said testimony of Ricky Sinha senior scientist with First Solar it would be pretty similar to let's say an airport parking lot you've got a bunch of cars windshields with glare that would be a similar situation to what we have this is slide 19 quotes from dr. Sinha an airport parking lot here's some more examples of solar power plants that were put of the record by the applicants representative Miss wells slide 20 slide 21 shows another example slide 22 is a photo submitted by Laura Meyers showing another example a solar power plant Big Bend 23 PV modules but this is also showing submitted by representative Kate wells an example of a solar power plant page 24 of the PowerPoint more material submitted by Miss wells obviously a large desert like area with a power plant and then Susan mynhardt submitted was this like 25 photos where she showed the area the mountain view area and juxtaposed it with an example of a solar power plant mr. wells also submitted this is slide 26 submitted a florida project disney solar farm 5 megawatts on 22 acres which is a Mickey Mouse head and so he kind of extrapolate that that means it's about 15 of those could fit at Mountain View 15 Mickey Mouse death looking back at their site plan again well the blue area is all of the solar panels if you look way up in the northeast corner of their site plan it's it's tough to read from the slide but that is a substation on about one acre further record typography typography is a key issue before you today interestingly there isn't much in the record about it other than from the objectors the calmer Platte Road farms property has twenty six hundred and fifty three linear feet adjoining the proposed development would be substantially impacted and it sits on a high ridge and overlooks the subject property and the high elevation points range with 225 to 250 5 feet LOL above sea level as stated by mr. kommer neste and his written testimony the subject property mister comer stated on the western boundary of the of the current property has one corner with a high point of 247 feet LOL but this makes up only a small portion of the property and most of the elevation ranges from 140 to 170 feet LOL above sea level the point of looking at this issue of topography and by the way that applicant submitted this starting at slide 29 and all the

way through slide 36 or 7 was good 7 all the way through slide 37 submitted topographic surveys what's interesting the records virtually devoid of any discussion by the applicant of how they are going to direct address the topographic differences of these properties that that is something that should be considered this is the future land use map submitted the record for the solar energy farm power plant in a our district showing the comprehensive plan categories of res one res three and AG slash R this is the zoning district all which is a our requirements are special exceptions slide 40 the special exception may only be permitted in zoning districts where the uses identified as a special exception and is consistent with the future land use classification of the subject property per Section 402 point to point B the standards there's six of them there's two of them at issue in this case the first one is standard one the proposed use shall be consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the adopted comprehensive plan elements or applicable portions thereof and standard for the site upon which the special exception would be located has or will have screening sufficient to prevent interference with the enjoyment of the surrounding properties comprehensive plan policy FLE a one point 10.1 is also a critical part of this review the compatibility requirement and even if the compatibility requirements met section 402 point for a has additional requirements and evaluations that must be made on special exceptions the legal arguments of this following section only apply if ordinance 18 - 18 adopted on June 5 is determined to be unlawful or not retroactive in this manner this section 1 of is is that a solar farm power plant is not identified as a special exception of the AR zoning district and is not permitted or permissible use of the AR zoning district again that only applies with that ordinances determined unlawful or not retroactive rules of statutory construction if you've read through the brief I submit and I cited a number of cases dealing with rules of statutory construction it's important because of the plain meaning of statutes has to be utilized in enforcing or interpreting a statute the plain meaning rule means when a statute is clear and unambiguous the court and in this case the quasi judicial board should use the plain language and avoid rules of statutory construction you have to give effect every Clause and rule a statute should be interpreted to give every effect every Clause in other words you don't ignore something that's there you have to read things in pari materia which means together you have to avoid readings that rendered part of a statute meaningless you have to follow the expressio unius rule which is that the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of the other and under rules of statutory construction and looking at this case that this is not an electrics

and looking at the statute the the code relied upon this is not an electric substation that's not commercial farming and agricultural activities this is not agriculture this is not the cultivation of crops and livestock this is not an accessory use customarily incidental to an electrical substation then we look into the rest of the land development code and utility operations are permitted use of the I 1 and I 2 zoning districts and also and I've cited the sections for you there in contrast utility operations are not recognized as a permitted or permissible use the AAR zoning district alternatively it may be argue that a solar power plant is only permissible as part of an district okay on section two we get into the issue of the proposed solar power plant project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan beginning at slide 45 46 shows you the Comprehensive Plan categories which we discussed earlier the proposed project is a power plant slide 47 it is a power plant according the staff and the applicants expert miss Martinez said the special exception seeks to implement a solar energy farm power plant in an AR agricultural residential district and slide 48 and dr. Sinha the expert for the applicants that the reflectivity of the PV power plant is dependent upon the reflectivity of the panel that's two examples of many subject quotes or exhibits that describe this as a power plant it is a power plant according the notice of the series you look at the notice it says for a solar farm power plant in an AR district is the nature of this request as pavilion what is can you turn that off go outside and the answer is Gordon could you repeat your last statement I was distracted by that yeah what I'm saying is your notice also says that this is a power plant it says that this is a that this is an appeal of an application for a solar farm power plant if you look inside number one and number two they each have that inside the description so the proposed solar power plant project does not consist with the future land-use classifications of the subject property where it's live 51 other rules of statutory construction again power plants are majors public semi public facilities under your comprehensive plan major public semi public uses require either the public semi public future land use classification or specific inclusion in the range of potential uses of another future land use classification this is important because you must first start with the cop against a plan if the comprehensive plan doesn't allow the use then it shouldn't be before you in the first place but if it is before you and your criteria are if it's inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan you must deny it this is what the Comprehensive Plan is saying to you today subject property future land-use classifications are AR res 1 and res 3 power plants including solar farm power plants are not specifically included in the range of potential uses in AR res 1 a reg 3 so the proposed solar power plant project is not

consistent with the future land use classifications of the subject property I think we go on here and say under rules of statutory construction they are major they may have just come back to the same salon no it's continuous major so these are the conclusions the major public semi-public uses require either the public semi public future land use classification or specific inclusion in a range of potential uses the subject property land use classifications we discussed our ARS 1 and res 3 and power plants are not specifically included so the project requires public semi public land uses the conclusions on to your conference plan you also should look at the intent statement of public semi public cause it shows further clear light on this issue and I quote to recognize major existing and programs public semi public facilities primarily those associated with public or private utilities I would suggest to you that's exactly what we have here so the there's in the record there's an effort to argue this is a minor or neighborhood scale project I think it goes without saying that a 359 acre solar power plant project is not made neighborhood scale but I think the record proves that it is not it's not a reasonable argument and cannot be supported by the plain meaning of your comprehensive plan so the proposed power plan is inconsistent Congress have planned goals objectives and policies I'm going to go through these fairly quickly but they are are in the middle I made so hopefully you have read each of those policies and are familiar with them starts with goal F value to protection of rural areas women and enforced policies and programs designed to preserve and reinforce the positive qualities of the rural lifestyle and protect rural communities and agricultural areas an objective f lu 2.1 is preserved rural lifestyles in the northeast Pasco County rural area you can read these specifics but is to protect the existing rural character and ensure the rural life scott stiles preserved for existing residents and remains available for future residents slide 57 is the recognition of the Northeast Pasco County rural area it goes into detail as the county of the paw of the policy of the county that rural areas require approaches to land use intensities and densities rural roadway court or protection for the provision of services and facilities environmental protection and and land development code enforcement consistent with the rural character such areas and then I summarized section 604 of the land development code which talks about protecting the character the world landscape preserving scenic vistas and views and vistas and ensure that on-site development is compatible with the character of the surrounding area so your comprehensive plan requires enforcement of these provisions policy fiu 2 point 1 point 3 is recognition of the planning framework that is just saying you have to look at this as a whole and recognize the rule of

lifestyles in the Northeast Pasco rural area FL you 2.15 forest development of a long term vision this also relates to section 604 of the land development code of the Northeast Pasco rural protection overlay district and then there's if you recall we talked about the topography to point FL you to point one point five slide 16 protection of existing topography I would suggest to you that this project does not protect existing topography tis quite the opposite as inconsistent as policy FL you two point one point 11 rural residential roads is also applicable at Pasco County recognized the importance of rural residential roads now this also is important to just at this point no any one of those policies if violated means this project is in consists of the Comprehensive Plan FL you to point to maintain the economic viability of agriculture production encourage the preservation of agriculture as a viable long and short term use and an asset on slide 62 FL you 2.2.1 agricultural primacy this is important because it applies to the AG land use section in the AGR land-use section of the property and what this what this section means is that it should be that agriculture should be prime prop the agriculture promising rule should apply to those 90 acres on the west side of the property okay finally it's the proposed solar power plant is incompatible the surrounding rural residential area your Comprehensive Plan this is actually overlaps the second section compatibility is required under your comprehensive plans goals objectives and policies at slide 65 and then I've put in the key policy FL you 1.10.10 review all plant amendments rezoning special exception as in this case conditional use applications as necessary for compatibility and retiming review includes evaluation of existing land uses I'll just summarize sub a sub D consideration of existing development patterns C is evaluation of existing proposed and anticipated transitions D is consideration of environmental and cultural features and community characters he is appropriate timing F is analysis of consistency with county policies to limit urban sprawl and protect world neighborhoods emphasis on protect rural neighborhoods G is analysis of consistency with applicable specific area plans this would of course include the Northeast rural protection plan additional compatibility requirements on your land development code you're familiar with them compatibility is defined in your land development code section 604 of the of the land development code regarding the Northeast Pasco rural protection overlay district actually contains specific compatibility measures as you'll see at the end of Section six oh four point one insuring that on-site development is compatible with the character of the surrounding area compatibilities our requirement that what must be met for at every proposed special exception project I mentioned earlier that 402 point four point a of your land development code requires even

further review even if compatibility slide 67 I have summarized the comprehensive plan policies on the northeast Pasco world protection area FL you two point one I'm sorry I fell you objective I'll start the beginning goal FL you two objective FL you two point one policies FL you two point one point one to point one point two two point one point four two point one point five and two point one point eleven which we discussed earlier then we have section 604 on the northeastern protection area calling for preserving and protecting northeast Pascoe's existing rural and agricultural character for existing residents while providing for the area's orderly an appropriate growth to allow future residents the opportunity to enjoys lifestyle and the intent and purpose of this overlay district is quote to protect the character that we're a landscape preserve scenic views and vistas and ensure that on site development is compatible with the character of the surrounding area slide 68 I'm going to go through it and provide the record evidence why this proposed solar plan is aesthetically incompatible aesthetic incompatibility is recognized as a valid legal basis for denial of a special exception and your materials we've cited the case of metropolitan dade county versus section will have a property corporation out of the third district and a review was denied by the florida supreme court for this for for that aesthetic compatibility is a valid legal basis in that case the court said and i quote this fact-based testimony regarding the aesthetic incompatibility the project with the surrounding neighborhood coupled with the site plan elevation drawings and the air of aerial photograph constituted substantial competent evidence supporting denial of the exception that's literally identical to the issues we have before us today you can also see in the materials marion county versus priest which also deals with aesthetic incompatibility being a valid legal basis for denial of of a proposal such as this once again keep in mind you're dealing with 359 acres that whole blue area is all solar panels other than the far northeast corner which is the 1 Acre solar 1 Acre substation looking back at this is what it looks like today this is what is around it 72 once again these are photos that 70 71 72 hour photos you've seen earlier but showing the juxtaposition of the existing conditions in the rural area and then juxtaposed on that you look at slide 73 of what these solar panels will look like 74 an example of what a solar power plant looks like and we suggest to you that the applicant has not met its burden of proof in this matter I will summarize why the appraiser didn't appraise the effective properties including my clients property the appraiser wasn't qualified to evaluate if the power plant was harmonious but that's what he said that's that's not a that's not a valid

