There were some sort of recording at the end of it like turned it off maybe back on Yeah, you weren't sure I heard it today so where is everyone is everyone still with us now She's with the she's with the county but in communications, but she moved on moved on yeah, she's working You scared her off David. Yeah, I saw her I talked to her her about. All right at six o'clock. I'm gonna call this meeting to order. I'd like to welcome everybody. You know, please arise for the pledge of allegiance. to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. If you have any electronic devices that are gonna make noise, please silence them. I won't run through all our normal meeting stuff because this is a special meeting just for the renewable regulations that are wrapped at this point. In our last meeting we left the public hearing portion of this open. Do we want to do and do we have anything to present to us before I open it to the floor? No, I, uh, yes, since it closed after public comment and there wasn't a lot of discussion about from the planning commission about it, I had plans to leave it open to questions or if you'd like me to review that a little more, then we've- If you want to give us whatever you have now and then I'll let folks from the public speak. Okay, the, the, the, the bulk of the amendment is related to power generation facilities, including dividing uses between large scale renewables, so is a small scale renewable energy facilities, battery energy storage systems, both accessory and stand alone. The vast majority of the amendment deals with that. There is some slight addition of those two other item, with natural medicine businesses. And the massage therapy businesses that are also included. I'm guessing most of the discussion will be on power generation but I'd like to make sure we're discussing in aware of what has been proposed for both of those. Okay I should make sure that's on the record that it's in addition to the power generation this is for the massage therapy business and the natural medicine business. So with that, I have a question for Talmad. How much of this stuff, Talmad, of these three sub-use power generation and storage and massage therapy and natural medicine? Are there any of these subjects that are mandated by the state that the county has to take a position on? Recently there have been the latter two are dealing with and responding to house bills from the state. So they do in terms of mandates Massage there responding to house bills from the state. So they do in terms of mandates, massage therapy business are necessary mandated. What the bill did, is it gave, what I understand the bill to do is it gives the county power to differentiate, sketchy massage therapy businesses from legitimate ones. So we're kind of taking that and and agreeing that yes when we say massage therapy we're talking about massage therapy we're not talking about the sketchy stuff that that as the as the statute states leads to trafficking and they're dangerous. about the natural medicine is is that? Natural medicine is mandated. We can't prohibit it. So it's similar to the medical marijuana stuff that was done 10, 15 years ago. The difference is medical marijuana, the county had the ability to prohibit it altogether with natural medicine. We don't have the ability to prohibit it altogether. It has to be allowed somewhere. This is for mental health treatment. Yeah, most of it's used, veterans use it, but yes, mostly PTSD and mental health stuff. of. Okay. Okay. Well, mental health and I'm sure some people use it recreationally. Oh yeah, yeah. I think that's why that's the worst concern. Yeah. Okay. All right. With that, before we get into it, I want to give you folks who spent your time to visit us tonight to give you an opportunity to do it. Do we have a, oh, those? Is that microphone on? It's on, it's on. It's usually up here, I'm like, where to go? Okay, what I'll do is we didn't have a sign-up sheet, did we? Okay. You want to speak, Tony? Is that? Okay, I'm gonna time I didn't have a sign up, she did we. Okay. You want to speak, Tony? Is that... Okay, I'm going to time... I didn't have my phone with me last time. We're going to do three minute. Because it can go, we get listening, and we lose track of... There's a lot of variability throughout the subdivision discussions. Tony, I hope 17908, Peri-Octroad. Speak into the microphone or if you can get the tip it's not on. Is it on? Yeah, you got it really good. You're just too tall. Tony Oak 17908, all the Peri-Octroad. I'm here after having made comments for over a year with you guys just as a reference so that you can talk and ask me some questions if there's something that you have. It's not clear if I can help answer that question. I do have one question with Tom and if I can allow the asset, it'll project it that way and Tom and if it has to do with the deal with the bond issue, mostly the decommissioning and how that's applied in the regulations here. I don't fully understand how that operates and to me it looks like it needs to be clarified that maybe you can clarify it. more of me before I say anything else. The security is being required, I can go to that section. It's a short term. So the recommendation of the idea is that the county is not on the book for reclamation or decimation of a facility. So the idea, and what's required is an estimate of the cost of reclamation per the reclamation decommissioned plan. and then the estimate as proposed would be updated every two years. That estimate, so the applicant developer has to submit a near vocal standby letter of credit on some sort of security for that estimate amount to ensure the county that kind is not on the hook for the commissioning of the proposed facility. That has to be up to every two years and if it increases that applicable security would be required to be summoned to the county county. Okay. My question has to be more with, yeah, how it's applied. In my mind, it seems like that's a real thing that needs to be done with on large fields. Solar project, but for the smaller scale projects, it will stop a lot of those projects before they get up to the. Because they can't afford to bond our income issue. These are going to be community-based projects and funding that go into the rest. You know, like if you could build that up. The facility outside of Ofer, not over on the way, for example, I gave gave last time outside to say, yeah, I'm on county grounds to secure the public building. Now, if power goes down, this thing won't kick, it's on the microgay, it won't kick you, it's a statement, it'll kick that function. Small scale Thank you, Tony Anyone else Okay to state your name and address. My name is Isaac Kitchen. I work at 3040 Arrow Tech. I paid $1.401. Okay. So I think, you know, I actually really like this track. So I just want that stayed for the record. I think this is a big improvement. I know that there's a lot of hard work things done on this for about two and a half years. So I think we are nearly there. What I would like to see if possible, just a little clarity on the definitions of large scale, renewable energy facility, excess megawatts. If we could just put, I'll turn AC, you know, alternating current because solar panel has two measurements. I think alternating current one is just more synonymous. It's a non-mess for the other utilities and things. He had a state of Colorado. And two, in a small scale solar energy facility, sometimes you get some that are smaller than one I go on. And so I just think, saying less than five, from one to five, then one is zero to one. I think just small little I heard, or adjustment there might be useful. And then in regards to the energy storage, I think that energy storage should be not just special use. I think that you know, use by right up to a certain size, just like we have with the solar because energy storage has lots of different use cases. It could be used to offset demand charges by the utility, for example. So a commercial bill is not just usage plus demand, which is raw power entering a building. And so making any little bit of energy storage, a special permit, is kind of cumbersome. So used by Wright, one idea that I have is just that it's behind the meter and we're not talking about utility generation. If it's just behind the meter and you have a commercial application for it, let's say the airport, for example. They want it, they definitely get demand charge. And they wanted to use some sort of energy storage project there on, you know, kind of accounting property. And so what you have there is maybe something that says that you could only install up to 200% of your current demand. So that way there's a limit. And because that's really not very much If I had to just take a stab in the dark, there's no way that airport has more than 500 KW of demand. That would be like half a megawatt of demand. So if you're talking less than a shipping container to get that done. So that would just be kind of, you know, if you had some sort of language in here where we could get used by right for energy storage up to a certain size, and I'm not talking massive, and I think if we made it the same as the solar, five megawatts AC used by right, and anything above that, because at your time, like five shipping containers, anything above five shipping containers which you could fit three in this room. So five for why would be this? Thank you. I have a question. Could you elaborate a little more on the AC DC? Not the band. Yeah, you're talking all day. Well, I'm just curious. It's produced in DC, right? Correct. And then it's converted to AC. Yeah. Somewhere off site, usually? No, right there. Right there. So no matter what, the date's going to be installed with an inverter right next to the panels. Because direct current, let's say you didn't, you would have to install a lot bigger wire and you would have voltage strappled over relative to the distance. So you locate your inverter directly into the array. Now for your more sophisticated array, say you got your you know your tilting single axis or your dual axis trackers, what will happen is is you'll bridge the gap between your DC and AC and so it's almost the same thing because you'll lose efficiency if you have one too far larger than the other. But on your fixed mounted arrays, that gap grows a little bit more because they're inefficient at times of the year. So for example, here at this last two, 35 degrees would be really efficient in the winter, but it would be very inefficient in the summer. And vice versa, you have a flat degree. And so when you size the system, obviously you take into account the cost of such a thing and you just kind of decide where you want your inefficiencies to be. But by writing AC, it's understood that that's the amount of power that can go to the grid, because DC doesn't tell you what can go to the grid. So for sizing these, you're recommending the AC not the DC. Yeah, it's much easier. plus what if I said like well I have a 5.1 megawatt solar project and it's DC and I have a 4.0 and it's the same thing but AC rated at 4.0. Right, it's a small bit. You will end up having conversations in the future that it's like well bit. Which one is it? Yeah, okay, thank you. That's a question. Oh, yes. What is the energy loss when you invert DC into AC? So DC to AC conversion, you know, depends on the model, but you're looking at less than 5%, 5% would be quite inefficient at this point. And so most inverters are running at 98 to 99%. So you're getting one to 2% loss, but part of that depends on the design. So if you have more modules and bigger inverters, you'll probably see closer to that 97, 98% mark, whereas if you have tighter design with inverters more closely located to the solar modules themselves you're going to have a higher efficiency. Okay. Okay. That 99 percent. Any other questions? All right. You're free to go. Anyone else? Yeah. Sure. Okay. Should I be brief here? My name is Lou Belir. Okay, I'll try to be brief here. My name