basis for approval and is not something he can he was qualified to testify on the planner they had failed to establish consistency with the Comprehensive Plan or compatibility they analyzed the project as a substation the project is not a substation it's much more than just a substation the substation occupies about one acre a very small part of the overall 359 acres and the planners testimony was based upon facts and inferences not supported by the evidence and the planner relied upon other experts which were discredited including the appraiser the economists they presented presented testimony was totally irrelevant not a basis for approval the landscape architect did not demonstrate for standard for the special exception requirements that the site would be located has or will have screening sufficient to prevent interference with the enjoyment of surrounding properties and dr. Sinha force establishing the incompatibility project he testified the 359 acre project would look like and I quote an airport parking lot you bunch of cars windshields and glare that would be similar that would be a similar situation to what we have so what conclusions do we have the proposed solar power plant is incompatible with the surrounding rural agricultural area to the proposed solar power plant it's inconsistent the goals objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan three the proposed solar power plan is inconsistent with the future land-use classifications on the subject property for the so the proposed south solar power plant project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and land development code protections accorded to the Northeast Pasco world protection area and five the proposed solar power plant project will not have screening sufficient to prevent interference with the enjoyment of the surrounding properties and there's two special exception standards we talked about them earlier that are not met standard one this it's not consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the adopted comprehensive plan elements or applicable portions thereof and standard for the site upon which the special exception will be located does not and will not have screening sufficient to prevent interference with the enjoyment of the surrounding properties the request for relief today is that you reverse the Planning Commission decision and second that you deny petition number of SC seven 309 and I'll put a copy of this PowerPoint presentation in the record thank you with the the other palate like to come for please good afternoon mr. chairman board my name is Rena Fraser of marina Frasier Law PLLC to 0:02 West Cleveland Street Tampa Florida and I represent Sandra noble appellant with PCA 18 - OH - as expressed on the screen we are asking that special exception application number seven 3:09 the mountainsoul review project be reversed and that the application be denied before I start and

get to the substance of the appeal I'd like to go through some of the preliminary objections that Miss Blair discussed we have discussed these with the county attorney but I want to make sure that they're on the record we object to Tico being listed as the appellant the staff informed us that they have designated Tico as the alleged appellant for this matter and we dis Frasier I just don't mean dinner afloat but the appellee I'm sorry generally thank you Thank You commissioner as the appellee we must agree that the County Attorney's sorry I'm sorry County Attorney we disagree we believe that the Planning Commission is the appropriate appellee as it's the planning decisions order that we are appealing not the initial application we object to the initial staff presentation because we believe that the county is the appellee we don't believe that the county should be giving the substantive initial presentation to the board for consideration we object to the combined agenda item this is something that we discussed with miss Blair each each of pellet in this matter had to submit their own appeal feed lose $2,500 submit their own brief do their own public notice yet we've been put on the same agenda on the same item and when we give them one ruling from the board we objected to that at the outset we object to tico being given equal speaking time to the appellant teeka was given 75 minutes when they presented this special special exception use application to the Planning Commission and my client was giving be a public comment to oppose it and submit substantial competent competent evidence and opposition's tico is now being given an hour equal to our time in this appeal hearing and we believe that that's giving Tico a second bite at the Apple giving them a distinct advantage in this appeal and we object to that procedure that's inherently unfair we believe it violates due process we also objected Tico not having to submit a brief with its citations to the record in advance of this appeal as you've heard as the appellant we had to submit of brief with their citations in June which was months before this hearing we have no idea what Tico's position is on this appeal because they did not have to present a brief with citations to the record I bring that up because to the extent that Tico and their one-hour speaking time brings up something in the record that we I can't verify immediately whether it's in the record I'm gonna ask for a continuance if I believe it's necessary to identify whether it's in the record or if they bring up any arguments that we have not had a chance to review or research I'll also object to that so we have a stating objection to that procedure we also reiterate and adopt the objections to Commissioner Oakley based on the statements that he made to the media we do believe that they present bias I know that Miss Blair discussed it but we would have a

standing objection to this voting on this matter I will say I apologize for any redundancy in the presentations today I realize that I'm going second in this appeal and I have respectful of the board's time but I also want to make sure that our points are being made in our on the record I before I begin I'd also like to point out that on June 5th this board approved ordinance 1818 an amendment to the land development code allowing solar power collection facilities has a special exception use in and among other zoning categories agriculture residential zoned property on August 29th 2018 miss noble thought a petition with this county to start the appeal process pursuant to Florida statute 163 point three two one two three to challenge the approval of that ordinance I'd like to reserve any unused time rebuttal and I'm gonna try and operate this PowerPoint as I go through my outline miss noble lives at 15400 xia rich Lane in Dade City Florida in a beautiful area of Pasco County that consists of unique rolling hills and scenic Vista her property is nestled on the left side of the screen here in the first Ridge if you're heading north heading south on the project outline adjacent to my clients property to the north and the east is property that's currently undeveloped in zone agricultural residential with a future land use designation of res 1 rest 3 and agriculture residential within the scenic rolling hills and unique rural landscape the elevation of some of these areas reach over 240 feet above sea level and they comprise some of the highest elevations in the area Pasco County in its residents agreed that this beautiful area with its natural rolling vistas and scenic view shed is unique and worth protecting and preserving to preserve its unique characteristics in addition to the AR zoning designation Pasco County created the Northeast Pasco County rural area overlay district to safeguard the property and surrounding areas and the photos on the screen that you've heard were presented by bordick Homer at the Planning Commission Planning Commission meeting of the area that we're discussing these protections were implemented and detailed in the comprehensive plan and codified in Pasco County's land development code as I will discuss later the comp plan and LDC provide protection to the residents of Pasco County as well as notice to the property owners and developers that the rural and agricultural qualities and lifestyle this area are important and preserved we are before you today because Tampa Electric Company has sought and the Planning Commission has approved the industrialization of three hundred and fifty acres of this protected area in violation of the comp plan and the LDC by turning it into a power plant and drastically changing the beautiful and unique characteristics and topography that the zoning and overlay designation protect unfair you if you want if you just let's go I mean it's what time it's been on the record

since James on February 15 2018 an application for special exception use was submitted to construct and operate the electric generating solar-powered plan on the property adjacent to an existing neighborhood in my clients home to be owned by Tico on the screen is a picture of a solar power plant that was submitted as an example by Tico to the Planning Commission this power plant will utilize three hundred and fifty acres of this beautiful land to construct over four hundred thousand photovoltaic solar panels and related electric generation facilities to generate up to seventy four point nine megawatts of power the proposed power plant will be flanked with six foot tall security fences and close with 12 inches of barbed wire the power plan is alleged to serve not just Pasco County residents but residents outside of Pasco County as well this is a picture of the site plan that we're all familiar with showing the three hundred and fifty acres where these photovoltaic plant so low power plants will be located if constructed the rule characteristics and topography of the scenic beautiful property will be significantly altered in violation of Pascoe's land development regulations and comprehensive plan the power plants panels will be visible by residents from the roads and on elevated were areas and hills hence the name Mountain solar View is not a misnomer that would be the view that the residents have the elevation of this land is such that the panel's cannot be hidden this is a rendering submitted by Tico of flat Road post development in which solar panels shown on the land to the left of the picture are visible on April 9th 2018 the Planning Commission held a special exception use application hearing a significant number of community members spoke in opposition to the application at the hear and including my client miss Noble I have citations and my appeal to testimony on the record that is of consequence at least one one resident discussed how their property is an elevation of 225 feet above sea level with a view that would look down on this property the entire hillside from either side of Blanton Road is visible and a resident estimated that approximately 40% of the solar panels will be visible the Planning Commission despite the opposition approved the special exempted special exception application with a 6 to 3 vote prepared they prepare the order did April 13 2008 and set forth its findings and reasonings when I go back for a second in approving the special exception application we have the Planning Commission has approved a change in topography use density aesthetics and function from scenic rolling hills to 400,000 solar plants adjacent to an existing neighborhood any protected area and that is what we are appealing my clients properties adjacent to this area on two sides the north and the east and the approval of the Planning Commission is devastating and irreversible and deprives her of the full use and benefit of her property but it's more than that it's in violation of

the land development code of the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commission's decision to approve it should be reversed in a summary what the Planning Commission found the Planning Commission determined that the three hundred and fifty acre powerplant was a uncertain classification under the land development code and determined that it had uses similar to commercial farming and agricultural activities and utility substations this was an error and I will discuss that using the plain language of the land development code itself the Planning Commission gave an alternate finding that the 400,000 electric generating solar panels are an accessory use incidental to a utility substation which is unreasonable now would dispel that as well the order goes on to allege that the special exception use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the power plant generates less than 75 megawatts of power and thus under the power plant siting act it is not a major public so my public use that requires a public semi public land use designation that finding is erroneous and nonsensical and I will discuss it the Planning Commission also founded it was consist with a minor or neighborhood scale public semi-public provisions of residential agricultural residential future land use designations because it has low to no impact at the local level in terms of infrastructure and services I will discuss how the power plan is actually not minor or of neighborhood scale using the Express and plain language of the Comprehensive Plan itself lastly the Planning Commission allege that the comprehensive plan at fo u 3.2.2 specifically permits private electric public utilities needed to support growth in all land use designations subject to certain criteria I will discuss how that certain and important criteria has not been satisfied we are requesting that this board reverse the PCs order approving special exception application number seven three zero nine and deny the application here is the standard for a review one this is a special exception use standards the applicant had the burden of proving with competent substantial evidence that the use was consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan elements or applicable portions thereof that the site upon which the special exception is to be located has or will have screening and buffering sufficient to prevent interference with the enjoyment of surrounding properties and that the proposed signs and lighting will not create any adverse glare or adversely affect traffic safety economic value which is important or cause other significant problems on adjoining surrounding properties and here is the appeal standard as we've discussed the board in deciding based on applicable law and applicable applicable facts of the record can reverse the Planning Commission's decision as well as modify or condition it and their review is not as not as based on but not limited to

conclusions and conditions relating to the consistency with the comp plan in the code relating to the application of the facts to the code in the comp plan reweighing the evidence and evaluating the consistency with the coded comp plan and interpretations of the code and the comp plan the word shalt is mandatory and not discretionary as used those provisions competent substantial evidence competent evidence is defined as evidence sufficiently relevant and material to the ultimate determination that a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to support the conclusion reached substantial evidence provides a factual basis from which a fact that issue may be reasonably infer this is important when we're talking about citizen and expert testimony citizen testimony together with materials in the record in a zoning matter are perfectly permissible and constitute substantial competent evidence evidence so long as it is fact-based in that same vein generalized statements even from an expert should not be considered all relevant fact based statements whether export or not are to be considered we have three points on appeal the power plan is not consistent with the cops plans goals objections and policies nor of the LDC which implements the comprehensive plan the power plant will cause a decrease in economic value interfere with the enjoyment of and cause other significant problems to adjoining or surrounding properties and the Planning Commission's order lacks confident substantial evidence of compliance with the legal requirements to begin what is the solar power plan what is its proper zoning designation the solar power plan is a major utility in Tico's own words the solar power plant is an electric generation facility that will employ photovoltaic panels that absorb sunlight and directly produce electricity it will encompass 350 acres the painters will call panels will cover over 200 acres of that property and generate electricity that will service areas that include residents located within and outside of Pasco the LDC defines major utilities as facilities such as electric generation plants that service multiple developments thus given the plain meaning of the term the solar power plant is classified as a major utility under the land development code the LDC unequivocally provides in Section 522 that major utilities are permitted within master plan development districts in PUD s as a permitted use the LDC does not expressly expressly permit major utilities in any other zoning district whether as a permitted conditional or special exception use further according to the LDCs section five oh two point five even if a major utilities classification was somehow deemed uncertain subsection B provides that it would be construed as belonging under the zoning district in which it is more specifically identified that is the MPU d zone e district consistently consistently the LDC I'm not sure how this aside on that the LDC further dictates that projects greater than 100

acres located in Ag are land use classification property NPU DS zoning I have that provision up on the screen your land development code provides that where any provision of the code it poses greater restrictions upon the land use than the general provision imposed by this code the provision imposing the greater restriction or regulation shall be deemed to be controlling in a court to develop the solar power plant in Pasco County it is a major utility classification and the applicant must proceed to through the EM PUD zoning district and provisions that makes sense and here's why placement of electrical electrical utilities near residential areas solar or otherwise has long been a source of controversy accordingly the land development code and the comp plan require that placement of any new power plants and transmission transmission lines be consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the comp plan and as part of a master plan unit development which has a stricter process and regulations the special exception use application should have never been accepted much less approved in an area zoned AR and residential coming back to the standards of the special exception application and this appeal the proposed use had to be consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the adopted comprehensive plan and this board as we discussed has the power to review that consistency ticos development of the power plants image utility cannot be approved on lands owned a are a residential within the protected northeast preservation area by a special exception use application those uses and zone ian's are inconsistent with the complain of the LDC provisions designed to implement the comp plan what are the relevant goals objectives and policies of the comp plan i've listed them in the appeal and cited to them and given some additional explanation as to why they're inconsistent but here are the forty-one elements of the comprehensive plan that this project is inconsistent with and there is no competent substantial evidence of record that shows its consistency with these provisions there are some that I'd like to highlight in particular FL you to FL you to has a goal for protection of rural areas it's entitled protection of rural areas and mandates the enforcement of policies designed to protect rural communities and agricultural areas the comp plan amplifies these protections for the northeast Pasco County's rural area as depicted on map 2/3 of the Comprehensive Plan this and additional maps are attached to the appeal and the appendix as an expressly stated goal of the comp plan it has a purpose to implement and enforce policies and programs designed to preserve and reinforce the positive qualities of the rural lifestyle and protect rural communities and agricultural areas the comp plan defines a rural area as the Northeast Pasco rural area which is delineate by the special area boundaries boundaries denoted in this map the first state objective is dedicated specifically

to the Northeast preservation area entitled preserve role lifestyles in the Northeast Pasco County rural area the objective provides that Pasco County is obligated to protect the existing rule character of this area and thereby ensure the rural lifestyle is preserved for existing residents and remains available to future residents the comp plan goes on to delineate 18 separate policies to implement the preservation of this goal and objective an important one is the protection of existing topography this calls for standards that limit topographic alterations within the preservation area in order to maintain and protect the integrity and natural rolling vistas and scenic view sheds this is the language directly from the comprehensive plan in limit topographic alterations that would remove the unique vistas of the area's naturally occurring firms or hillsides that provide unique vistas of the area and function as buffers topography is defined as the configuration of a surface including its relief and the position of its natural and man-made features this is not to be confused with elevation which is defined as the height above sea level in addition the comp plan as I've set forth greater and they appeal but I will just briefly stay it costs the regulation of non-residential design standards and lighting standards and protection of scenic roadways it's undisputed and admitted by the county that development property is located within this protection protected area thus the powerplant must be consistent and compatible with these provisions that is nowhere in the record it's not addressed in the record in fact the competent substantial evidence shows that is inconsistent with this provision of the Comprehensive Plan I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this but we we've discussed how the future land uses doesn't as agriculture residential residence res 1 and res 3 agriculture residential intent is to maintain rural and agricultural character in a perfect areas and to minimize infrastructure needed in those areas to accommodate future development general range of potential uses culture residential rural residential uses mining industrial industrial uses small commercial uses related to the agricultural use of the property and recreational facilities and if you go through res one and rs3 this power plant is inconsistent with those uses and that's inconsistent with the comprehensive plan to the contrary the power plant is a major public semi public facility as defined by the comprehensive plan I've put the actual language on the screen here under public's my public facilities the major publics my public facilities power plants is expressly listed in plain clear language I want to briefly address future land use section 3.2.2 which is titled private utilities it provides that private electric utilities may be permitted in on land use designations subject to the following it shall be consistent with the goals objectives and

policies of this comprehensive plan under 3.2.2 subsection a provides the county is to encourage electrical transmission lines and related facilities sightings to be located outside sensitive land areas and areas of special concern in accord with the comp plans provisions for special protections and preservations pertaining to the northeast Pasco preservation area that land is an area of special concern further electric transmission corridors and similar facilities are prohibited through and immediately adjacent to existing neighborhoods to protect the integrity of existing neighborhoods and industrial uses adjacent to residential land use categories are limited to protect residents from the adverse impacts of vibrations light glare and noise the power plan is proposed to be developed next to an existing neighborhood in an area of special protection and concern that's the Northeast Pasco rule protection area and a major utility is inconsistent with the goals objections of policies designated for that rural area so in conclusion that powerplant is inconsistent with the comp plan in those 41 areas that I've listed and particularly with element 2 sorry this is 3.2.2 that I just discussed not only is that inconsistent I'll briefly go through this with the comp plan but because the LDC implements the comp plan it's also inconsistent with the land development code I've put forth the provisions on the screen it's also set forth in the appeal AR r1 and r3 the power plan is inconsistent with those designations and I specifically want to point out that the land development code has implemented the northeast pastoral protection area major utilities are not permitted conditional or special exception uses within that area even if they were they stuff to be consistent with the comp plan which we discussed it is not for this next section I want to re-emphasize that the board has the power to re-weigh the evidence to evaluate consistency with the code and if particularly as it relates to sections 4 & 5 subsections 4 & 5 of the special exception use standards which are the cite that the special exception is located has or will have screening and buffering sufficient to prevent interference with the enjoyment of surrounding properties that the proposed signs and Lighting's will not create any adverse glare or adversely affect traffic safety economic value or cause other significant problems evidence submitted of records shows that the power plant will cause a decrease of economic value interfere with the enjoyment of and cause other significant problems to adjoining or surrounding properties and interfere with the enjoyment of surrounding properties I have put in the appeal that we submitted citations to the transcript which was also included with the appeal but what I want to briefly discuss as some of the evidence of record there was no competent substantial evidence of the effect from the applicant of the effect

on the value of the property surrounding this power plant development next to an existing neighborhood however there is testimony from a realtor on the record who based his knowledge of and worked in the surrounding area he testified about the likelihood of decreased desirability and value of property located in the vicinity of the power plant and visibility of the power of the solar panels a neighboring homeowner whose home is for sale testified that prospective buyers inquired about this future development of the power plant there is no record no evidence of record regarding the opinion of value of the actual lands affected by the proposed project there are as evidence testifying about values how it affected in other lands outside of Pasco County in fact other states nothing specifically held affect the value of the property there is evidence to the contrary by the homeowners that testified additionally the topography of the land and scenic views of the hills will be altered and covered with panels there's testimony that I briefly referred to earlier and that's more that's set forth in my appeal with citations where residents have testified that the topography will in fact be impaired I think it's evident based on the pictures as well that the topography will be prepared by the construction operation of this powerplant lastly what I want to discuss is the basis for the Planning Commission's decision as you recall the Planning Commission approved this order on the basis that the powerplant is of uncertain classification which we've discussed it's not it's a major utility and that because it's of uncertain classification they had to evaluate the similar similar characteristics under 505 they've under the land development code they found that the similar care that the power plant has similar characteristics to a commercial farm and agricultural activities and utility substations uncertain classifications are only to be taken into consideration if there is uncertainty as to the classification of use or the zoning district to reiterate as I discuss there is no uncertainty it's a major utility in the zoning district as an MP UD however even if that were not the case the Code provides that if they use has characteristics similar to more than one classification they you shall be construed as belonging to the classification providing for the more intense use of the property and if they use is specifically described in another zoning district the you shall be construed as belonging to the zoning district in which it is more specifically identified the Planning Commission found that the solar power plant is similar to a commercial farm I've put the information for a commercial farming directly from the land development code these are things such as citrus groves forestry plant nurseries shed stables barns nothing like a power plant in fact the definition of a farm operation are all

activities by owner lessee agent independent contractor or supplier which occur on a farm in connection with the production of farm products on the screen are definitions of agriculture and agricultural support uses I don't need to go through them because we know that they do not describe a power plan the solar power plant is also not similar to a utility substation as a special exception use the LDC expressly excludes power plants from the definition of an electric substation it's an assemblage of equipment for purposes other data generation or utilization through which electric energy and bulk is passed that specifically includes an electric generation facility like the power plant it is unreasonable and arbitrary to conclude that a major utility especially when that is 350 acres in size can be located anywhere that an electric substation is permitted which is most of the zoning districts in the code the special exception use application was submitted based on a determination letter as I've put here on the screen making a determination that the public and that the application should go through the special exception use process because it is similar to a public and private substation for utilities as we've discussed that's an erroneous determination based on the actual plain language of the land development code in contrast I've put on the screen the definitions for industrial and industrial use the solar power plant absorbs sunlight a raw material to produce electricity a finished good for procuring area gain and they're similar characteristics to an industrial use so not only as a power plant specifically defined as a major utility in the land development code but if it is similar to any use it is out of an industrial nature thus the more intense use is the industrial use not commercial farming agriculture electric substations the PC the Planning Commission further goes off goes on in the order to allege that the special exception use is consistent with the comp plan because it is a power plant that generates less than 75 megawatts of power that's on the bottom of the screen and this is not a major public so my public use that requires public's in my public land use designation the Planning Commission relies on the power plant siting act for making that decision however the solar power plant zoning is not governed by the power plant power plant siting act it is governed by Florida Statute 163 which requires consistency with the comp plan utilizing the power plant siting act is unreasonable and contrary to law this act is for purposes of certification for the plant and as you can see as highlighted in yellow under subsection 14 this is what the Planning Commission relied on the electrical power plant means for purposes of certification a facility less than 75 megawatts and capacity unless the applicant for such a facility elects to apply for certification under this act thus a

company that is produced is constructing a power plant that does not generate 75 megawatts or more may not be defined as an electric power plant under this act unless they opt to go through the siting process under this act so therefore you're allowing the applicant to choose whether there going to be an electric power plant in this act by incorporating this or by relying on this for the definition of power plant in your land development code that's unreasonable and unreasonable interpretation it's inconsistent with your develop land development code that specifically defines the power plant the comp plan defines public's and my public facilities as we've discussed I put it up on the screen it's in conjunction and in coordination with the land development code as a major utility so there's no confusion about what this power plan is classified as and what zoning it falls under in conclusion the power plant is a major utility it's a major public semi public facility of the comprehensive plan under the land development code it has to go through the in PUD zoning it violates the comp plan and the LDC it was erroneously approved as a power plan the AR zoned area as a special exception competent substantial evidence shows inconsistency with the comp plan and the LDC it will cause a decrease in economic value of the property interfere with the enjoyment of the property and caused others so they could get proper problems to adjoining and surrounding properties it did not go through the NP UD zoning process the application should not have been accepted in the first place much less approved the PC order approving seven 3:09 should be reversed in seven three oh nine the application should be denied thank you [Applause] folks if you could and I have always been respectful I'll continue to be respectful and you applauding we can't vote on that that has nothing to do with our voting today so please we're gonna have to give everybody time each of you are gonna have time and I appreciate you not applauding and after everybody's done thank you okay so happily please good thank you good afternoon mr. chairman honorable members of the commission I'm Kate Wells with Trenholm law 101 East Kennedy Boulevard suite 2700 in Tampa Florida it is my honor to appear before you on behalf of Tampa Electric Company present this afternoon and available to answer any questions you may have with respect to the testimony and evidence presented to the Planning Commission on April 9th on behalf of Tampa Electric Company markquart director of renewables John rich avian professional engineer with First Solar dr. Sinha director sustainable development environmental and a senior scientist with for solar thomas cleveland solar photovoltaic engineer with advanced energy in Raleigh North Carolina Richard Kirkland certified appraiser with Kirkland appraisals Stephen Shriver senior associate with Fishkin and

Associates like James Beatty registered Landscape Architect with booth design group and Cynthia Terra pani a professional urban planner with Florida design consultants incorporated we thank you for the opportunity to respond to the appeals filed on the filed from the Planning Commission's April ninth approval of our application for a special exception until I was told our power generation facility before I get started with the substantive presentation I wish to first address certain procedural issues raised by mr. Schiff and the comer appeal and formally object on the record in footnotes 3 & 9 mr. Schiff challenges the fact that neither Chris Hughes or a representative with ESA renewables or the acting assistant director of the Planning and Development Department were present to the hearing and thus not subject to cross-examination at no point during the Planning Commission hearing did he ask if any of you individuals or entity were present or available for cross-examination and by failing to do so I submit he waived his right to raise this on appeal notwithstanding and Viviana Martinez were both present spoke to mr. Hughes administrative interpretation and were available to answer questions regarding sane mr. Shipp on page 12 of the appeal attempts to introduce Gordon comers testimony as an expert in zoning however at no time during the Planning Commission hearing was mr. Coomer tendered or accepted as an expert in zoning the zoning process or the Comprehensive Plan the description of mr. comers testimony on page 13 of the appeal with respect to the project's alleged inconsistency with comprehensive plan and land development regulations and diminishing property values cannot be accepted as expert testimony the description of testimony provided by other concerned citizens on page 13 of the appeal and of Gregory ostrich Steven Turan Joel Koston Pat Weaver Alma Koston Suzan mynhardt Laura Meyers Robert Dammers Karen de Stefano and Molly Rafael Mendez Diane Hollinger and Crum regale Perez Marc Benson and David Bowen on pages 14 and 15 of the appeal does not constitute expert testimony as such individuals were not tendered nor accepted as expert witnesses by the Planning Commission on page 16 of the appeal mr. Schiff proposes that the testimony of neighboring property owners and concerned citizens established certain conclusions while such testimony was offered during the hearing the Planning Commission did not make any finding that their testimony established the conclusions proposed by mr. Schiff in footnote 24 and 25 mr. Schiff challenges our experts qualifications however he did not raise the challenge during the Planning Commission hearing and cross examined only one expert Richard Kirkland Schiff waived the right to raise this on appeal by not raising it during the Planning Commission hearing I will point to the transcript on page 92 24:00 I asked that individuals who spoke on behalf of the applicant be tendered

as expert witnesses on page 93 line 16 Ann Goldstein well let me just ask does anybody in the audience one subject to any of the experts by the applicant as being qualified as expert witnesses page 93 line 24 for the record Gordon Schiff one two one one northwestward bolívar suite 315 tampa florida i'm here on behalf of born comer and also Platt Road farms but my question for you is just to clarify something you're asking to qualify experts are we going to have opportunity to cross-examine in them on anything they said page 94 of the transcript line 7 attorney Goldstein you can cross-examine them on your time I'm just asking do you have any objections to them being qualified as expert witnesses on page 94 line 13 courtship not at this time on page 94 line 17 the Planning Commission's motion to qualify our experts was passed unanimously in footnote 25 mr. Schiff claims that Florida design consultants report and our binder of evidence was not properly introduced into the record of the hearing and that he did not have sufficient time to review mr. Schiff failed to raise any objections about documentary evidence during the Planning Commission hearing in the transcript online I'm sorry on page 22 line 19 I confirmed that the binder had been filed with the county on April 2nd in advance of the April 9th Planning Commission hearing the binder was public record as of April 2nd and a copy could have been obtained by mr. Schiff on page 93 line four of the transcript the Planning Commission received and filed our PowerPoint presentation our binder of evidence supplemental materials filed during the hearing with regard to the noble appeal miss Frazer references testimony provided by Walter Climaco former Pasco County Planning technician Zoning Administrator and Community and Development Director at no time was he tendered or accepted as an expert witness by the Planning Commission and I object to attachment VIII of the noble appeal the email communications were not part of the record established during the Planning Commission hearing mr. Dammers is not a representative ELINT in this proceeding and so I don't know what use those email communication serves also since my ability to provide a rebuttal has been removed from the order of today's hearing I object and advance to any evidence or testimony provided by the public that is outside of the record of the Planning Commission hearing with regard to the additional or modified conditions of approval that staff presented into the record earlier today for the record modified condition number 13 and number 15 are acceptable to my client proposed condition number 19 is not acceptable I previously advised miss Blair on two separate occasions that this condition was not acceptable and we asked that it be removed in its entirety with regard to proposed condition number 20 the first 12 lines are not acceptable when I discussed including a hold harmless agreement provision as a condition of approval this language had not previously been provided to me what

we will agree to is the language that starts at the very end of line 12 where it says in the event of any legal challenge if applicant operates pursuant to this special exception permit applicant understands and acknowledges that applicant is operating at its own risk the language following on the fourth page of the agenda memorandum is acceptable the kommer appeal is framed along two lines of argument the first the proposed solar project is not a permitted or permissible use in the AR zoning district and was thus beyond the Planning Commission's of to hear and decide as a special exception and the second line of argument is that the proposed solar project is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan inconsistent with or does not otherwise meet the standards and criteria in the land development code and it's incompatible with the surrounding area and thus we fail to meet our burden of proof the noble appeal is framed along three lines of argument one the special exception application is fundamentally inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the land development code to the proposed use will cause a decrease in economic value interfere with the enjoyment of and caused other significant problems to a joining of surrounding properties and three the Planning Commission's analysis and approving the special exception application is unsupported since Solar is not a permitted special exception or accessory used in the Arizonian district and the Planning Commission failed to address the applications consistency with the Comprehensive Plan the issues raised in the appeals are similar the appeals challenge staffs interpretation which allowed a solar facility to be considered as a special exception and challenged the applications compliance with the applicable standard of review the special exceptions let's take the first issue challenging staffs interpretation which allowed us to move forward with the application for special exception I submit to the Commission that this issued is rendered moot by the action taken by this Commission on June 5th 2018 when it unanimously approved ordinance number 18 - 18 staffs interpretation of the land development code in support of ordinance number 18 - 18 is the same interpretation and analysis which allowed the application for special exception to be considered by the Planning Commission when the Commission approved this ordinance it accepted staffs conclusion that a solar electric power collection facility and substation under 75 megawatts in capacity is a minor public semi-public facility that is an allowable use in all future land use classifications the ordinance amended section 505 point 5 to expressly permit solar electric power collection so ladies and substations to be considered as a special exception in certain zoning districts including the AR zoning district and it defines solar electric power collection facility or solar farm

I won't go ahead and read the definition it's rather lengthy finally the ordinance was intended to be remedial in nature to clarify existing law and as such applied retroactively lis to all applications or appeals pending as of the effective date of this ordinance the administrative review file last week does not affect the validity of the ordinance or any development order issued pursuant to the regulations contained in the ordinance and this is citing statute 163 point 3 2 & 3 subsection 9 I respectfully submit ordinance number 18 - 18 renders moved the first line of argument presented by comer and the first and part of the third lines of argument presented by noble in response to the second general issue raised in the appeals I'm going to spend the majority of my time walking you through the testimony and evidence presented by our team of expert witnesses and your staff which established by clear and convincing evidence that the special exception application is consistent with the comp plan is consistent with and meets the standards and criteria in the land development code and is compatible with the surrounding area this will be in response to the second line of argument presented by comer and the second and part of the third lines of argument presented by noble as I go through the record of the Planning Commission hearing I will first sight to the PDF link as it appears on today's agenda followed by the tab in our binder of evidence and applicable the page and line of the transcripts I'm taking one item out of order and that is the overview of the solar project because that is something you've not yet heard today the consistency and compatibility analysis and actually if staff could put a the concept plan the site plan that we had submitted that is that was included in your presentation [Music] thank you the consistency and compatibility analysis prepared by Cynthia Terra panning and Justina by chef ski with Florida design consultants provides a detailed overview of the proposed solar facility the written analysis starts in the PDF labeled part 9 page 3 and continues on part 10 page 25 which is tab eight of our binder the project is composed of three major components photovoltaic panels inverters or transformers and a substation the photovoltaic or solar panels are arranged in rows to collect the solar energy the panels are arranged and arrays each of which is approximately 15 acres in size each array contains an inverter or transformer to convert and transmit the solar energy to the substation the substation then transfers the created electricity to the existing Tampa Electric transmission lines on Frazee hill road and ultimately into the electric power grid the solar panels will be grouped in a race and proposed to be located on both sides of blanton road with an inverter or transformer for each array the unmanned substation is the only building proposed for the site

and will be located in the northeast corner of the site on the south side of Frazee Hill Road the substation site is approximately 25,000 square feet in size or point six acres and the maximum size of the substation building will be 500 square feet on-site employees are not necessary to monitor or manage the solar facility and once constructed traffic to this we'll be limited to operations and maintenance expect it to occur one to two times per week since there are no employees on the site the project does not need and will not extend potable water or sanitary sewer service to the site during construction bottled water and portable toilets will be provided to construction employees natural features include wetlands and an eagle nest the wetlands are generally located in two areas on the west side of Blanton Road in the approximate middle of the site and in the southwest portion of the site both of these wetland areas will be preserved with the required 25-foot wetland buffer and there will not be any solar panels constructed in either the wetlands or the buffer additionally is shown on the concept plan tamp electric company has committed that there will not be any solar panels installed west of the southern wetland to create separation from the residential homes to the west of the site there is an Eagle Nest located in the southeast portion of the site and is shown on the concept plan there will not be any development within 660 feet of the nest and this area will be preserved in its natural state finally tamp electric company proposes significant setbacks and buffers along the project's boundaries along Blanton Road Frazee Hill Road and Platt Road the setback to structures will be a minimum of 50 feet along Ruffing Road the setback will be at least 660 feet since this area is the location of the Eagle Nest for all other project boundaries the setback to structures will be a minimum of 25 feet an extensive buffering system is proposed to include a 25 foot wide vegetative buffer along Blanton Road and a 15 foot wide vegetative buffer on the other streets and boundaries the buffering will be consistent with the landscape and prepared by a bith design group and to provide security for the site the entire site will be fenced with a six-foot fence which will located internal to the landscaping Marquardt's presentation can be found in the PDF labeled part 3 starting at page 4 which is tab 1 of the binder and as testimony can be found on pages 27 through 32 of the transcript mr. wor testified to the need for solar energy in order to improve grid resiliency and reliability on both a grid wide and local basis he testified that the drivers for solar energy include the dramatic drop in cost the nature locate on the edge of Tico system and solar energies low-impact form of power generation Soler's a good neighbor creates a minimal view shed no noise no emissions and no additional supporting infrastructure

mr. wor testified to tamp electric company's commitment to the community to increase the protected area around the eagle's nest enhance landscape buffers and to permanently preserve the 15 acre field on the southwest corner of the parcel the letter can be found in the PDF labelled part 10 pages 26 through 27 of your agenda and in tab 9 of our binder genre je viens presentation can be found in the PDF labeled part 3 starting on page 15 which is tap 2 of our binder and his testimony on pages 34 through 44 of the transcript mr. Richie being provided an overview of the schematics of a solar plant and then walked the Planning Commission through the concept plan that I just described he confirmed that the site is comprised of 350 acres of which 205 acres will be developed with solar arrays I think that's an important number and that's not been discussed today 205 of the 350 acres will be developed with solar panels not all 350 acres mr. Rajan testified that the power conversion station or substation will be located 200 feet from the property line will be in the loudest part of the facility and we'll have a humming sound the solar panels will be oriented in a north-south direction and will the Sun from east to west the panels will stow flat at night he confirmed that the panel's would have an anti-reflective coating grading would be minimized to keep the natural soils and that the development would not impact the protected area around the eagle's nest 32 acres or the wetlands which would amount to 22 acres dr. Sen has report on photovoltaic health and safety commences in the PDF labeled part 3 page 25 and continues in the PDF labeled part 4 this is Tab 3 of our binder and his testimony can be found on pages 47 through 56 of the transcript dr. Sinha described how solar panels are manufactured and first Soler's proven safety track record his testimony included the following important points in response to concerns expressed by the community the semiconductor a material called cadmium telluride is 33 times thinner than a human hair and is very strongly bonded which translates to an extremely high melting point and very low solubility in water so if the solar panel was broken cadmium telluride in solubility and water limits its ability to leach in addition breakage rates in the field are quite low at point zero four percent per year most breaks occur during shipping and installation so the panel's would be removed immediately the vapor pressure of cadmium telluride at ambient conditions is 0 and therefore impossible for any vapors or dust to be generated at the end of life the panels are non hazardous at its recycling plant in Ohio for solar uses a shredder and hammer mill to crush the panel's and then uses a strong acid and peroxide solution to digest the material into clean glass with a 90 percent recycling yield he testified that solar farms do not increase the in temperature during normal operation of a tracking PV system there will not

be any solar reflections that can be seen by an observer on the ground because the reflections are directed upward anti-reflective coating serves the purpose of increasing absortion Ahsan light and generally makes the panels look darker the amount of reflected light is less than that of a typical glass facade and the industry has moved away from intensive grading towards light on light development where you generally follow the contours of the land if you reduce soil disturbance you reduce dust formation and it's better for the environment he has also found that solar facilities serve as a refuge for wildlife Tommy Cleveland's report on health and safety impacts solar photovoltaic systems commences at the PDF labeled part 5 page tube which is tab 4 of our binder and his testimony can be found on pages 56 through 62 of the transcript mr. Cleveland has studied over 300 utility scale projects in North Carolina and testified that with respect to the electromagnetic spectrum all grid electricity generates 60 Hertz ms and that solar facilities are located on the non-ionizing spectrum with lower frequency than television or radio broadcast lower frequency than cell phones microwaves or the 'visible or the visible or ultraviolet sunlight one is exposed to when laying out in the Sun he concluded his presentation by saying that electromagnetic frequency from all aspects of the proposed solar facility including the substation will not increase a neighbor's EMF exposure because of the location of the inverters with respect to concerns about noise he testified that the primary sound is from the inverters during daylight hours similar and sound to an older residential air conditioning unit sound dissipates quickly is rarely audible over 150 to 200 feet away from the inverters and is generally not audible at the solar fenceline he testified that shock hazards which are not unique to solar are only inside the fence and primarily only inside of secured cabinets he also testified to fire safety that only a small portion of materials in a solar facility are flammable and small flames will not ignite a PV panel richard kirklands report starts in the PDF labeled part 6 page 2 and goes through part 7 page 25 which is tab 5 of our binder and his testimony can be found on pages 62 through 68 of the transcript on page 19 of his record and during the Planning Commission hearing mr. Kirkland testified that in most cases solar facilities are placed in areas very similar to the proposed site which is surrounded by low-density residential and agricultural uses tracking 10 solar projects in Florida he found that agriculture is the most common use around a solar facility if based upon the number of acres and residential is the most common use based upon the number of parcels the list and map of parcels located next to the proposed solar facility can be found on pages 2 through 4 of mr. kirklands report and studying 14 different solar projects and

pulling over 26 matched pairs the results consistently show no impact on property values of adjoining agricultural and adjoining residential property values a matched pair analysis considers two similar or comparable properties that are distinguished only by proximity to the use that has been studied to determine whether or not that type of land-use in our case the solar facility has any impact on the abutting or adjoining properties value in more than 200 studies mr. Kirkland has yet to encounter a local area where the real estate markets surrounding soul facilities behave differently than other areas of the state or other states study results are strikingly similar and all indicate the solar projects which generate very little traffic do not generate noise dust or have other harmful effects do not negatively impact the value of adjoining or abutting properties the criteria for making a downward adjustment on property values such as appearance noise odor and traffic all indicate that a solar facility is a compatible use for rural and residential transition areas Steve Shrivers presentation and fiscal impact analysis can be found in the PDF labeled part 7 starting on page 26 thank you and concludes in part 8 page 7 which is also tab six of our binder and his testimony is found on pages 68 through 70 of the transcript mr. Shriver estimated that the solar plant will cost about 78 million dollars to construct will generate a hundred and seventeen thousand and ad valorem revenues each year for the county which will amount to about 1.4 million over 25 years he confirmed that solar plants have minimal impacts on County services so the net fiscal impact will be about a hundred and fifteen thousand per year with the total of 1.3 million over 25 years the enhanced landscape plan prepared by booth design group can be found in the PDF labeled part 8 pages 8 through 25 which is tab 7 if our binder the landscape plan depicts the 50-foot setback from all property lines the 25-foot landscape buffer along Blanton Road and the 15 foot landscape buffer along flat and Bracy Hill roads for Blanton Road the type D buffer in the land development code requires one tree for every 30 feet and five shrubs per tree at 18 to 24 inches in height we proposed that's what the land development code requires what we're proposing is one tree every 20 feet with shrubs of six feet in height at the time of planting so a 100-foot section along Blanton Road will include five trees and a continuous shrub six feet in height for crazy Hill Road the land development code requires one tree every sixty feet with a 6-foot high shrub we proposed to include two trees and a continuous shrub six feet in height for each 100-foot section along crazy Hill Road and four plat Road the type B buffer in the land development code requires one tree per 60 feet of spacing and shrubs I'm sorry one tree per 60 feet of spacing and shrubs above six feet in height at time of planting we proposed one tree per 45 feet with

shrubs six feet in height so a 100-foot section along Platte Road will include two to three trees and a continuous shrub six feet in height photo renderings prepared by this design group show existing conditions along Blanton Road along Frazee Hill Road and a long flat road and how these same sections of the roads will look with the proposed landscaping James Beatty are registered Landscape Architect confirmed that the minimum height of the trees is 8 feet and depending on species up to 10 to 12 feet his testimony can be found on page 77 line 12 through page 78 line 3 he also testified that it may take 3 to 4 years for the trees to grow and to appear consistent with the visual aids that we provided that testimony is on page 78 of the transcript line 22 mr. Beatty also advised or testified that the six-foot shrub will block the view of the chain-link fence that's on page 89 line 25 and on page 80 line 16 Brad Tippin the Planning and Development Department testified that a full hedge of shrubs 6 feet in height is a pretty substantial improvement from the code required buffer in response to commissioner branch regarding why not plan it an even higher from mr. Tippin opined that there are very few options for a six-foot plus tall shrubs hence the six-foot shrub that we're proposing to be continuous along Blanton Road Frazee Hill Road and plant road as I mentioned earlier Florida design consultants complete consistency compatibility analysis in the PDF labeled part nine page three and goes through part ten page 25 which is tab 8 of our binder in addition Justina by chefs gives powerpoint presentation can be found in the PDF label 2 part 13 pages one through twenty four which is tab 11 of our binder her testimony commences on page 70 of the transcript and continues through page 89 Florida design consultants written analysis and Mizpah chef skis expert testimony provided competent substantial evidence that the proposed solar facility is consistent with the goals objectives and policies in the counties adopted comprehensive plan meets the six criteria for special exception and is compatible with the surrounding land uses policy 3.2.2 at the future land use element states that private electric utilities may be permitted in all land-use categories substitute appliance with four locational criteria that is important the code says private electric utilities may be permitted in all land-use categories subject to compliance with for locational criteria the first three criteria are not applicable and the fourth criterion provides that all new substations and adjacent to single-family neighborhoods or visible from the public roadway shall be reviewed by the county and required to provide landscape and buffering to minimize visual and noise impacts miss moshevsky testified that the substation would be set back from the right away minimum of 50 feet and would include a 15-foot wide vegetative buffer with the exception of

the Lightning mast the maximum height would be 15 feet she also testified that the substation would not be located in proximity to any single-family neighborhoods and would not be visible due to significant distances and existing trees between the substation and the homes based upon setbacks vegetative buffer minimum building height and significant separation from existing homes the proposed substation will minimize visual annoys impacts in compliance with the fourth criterion her testimony can be found on page 84 line 20 miss moshevsky testified that the project will not create any new residence or permanent employees on the site maintenance trips will be limited to one to two per week potable water and sanitary sewer service will not be extended to the site the site contains and protects natural features including wetlands and an eagle nest and she described a significant setback in landscape buffers it was her expert opinion that the combination of these factors resulted in the solar facility being consistent with and exceeding the standards in the AR zoning district and the Northeast rural area policies and regulations in the Comprehensive Plan the complete land-use analysis with respect to the project's compliance with the goals objectives and policies in the comp plan can be found in the written analysis pages 3 through 11 and includes an analysis of the future land-use element including policy 2 point 1 point 1 which you've heard of a lot about this evening which is the recognition of the Northeast Pasco County rural area the analysis also addresses the public facilities element and the conservation element with respect to the project's compatibility with surrounding land uses Misbah chef's kea pine that the solar facility is compatible based on the following reasons solar facilities low level and of activity which will not create any new residents or employees solar does not create any demand for water sewer traffic police fire or ambulance due to lack of residents and employees the future land use of the site allows development with a maximum of 323 residential units which would generate up to three thousand two hundred and thirty trips per day solar does not create any air 323 residential units which would generate up to three thousand two hundred and thirty trips per day those numbers were confirmed by your staff solar does not create any air emissions or groundwater discharges the maximum panel height of 15 feet is substantially lower than the 35 foot height limit of surrounding properties and the solar panels are separated from adjacent properties by 50-foot setback on all roads a 25 foot setback for internal property boundaries and a 15 or 25-foot landscape buffer on all property boundaries to minimize the visibility of the solar panels mr. fish SP also testified to how that post solar facility is consistent with the six standards of review for a special exception in land development code Section four zero 2.4 subsection F the

first standard which I already addressed requires consistency with the goals objectives and policies of the adopted comprehensive plan the second standard requires that the proposed use will not create or excessively increase traffic or parking congestion or otherwise affect public safety as previously represented the solar facility will not create residents or employees that generate traffic on a regular basis the site could be developed with a maximum of 323 residential homes generating up to three thousand two hundred and thirty trips per day the impact of three thousand two hundred and thirty trips per day from residential development is significantly large the one to two trips per week if developed as a solar facility additionally the low number of trips to the site is significantly less than the number of trips currently generated by the residential and agricultural uses in the vicinity of the site with regard to access to the site the entire site will be fenced for security and safety reasons to provide further security access to the site is limited to one driveway on Blanton Road and one driveway on Frazee Hill Road since there are no permanent employees there's no need for a parking area however there will be one vehicular parking space located at the substation on Frazee Hill Road since there are no employees on the site there's not expected to be any demand for police fire or ambulance service therefore no impact upon Public Safety based upon Florida design consultants analysis and the characteristics of the project the proposed solar facility will not create an excessive amount of traffic or parking congestion will not negatively affect Public Safety and is therefore in compliance with this standard the third standard requires the site to have suitable drainage access ingress and egress on site parking loading areas refuse collection and adequate utilities available to service the site I just described the access ingress and egress and on-site parking for the project with regard to drainage the site will comply with the stormwater management requirements above Pasco County and Swift mud with regard to loading there is no need for loading after construction since there will not be any deliveries to the site after construction is completed and during construction deliveries and construction station will be managed within the site and will have any external impacts with regard to solid waste collection there will not be any waste generated at the site so there's no need for collection also its previously testified to the project has no need for water or sewer lines to service the site no utilities will be extended to the site based upon Florida design consultants analysis and the characteristics of the project the proposed solar facility is in compliance with the standard the fourth standard requires the site if screening and buffering sufficient to prevent interference with the enjoyment of

surrounding properties the concept plan shows and mr. Beatty and Miss moshevsky testified about the enhanced landscape buffer that includes a 25 foot wide buffer along Blanton Road where the land development could requires a 20 foot buffer on Frazee Hill Road roughing road and all other property boundaries a 15 foot wide buffer is proposed where the land development code requires buffers of ten to fifteen feet in width the proposed buffers and significant setbacks will work together to create a distance between the proposed facility and adjacent properties and visual screen that minimizes the visibility of the solar panels as previously mentioned the maximum height of the panels is limited to 15 feet while the maximum height of structures and the site's AR zoning district is 35 feet in other words the main element of this project will be less than half of the height that could be constructed if the site were developed with single-family homes based upon Florida to find consultants analysis of the buffers and setbacks the project complies with the forth standards the fifth standard prohibits proposed science and lighting from creating any adverse glare or adversely affecting traffic safety economic value or cause other significant problems on adjoining or surrounding properties there's no need to advertise the location of the project and therefore there will not be any on the site except for emergency contact information minimal lighting at night is primarily for safety reasons and therefore the project is consistent with the fifth standard the sixth and final standard requires adequate yard and open space to serve the property upon which the solar facility will be maintained the proposed project will comply with all setback requirements of the AR zoning district for both solar panels and substation specifically there will be a 50-foot setback from all roads and a 25-foot setback from all property boundaries these setbacks are provided even though the panels are not occupied buildings and are limited to a height of 15 feet the visibility of the panels and substation is further minimised due to the low height of these components of the project with regard to open space there are no employees or residents on this project and therefore there is no demand for open space notwithstanding we are preserving 76 acres of wetlands Eagle's nests and landscape buffers this includes the 660 foot radius around the eagle's nest and the 25 foot buffer around all wetlands last but not least a list of map of residents in support of our solar project including their written letters of support can be found in the PDF labelled part 11 pages 1 through 22 which is tab 9 of our binder as I mentioned during the Planning Commission's hearing the Commission's required to make a land use decision not based upon popular opinion but based upon facts that constitute competent substantial evidence although residents shared their opinion that they did not like this project or that they had fears about the alleged impacts of the solar

facility the residents did not provide any competent substantial evidence that our application was not compatible with surrounding land uses or did not meet the criteria in the county's land development code or Comprehensive Plan on the other hand the testimony and evidence presented by your planning staff as well as the testimony and documentary evidence presented by our experts constitutes competent substantial evidence that the proposed development meets the applicable criteria in the code based upon the record of the Planning Commission hearing and the county's current land development code I proposed that the I submit that the proposed solar facility may be permitted as a special exception pursuant to staffs analysis and the adoption of ordinance 18 - 18 it's consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the county's adopted comprehensive plan it's consistent with the six criteria for special exception at the county's land development code and is compatible with surrounding land uses pursuant to section 4 0 7.1 at the land development code are respectfully request that this Commission deny both appeals and adopt the Planning Commission's decision of April 9th 2018 and with respect to staff's proposed modified or additional conditions we ask that you include conditions 13 and 15 reject condition 19 and modified condition 20 to remove the first 12 lines are available our entire team is present today and available to answer any questions as it relates back to the testimony and evidence presented during the Planning Commission I would like dr. Sinha to come up for a moment to respond to comments about a solar farm looking like a parking lot those that testimony from him was in a response to a question from the Planning Commission and it's been taken out of context today so if you can just have one moment of my time to address that I would appreciate it thank you ms wells it may be it may be more appropriate for you to read the portion of the transcript if you think it's taken out of context well it was it was taken out of context just not that the solar facility is going to look like a parking garage next to an airport there was a question about glare and planes landing and what would that be for them if there's a solar facility in the the line of a plane and that had to do with the glare analysis that we have agreed to so it's not that the solar facility is going to look like a parking lot next to an airport it was the that testimony was in a response to the effect of the glare that could be expected from the solar panels thank you thank you on this it's a public hearing I have looks like three people signed up to speak Sandra Thomas Humphries if you can please come forward and your name and address and if you've been sworn I have a quick question for the county attorney you're welcome during this portion a public comment it still has to stay public is limited to the same constraints that the attorneys have just

spoken are they can only reiterate those facts and testimony which is already in the record and any legal argument that they might have a personal opinion sir this is limited to what was said during the the opinions are those opinions that were expressed to the Planning Commission that's that this is a matter what side it's on it's on the record it's whatever was on the record below [Music] Dave City Florida 3 3 5 to 5 I want to dispute you know and you have been sworn yes I'm going to dispute some of the comments that the attorney just made one thing is the appraiser she didn't mention the nor did she say his qualifications the MA appraiser is from North Carolina now why don't you get Prazeres from Florida swift mud only uses in may have ma eye appraisers from Florida so why are we using out of state of Prazeres they said they wants the best most competent MA razors that know the land know the area so now we've got appraisers that are from out of state I think that's a big flaw on their part the other thing is I had written a summary about my own personal part too property values I have my own over half acre a buildable lot right across the street from the solar conglomeration and it's on top of the ridge I had the best view of all of anybody there and I have driven my lawnmower for 20 years a mile up to that property no that property driving the lawnmower back another mile and I've done this for 20 years so I have a little vested interest so my property values on that hill are going to be worthless you know nobody wants to buy a piece of half acre a lot build up a lot that's across the street that has the six foot hedge but 15 foot solar panels now you tell me how that's going to be hidden most commissioners are all except one were employed when the Northeast Pasco rural protection plan was approved this plan took over three years to develop with many public hearings and discussions are you going to abandon the work of 15,000 residents of Northeast Pasco for ten years the residents have been promised a commercial and industrial component to this plan and have been stalled in this endeavor year after year we have not gotten that plan in our northeast Pasco plan the industrial and commercial components as proposed were to be located and we specified this when we had to plan on highway 301 and on the interstate that big interchange area this to be proposed I'm sorry can you confine your comments to what you make said earlier well the solar ship plant should be defined as industrial as classified in other counties in the state of Florida Thank You mr. chairman members the Commission my name is Charles Lee I am director of advocacy of hot oven Florida the state wide out of an organization I was also praised I had were you sworn sir I was sworn ok thank you and I was also present at the Planning Commission and presented testimony at the Planning Commission Audubon Florida is in support of the solar project we believe that it

is important project for solar energy in Florida and with fully in support of but we also examine carefully the issues surrounding the Eagle Nest and the wetlands involved in this project and we think that the applicant has done an extraordinarily good job in protecting those environmental resources with regard to the issues that are being evidenced by those in the vicinity of this project who are opposed to it I'd like to make the following observations the track what we said at the Planning Commission under this agricultural Planning and Zoning category in your County a permissible use on the 200 plus acres that are being proposed to be developed for these solar projects would be greenhouses a permissible use that could easily cover those 200 acres would be chicken farm buildings and I would submit to you that any of those permissible use alternatives which would not even come to this commission under the kind of proceedings we have would be far more impactive both environmentally and visually that the solar panels that are being proposed at this particular site the reality is if you look at your zoning code you've even outside the permissible uses in the conditional uses there are a lot of things that can be done in these zoning categories that are far more visually and environmental interests you can have mining operations you can have debris landfills it's all listed in that ordinance as to what our conditional use is allowable here so from an environmental standpoint and a visual standpoint if you look at these passive solar collectors they are going to be a benign use and with the Screaming plan that they have offered which exceeds your county code they will be hard to detect as you're driving along the road beside them far less intrusive than most of the other things that would be permissible as of right under the code in this area so for those reasons and because we think solar energy is important we support this project and hope that you will affirm what the Planning Commission made in approving thank you a couple questions related to weight if you have questions for mr. Lee I think you you need to have an hour or are they questions for staff well there's probably more for staff then I would wait so public comment thank you sir I would normally not do this as a County Commission meeting but I'm not I have to file an objection at some point I either have to wait till these people finish testifying beyond the scope of the record but I'd like that this board to know I'm making a standing objection to any testimony including testimony by by the attorney for the appellee so-called appellee I'm making an objection because that's going beyond the record when they start giving you testimony evidence facts outside the record the gentleman who just testified now sit down just went beyond the scope of the record and no one stopped him he was and he neat and and I'm suggesting that be true for everyone but this is this is not fair and and he shouldn't be getting up and and recommending approval

to you that's not why people are here they're here to talk about their specific testimony in the record nada and they should not go beyond a one-inch iota otherwise this is very unfair and then I am very sorry to interject I would normally not do that but I'm watching something that's very improper Thank You mr. chair mr. humphreys Thank You Thomas Humphries three six eight one five Frazee Hill about a quarter of a mile from the substation I was sworn in earlier this afternoon when we began I would like to raise some issues that that were raised by the Planning Commission but to my knowledge not quite addressed first we've mentioned multiple times that under the base ISM and this is an appeal so correct you don't you don't you don't get to I'm limiting to what we spoke about then I have my notice in front of me from there okay proceed then thank you for you're not gonna get you're not gonna get answers from the appellate body understood sir okay yeah thank you for clarifying we'll move forward I agree that the big picture plan is not consistent with the land-use overlay the rural protection understanding in our land use code the the notes about five oh two point five in our land use code that we have to look at the more intense or the already designated for utility operations I think is important and under that something I raised then was that that should include zoning coverage light industrial is zoned for fifty percent coverage that would be what I suggest this is in where it is right now agricultural residential has twenty five percent coverage we heard today that Tico's estimation is about fifty nine percent coverage of the the total area and so that seems to me to be inconsistent with our own land use agreement for that for the actual zoning I do not think the setbacks meet the overlay we discussed this it has not been mentioned yet that the topography from the surrounding areas and Planning Commission members mentioned this in the record mean that you will be able to see over the buffers from the tops of the hills so as you're approaching the area you'll see it we discussed that a fifty five megawatt facility would power more than 9,000 homes date city itself has 3,000 or so homes so that I did that this is a neighborhood project is off by a factor of three and if we increase to 7500 megawatts then we're looking at twelve point five thousand homes more like a factor of four funded if we're looking at three to five years to grow the buffers again I think we might also be looking at three to five years before we would be close to compliant with the land use overlay similarly with setbacks for roads and these things which are in rural protection zones which are separate from and more stringent than the simple zoning codes I thank you for listening to my reminder of things that were in the record and wish you a good afternoon and evening thank you sir okay I do not have anyone else signed up if you'd like to please come forward and

like to speak come behind him and just your name and address for the record if you've been sworn please have been sworn in okay is there anybody else that's gonna speak besides this gentleman that has not been sworn in okay seeing no one this will be the last public do you thank you sir do you swear or affirm that the testimony testimony you were about to give is the truth so help you God I do thank you my name is Walter Clemente ly yeah Kato thank you live at 16 523 Spring Valley Road from Dade City I just want to let you know that I work for Pasco County since June in June of 1973 to September 1982 first as a planning technician and I've personally worked on the zoning ordinance illustrated the illustrations in the desorbing zoning ordinance and came up with all the different districts and the uses for each of those dishes we held numerous Planning Commission meetings and approval was body Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission to do the zoning ordinance do the map come up with its own conditions so I also made the recommendations to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission and also the Board of County Commissioners just like your current zoning and ministry has been for hundreds and hundreds of applications and in my professional opinion which I represented the county for nine years this petition should have never come before you and the proof of that is after this was her an amendment was proposed to put power plants in all the different districts so that you start you she should have spent she should have had the amendment first and then come in and do a conditional use special exception or whatever it is so they messed up now they're trying to corral the problem and that's my profession thank you very much for this thank you sir no no clapping in there okay that was the last speaker it would go back to the palette you can do that Thank You mr. chair if commissioners for the record again Gordon Schiff and thank you again I apologize for having to jump in I just saw something getting out really out of control I think we'll have a brief rebuttal let's start with just an observation the attorney for the appellee kept referring to the project as a solar facility but we presented evidence from the record we knew that it's a power plant but they are going to great lengths not to say the words power plan today I suggest to you that that doesn't change anything it's a power plant second I'd like to object for the record to this staff agenda memorandum this is back to my original objections in this matter I'm not even sure what how that memorandum fits into this process what this process was supposed to be was there was an order signed by the chair of the Planning Commission for good or for bad that order gets shipped to you as the quasi judicial decision makers and there should be no changes to that order because that's what the Planning Commission did but somehow between then and now your staff has changed the legal description that was improper your staff

and claimed if scriveners there even though it was all the way through the process the legal description the staff agenda memorandum and I'm trying to figure out what this is because it was only published within the last one or two business days but what we heard in testimony from the attorney for the appellee was she has been negotiating with an attorney from the county attorney's office on additional conditions in this matter what is going on you're supposed to have an order in front of you from a lower court they're negotiating conditions but it got worse I read it and I read it carefully today and that memorandum has in it a trade and the trade is improper the trade is that the appellee will agree to in defy the County for legal fees in future litigation essentially and it will also include apparently some form of waiving constitutional rights in exchange for an approval that's what it says and those conditions there's this is very improper and the appellee objected to them but look at the look at us were the appellant we weren't even involved in those negotiations my understanding was the county attorney's office was acting as a procedural attorney to you as the due to the judge why are they out negotiating conditions this this procedure is a problematic procedure that's why I filed my objections at the beginning you don't have enough definition in your code and controls in your code and what's happening here is you have a procedure spinning out of control and you have that happening with staff with staff attorneys negotiating new conditions you have no one knows what the real order is of who speaks you have the appellee objecting because she didn't get final rebuttal I mean this is a you have a messed up procedure and that's why I filed my objections it puts us all in a very uncomfortable position and it also violates due process and that's the bigger problem who was Miss Blair negotiating for when she was negotiating conditions who asked her to negotiate those conditions why was she no she negotiated conditions under what land development code provision was she supposed to be negotiating provisions and under what legal theory do you trade indemnities and waivers of constitutional rights in exchange for an approval of a power plant let's get to the other problems there's an ex parte communication and some memos submitted to you just for the record I haven't seen the membrane I don't know what it says but to the extent there was an ex parte communication with any member of this board sitting as a quasi-judicial decision maker my position is that was improper we were told in an email from Miss Blair that the County Attorney's Office has advised you not to do that so to the extent there was an ex parte communication that occurred with respect to this matter we object it's improper it violates my clients due process rights let's get to consistency in the comprehensive plan you have numerous provisions of the Comprehensive Plan before you but our main point was you

need to look at the plain language of the document it's clear it doesn't need interpretation the interpretations that were made were done to avoid the truth that's not right and for and for people to get up here before you and try and say that some sections somewhere in Section 300 of the comprehensive plan somehow shows that you could put a power plant on this property is simply not legally accurate let's get to the issue of the static compatibility which was the main point of my presentation to you today and I'll submit the case on the record so you have it but the whole point is that fact citizen testimony as to the things that were testified to is sufficient to deny this petitioner that's what the case stands for we weren't arguing that all of these people had to be experts the whole point of the case section 11 is that there's and I think I've asked can we put back up slide 68 please of my powerpoint and while she's doing that I'll submit the case alright let me quote back in the middle in the middle of the slide number 68 the quote from the case this fact-based testimony and my point is this is not expert base testimony the fact-based testimony regarding the aesthetic incompatibility of the project with its surrounding neighborhood coupled with the site plan elevation drawings and the aerial photograph constituted substantial competent evidence supporting denial of the exception that's that's the law the law isn't what was being cited to you by the appellee that is the law and let me suggest you that in that case if you read it you'll note that some people claimed that the that the storage facility which is what that case was about was industrial-looking well here we are with another industrial-looking situation and there's testimony of the record that this is industrial-looking so my point is you do have competent substantial evidence to deny this based upon aesthetic incompatibility it doesn't look right based on facts and the facts are almost identical to the section 11 property case I stand by what I quoted from the testimony of dr. Sinha Sinha about he compared this to an airport parking lot and if you think an airport parking lot on 350 acres would be appropriate where this property is then I guess you should approve this if you don't I suggest you shoot to dye it and I was not being flippant if you'll turn to 26 please on the on this lives of not being flippant but I want you to understand the magnitude of what's going on here and slide 26 shows a small solar power plant next to the interstate at Epcot it's shaped like a Mickey Mouse head and I was not being flippant because what you're approving today they can but anyway they want if you approve it and and and that's only on 22 acres here you talk about 350 acres and like I said that's the equivalent of like 15 of those Mickey Mouse heads we showed that in the record that standard 1 and standard 4 have not been met under the criteria but let's get to traffic

generation because we heard this we heard this in the other in the in the Planning Commission any power plant any power plant would not generate a lot of traffic that's a red herring this is not about the generation of traffic this is about aesthetic and compatibility and inconsistency of the Comprehensive Plan we realize that power plants don't generate traffic but under that theory you carry that to its logical extreme then why can't they put a coal coal power plant or a nuclear power plant they none of them generate a lot of traffic and in fact the case I gave you is for a storage facility they generally don't generate a lot of traffic not at peak hours so that's a red herring and that's not a basis to approve this saying it doesn't generate a lot of traffic you need to look at the comprehensive plan look at the incompatibility and determine this is aesthetically incompatible and deny the petition and thank you very much for your time I'm available to answer any questions I can I can address the the conditions the proceeding that is before you allows you to impose additional conditions if you saw fit this blair was providing you through staff those conditions which you have routinely applied to other controversial projects which have before you that's where condition 19 and 20 came through whether this board wishes to to apply them to this project is completely at this board's discretion and for mr. Schiff to suggest that it's a due process violation is suspect well hang up we don't take that we don't do that ma'am do you want to come forward it for rebuttal and the way are you asking that question I first want to reiterate adopt mr. shifts procedural objections without repeating them all I note that Miss wells several times refer to who and who was not tendered as an expert at the Planning Commission hearing what miss Welles did not refer to was any land development code comprehensive plan of Florida law that says that someone has to be tendered as an expert to produce competent substantial evidence in fact Florida law does not say that what Florida law says is relevant fact-based statements whether expert or not are to be considered under the correct legal standard citizen testimony in a zoning matter is perfectly permissible and constitute substantial competent evidence so long as it is fact-based in this case their observations were relevant material and fact-based and not merely generalized statements this is city of Hialeah Gardens versus miami-dade 8:57 Southern second 202 and it's in my appeal brief that cited this is important because by way of example you could stand here and say I'm a planner I've been doing it for 30 years I'm a tender decks in my expert opinion this power plant satisfies the topography requirements in the comprehensive plan and is in is consistent with the overlay district that is not competent substantial evidence because it is not fact-based what you heard by Miss wells was a lot

of detail about solar panel size and how they operate what you did not hear is any detail about how this power plant is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of ascetics the topography the overlay protection district and all the things that we discussed in our appeal however you have citizens who live here and who are local who are very familiar with the area who gave fact-based testimony not just opinions testimony about this matter and that is competent substantial evidence evidence in Florida law and this Wells reiterated the buffer and the tree planting along the perimeter of the power plant site but I'd like to point out that that's at site level and we're talking about elevations here up to 240 feet above sea level they're gonna be visible that's the confidence of Stan shal evidence in the record that they will be visible and the buffer along site level is it cannot make up for that I briefly like to discuss you're gonna see if you go through the record if you if you haven't already the testimony concerning the property value the expert that Tico utilized did not testify about the value of this specific land this is a unique area in Pasco County we know that because it's been designated as a rural protection area so you are not going to have and you don't have competent substantial evidence as to the impact on the value of the land from their expert you do have it from the citizens that testified at that meeting and I lastly I'd like to briefly point out that Kate wells emphasized section three point two point two of the comprehensive plan that says that private utilities are permitted in all land use designations what it actually says is that private electric utilities may be permitted in all land use designations subject to the following they shall not can be may be they shall be consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and therein is the issue that Clause is specifically placed in this provision for a reason and must be given its due consideration and its meaning and lastly I know there was discussion about traffic and increased if the increased traffic to the area had it been developed as a residential subdivision if tico were proposing to build a residential subdivision we would be having a very different conversation here today in fact that's permitted by the comprehensive plan although I think the density you would have to still go through the analysis to whether it complies with a rule protection designation area that's not what they're building they are building a power plant and that is inherently inconsistent with the plain language of the Comprehensive Plan and the land development code thank you my lord great thanks I guess it's for staff so there was a comment one of the speakers in reference to who actually was the attorney I think Miss wells about our residents of subdivision of 323 homes can you speak to that possibility of having residential so

there's more to it ma'am is it okay to answer that question answer the question as was already in the record staff answered that question Planning Commission that's correct we answered that question at Planning Commission Justyna bishops key provided that information we made sure that that information is correct so yes that's right state so my question is I guess going further and this might be a mr. Starks another question could those homes have solar panels on the roofs under state statute yes under state statute they could could we did I know there's a state statute that would prohibit you from denying solar panels on their roofs but but I would refocus you to whether or not a residential subdivision can be built here is really not the question that's before you I guess the question was a good so the gamers a thin question was though as a County Commission ever denied homes to have solar panels on the roofs I don't I don't believe so under 163 Oh for now so someone else brought up the reference the possibility of green houses would that be allowable now did not come to the Commission that's correct so that means they can be staff initiatives they could just come in and don't know no place them there would even go to Planning Commission no I love my right okay so buildings for they wouldn't have to go to play in Commission was a question I said there a lot by right and so they're allowed by right yes with a ticket farm be allowed by right your the buildings yes the buildings would have to go through the proper building permits and site development permits but they would be allowed by right all right okay so that will not come up on the Planning Commission no not would not go to the Planning Commission or the board I don't think they have to go through the permit info if they're AG well if they're exempt under Florida Statute they have a none it's a they have an agricultural exemption that's a correct statement yes and I'm going to assume that they don't so we don't know how many green houses so we would be allowable up to the maximum lot coverage in the district which is 25% and I want to also clarify that that's all these structures are at grade because there was a question brought up these other things are above grade so that doesn't count towards a lot coverage okay so with just wanted to clarify that they wouldn't be required to have any buffering though setbacks so that they'll just have to meet the minimum setbacks for the district so they could be you could see them from the road that's correct statement top of the hill right well I have a question but I have to ask my turn if I can ask it because uh you know there was discussion that this was a power plant and the solar farm is a power plant and I mean that that's not for us is that for us to decide whether we consider it power plant you need to decide whether or not this use is consistent with your comprehensive plan and your land development code you your

Zoning Administrator and your previous planning director gave an opinion which you have now ratified by ordinance that these solar facilities less than less than 75 megawatts are are appropriate as a special exception use meeting all other criteria in the agricultural district so would a wind turbine be a power plant so I don't I don't I guess I personally don't see it as a power plant but it's a power generating facility how you want to classify that yes which is different to me that it's a power plant and I was just overseas and gosh everywhere I saw a lot I lost to solar farms and they were out out in the a that's where I typically have seen this was about me at community again the question that is before you is whether or not this facility whether really it's whether or not the Planning Commission erred in its approval of this special exception it's not what else not what was what you see other work other places it's not what else could be built there it's whether or not this whether the Planning Commission in issuing their order to approve this special exception was corrector the attorney again so the gentleman that's the appellant had stated in his closing one of us I would take it as as close a statement that it's he feels it's aesthetically incompatible and that's why we should deny it that was a statement okay then I go back to I guess what's you know he's concerned that it's aesthetically incompatible but they're allowed to have greenhouses or very large buildings and chicken coops and essentially maybe allow to have solar panels on top so if you have many buildings out there in greenhouses they could literally have solar panels on top that you're incorrect so that if the chicken coops wanted to have they wanted to have solar panels on them understates that's what they be about - there's no difference when it comes to compatibility aesthetic well it's that Commissioner with all due respect you you are talking about a whole lot of stuff different number of solar panels and so the building since the buildings would be allowed to say so yes right so if we're talking about what's what's considered aesthetically incompatible that has to get decided amongst ourselves what we feel is exactly incompatible that was just closing service so again the question or not the question before you is whether or not the Planning Commission erred in their order for the for the reasons enunciated by the appellant and refuted by the the appellee I mean that the two sides that's what's that's what's before the board mr. Oakley allowed to make emotionally affirm what the Planning Commission did and we need to address is that stating it the right way or foul what the plan information is that their call can you put up the slide that has their options please so so to is deny the appeal and uphold the special exception based on the border county commissioners determination that

solar energy farm power plant meets the criteria in the land development code and as consistent with the comprehensive plan with the added conditions and then you have the issue of whether or not you're including nineteen and twenty twenty if you deny the appeal you're affirming what Planning Commission did the quest and then there were certain additional conditions that the Planning Commission did not put on this facility some of which the application has agreed to and some of which the applicant that is where the appellee is opposing nineteen and twenty are the ones that are at issue nineteen is the one that they agree to indemnify and defend and hold hold the county harmless for interactions and and twenty is one with regard to exactions which they agreed to the last I think it was that the applicant agrees to release and hold hold the county harmless from liability causes of action or damages whatsoever that the applicant or the county may her solely as a result of the applicants operating pursuant to special exception permit during the legal challenge in the event the court of competent jurisdiction declares this special exception permit clearly invalid or as otherwise enjoys the applicants operators pursuant to a special exception and the indemnification can that be and to identify the county to what we didn't do then and I think that the language which which is 19 is can basically consistent with what you've done in other projects it basically says they will at their defend their cost defend this approval in court and house rather than rather than your county attorney's office spending the resources to or hiring outside counsel to do that and is this 19 or 20 or 19 and 20 they they objected to all of 19 and all of the all of what I think it was all of 20 except for the language which I just read they want can we hear from them on that so you can still I mean you can ask question yeah yeah I'd like to understand that one nope Kate Wells for the record oh I want to understand that you don't wanna you want the county to defend you in that in a there's court action well I think the county would be defending itself if there's a court action what it would be if if the decision today were to deny both appeals and affirm the Planning Commission's decision and a further appeal or challenge is taken to today's decision it would then be on the County Attorney's Office to defend a decision of this commission the when I practice in other jurisdictions I've not before seen a conditions such as the one proposed I questioned the appropriateness of including a condition like that I think you heard from mr. Schiff as to his concerns with regard to that condition so we would ask that that condition be removed from if you're inclined to approve the project that that condition be removed and the first 12 lines in condition 20 be removed as well and we would agree to a hold harmless agreement in the event that the decision today is to approve the special

exception the hold harmless agreement would allow my client to move forward with permitting in the event that there's any pending litigation as a result of tonight's decision what has our history been mr. Stein's matter on several occasions you have you have used both of these conditions 20 more than 20 probably more than 19 but in those cases the active the the applicants have stepped in and defended not only themselves but the county we're using the same counsel the lawsuit goes up it does come back again I think if they're not agreeing to it we're gonna we're gonna have to be you know carrying the load they read it would that be one thing but they don't agree get them to put this condition in I don't think it's gonna work I want to go to 160 3.04 was brought up in a page 19 and whose decides that he mentions well it's this Florida statute I'm gonna read the law so everybody can hear it it says energy device and based upon renewables for resources section 1 notwithstanding any provision of this chapter or other provision of general or special wha-la the adoption of an ordinance by a governing body as those terms are defined in this chapter which prohibits or has the effect of getting prohibiting the installation of solar collectors clotheslines or other energy device is based upon renewal resources is expressly prohibited now mr. goldstein in the air talked about he thinks it was more about buildings than it was land but to me it talks about solar collectors period whether it be on land owned buildings when I looked at section 4 does actually bring land back into it so whether we've crafted ordinances land development codes that actually prohibit this I don't see how we can actually deny it the way this is written treilery this isn't it so that's the stator furnace I was referring to in a while jet to that statement on state statute I mean basically saying my hands in time okay tonight we have a motion so obviously this or if this board wants the County Attorney's Office to defend it without 19 we will I mean that's that that's the board's prerogative as well as I said we provided these the the additional conditions because that because you have done similar things in the past and it made sense to us that they would apply to this one as well but like if you wish to if you wish to delete it that's fine mr. Moore sorry but you're saying 20 is what the tip this is used more often than that which 120 is a 20s provision that basically said basically says that they've that the applicant has done its due diligence and is not going to come back later and may start to make an argument that there is no Nexus or rough proportionality between the impacts of the of the project and the the language that is being struck is that there is no Nexus beat or ruff for formality between the conditions of the approval and and what's being approved so traditionally if there's a fight over whether there's a nexus or a proportionality it's come out long

generating additional taxes levied for the same military the 2019 tentative aggregate millage rate is greater than the 2018 aggregates millage rate even though the millage rates have not changed between 2018 2019 at this time I'd like to direct the board members of the audience to refer to the table number one in your handout which shows the 2018 2019 millage rates for the three County levies that is the general fund transportation fund and the municipal services law the table also provides a comparison of the 2019 military's two rolled back rates and 2018 bullet rate rather than read this chart into the record we have provided copies to each Commissioner board records and members of the audience tonight I'd like to ask the Commission to adopt the tenets of the military and total budget the millage rates adopted tonight or the maximum allowed by Florida law without mailing each property owner and additional notice the board can reduce the millage rates today through the final hearing on September 17th 2018 however the millage rate cannot be increased later in the meeting should the Commission wish to modify the budget I request that staff be directed to return on September 17th at the final budget hearing with the desire of angels okay thank you and you're gonna give us a brief presentation the general fund and Transportation Fund budgets stating the tentative millage rates that pretend it's change from the rollback rate and the reasons for such a change absolutely the general fund is a county wide in nature such that all property owners with a net taxable value pay ad valorem taxes into this fund for fiscal year 2019 millage rate for the general fund in 7.67 six mils which is a 2.97 excuse me two point seven nine percent increase from the rollback rate of seven point four zero they're alive the County realized a nine point five one percent increase in tax taxable assessed values over the past year compared to the current fiscal year the tentative general fund expenditure budget represents an increase of twenty two and a half million dollars the main factors for this increase include fully funding the sheriff's 2019 budget request a four percent wage increase for board and constitutional officer employees five point four million dollars for the variety of business plan initiatives and six point four million dollars for infrastructure improvements prior action by the Florida Legislature eliminated the requirement for mandatory transportation ad valorem tax no millage was levied for fiscal year 2018 and we proposed no transportation millage be assessed for the Transportation Fund for capital project needs during fiscal year 2019 as revenue for this fund comes from the second local option gas tax okay there's now time to accept comments from the public on general fund the Transportation Fund budgets and associated millage rates individuals would be brought provided three minutes

to speak and one representative from an organization approval to provide at five minutes to speak if I'm limits will be strictly adhere to please leave your comments at this time discussion of general fund transportation fund I do not have anyone signed up if you would like to speak on these two items please come forward okay any discussion by the board is there a motion to adopt the tentative millage from the school bracket all in favor aye any opposed motion carries is there a motion to adopt into millage rate for fiscal for the Transportation Fund somebody in favor carries Bob will now provide how's the riot summary of municipal fire service unit budget stating the tended millage rate a percentage change in the rollback rate reason for such a change Thank You mr. chair the municipal fire service unit fund has a tentative tax levy of one point eight zero three six million this represents a five point nine four percent increase from the rollback rate of one point seven zero to four Mills the increase in property values results in approximately 3.8 million dollars in additional revenue from property taxes the total funds for fiscal year 2019 is four point three million dollars higher than the current year the increase is primarily attributable to a number of new proposals such as adding two additional rescue units and arson dog volunteer services chief and wage increase for a union employees okay we will now receive public comment on the municipal fire service unit would anybody like to speak on this item okay is there a motion to adopt a tentative millage rate at one point eight zero three six Mills for the municipal fire service unit second-favorite carries bob will now provide a summary of the remainder of the fiscal year 2019 tentative budget the tentative budget for the fiscal year is comprised of 69 separate funds for the total budget of 1 billion three hundred forty nine million six hundred eighty three thousand three hundred seventy three dollars and that of inter fund answers if you refer to table two and your handout you will see the revenue sources and expenditures identified by type without regard to individual funds as stated prior to any action taken by the board okay we will now receive public comment on the remainder of the budget when anybody like to speak on the budget okay at this time I will entertain a motion to adopt a tentative fiscal year 2019 budget as outlined by staff favor mr. chair members of the board the actions you have taken here today has set the tentative aggregate millage at nine point two nine six seven mills which reflects an increase of one point three one percent of both the world library I would now ask the county attorney to read the resolution adopting the tentative Lybian levying of ad valorem taxes for fiscal year 2019 mr. chairman members the Ward resolution the resolution by title only revelation the Board of County Commissioners at Pasco County Florida adopting the tentative

tended levying of ad valorem taxes for Pasco County for fiscal year 2019 providing for an effective day no I'm sorry okay a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners Pasco County adopting the tentative reform taxes yes the town the first time I read is the correct title okay is there a motion for approval of the resolution adopting intensive levying of a blog tax reform passed Makani for fiscal year 2019 so favorite as the county attorney to read the resolution adopting the tentative budget for fiscal year 2019 by titling a resolution the Board of County Commissioners the Pasco County Florida adopting with the tentative budget for this for a fiscal year 2019 providing for an effective day thank you is there a motion for approval of the resolution adopting the tentative budget for Pasco County for fiscal year 2019 so moved second all in favor fantastic okay mr. chairman board the various adjustments have been made to the budget simply proposed budget was presented to the County Commission on July 10 these changes will be detailed in a memorandum which will be provided to you with your agenda for the regular meeting on September 17th 2018 staff recommends the board provide directions prior to that public hearing on September 17th regarding any additional amendments to the ten of the budget as a result of the memorandum mentioned above and any other amendments that for do these changes can then be incorporated into the resolutions for the public hearing of September 17 2018 okay this concludes the first public hearing for the fiscal year 2019 budget that were a drive oh sorry all right sorry last it doesn't I don't need a motion so I just I need I need to bring to the attention the board that occurs development council meeting from September 19th when we move from 9:30 a.m. to p.m. at direction of the county minister any of the victim that's got an attorney I shouldn't mention that meeting they're changing the hours 9:32 waterway it's gonna okay so I have okay they were adjourned okay okay so I received an invitation from the White House let me - they want to nominate me for the American workforce policy advisory board and so I just wanted permission from my board to apply for that there's a white house it's a White House policy group right yeah I think it's gonna be under the Department Connor but my invitation has come from the White House in a government report it is the white board all right are you wanted up for something to mr. Morelle no no I was gonna set it to do a letter of support for when I do that I think there's a letter would would help here we're good yeah all right thank you [Music]