is Lou Belair, and I'm one of the co-owners of Elastos Solar. And as Isaac mentioned, we have a location here in the Matros County, Ben here for a while. And I want to say that, first of all, just really great for the part of this process. Here in Montrose County, I think it's been a highly participatory process and establishing these codes. And, you know, as old saying goes, I guess everybody you know, everybody isn't getting everything they want. You know, and usually that's a pretty good, I mean, from the point of view of our industry, I've got a couple comments here from a, we're a long time member of our Colorado Solar and Storage Association. And town is familiar with the comments they made, I want to reiterate a couple of them. But again, just grateful to be part of the process. And so one was, and actually Tony touched on this, you know, the decommissioning requirements. I think those are bid-honorists. I mean, one of the recommendations on part of COSA, we're talking with our colleague there today, as they recommend instead requiring financial security, we've hosted five years from the end of the offtake agreement. And again, you know, that's, we understand that there's been a lot of process, and that's where we are, you know, currently with the requirements. You know, again, just emphasizing the treating large, you know, small and large facilities with the same regard to decommissioning might be a little out of step, but a decommissioning plan. Buffering and setbacks, I think it was good to be able to include the possibility of obviously the developer owner negotiating directly with the residents close by to work out their own arrangements if possible. And I think just going through this in the last several days parts about making sure to reduce the impact is very good requirements in terms of the site characteristics analysis is good. I'll go through these rather quickly, but the reclamation and bonding of an amendment and removal, I think that's good again, that those requirements should be in place. It should be a responsible process So again, I'm just grateful to be part of the process and thank you for the opportunity to make a few comments. Thank you. Anybody? Hello, my name is Jennifer Jones, 65826, Solar Road. Colorado Solar at Storage Association, DMEA, Longstanding Community Groups, with ample experience of solar land use codes like like western colleges. Could you stand a little closer to that mic? Can you hear me now? Your time's not up on that. I'm resetting. Okay. Okay. So COSA, DMEA, western Colorado Alliance, these organizations all have ample experience in solar land use codes, solar advisors, developers and constituents have all seen and approved of the current draft. This draft has been in the works and revised over the course of over two and a half years. Collective wisdom from a broad and diverse segment of the Montrose County constituency has approved of the current amendment. Neighboring Colorado counties have been used as models for the current code in Montrose County when compared to the other models, appropriately falls in the middle. It's a balanced code and a lot of work has been put into this. I don't think we should be dramatically attempting to revise this at all at this point. There was talk of changing the size threshold at the planning commission meeting on February 27th. The Board President of San Miguel Power Association expressed remorse for capping their solar projects at six megawatts within zoning districts designated for commercial use. The capping at six megawatts is not financially feasible for larger solar projects using special use. This was in an email to the planning director and COSA holds that five megawatts in below are standard thresholds for distinguishing between small scale and those of a larger size. Mesa County also uses 5 megawatts of thresholds. I also believe that all agriple takes should be by right in the general ag district. It's not currently agriple takes is as specific as the farm and ranch operation, it's unique. The agricultural producer knows the land and should be able to independently research and collaborate with the AgriVault take, develop or to come up with a project that will affect the highest use of their own land. La Troze County is a ripe to farm and so it's a state of Colorado. So these agricultural operations are given primacy and not considered new census, as long as the activities and employment that this impractices commonly used and associated with act production. Agriple take projects are a form of agriple take production and provide additional income streams for farm and ranch operations. This allows the producer privacy and accordance with county and state policy as well as the universally obligatory site review process, which can mitigate or nullify projects outside of common practice of scaling. Again, I advocate for agribol takes to be by rights within the general ag district. Thank you for this timing. Thank you. Close. Okay, let me make another here. Okay. Did we miss anything? Did you want to say, don't want to say anything? Okay, so all right. So I guess we're coming back to the commission now. Tammaj, what's the most efficient way to tackle this? You want to just go through it again. I mean, we've been through it a few times. I've got a few things. And I know Lana's got several that she's not here, but she did submit comments. What I it up to you however you'd like if you want me to go kind of section by section I'm happy to do that. That might be the best way to do it because it's the way this is laid out. Would you like me to pull up Plano's red line so we can obviously it's the same document as mine. It would just alert us to when she has a comment, similarly when anyone else has a comment. Okay, it's the same document with their comments in it. Okay. And maybe at the end we can go over the photos that she has, unless you wanted to hear that now. Let's go through the, I think the documents are higher priority at this point. We've all seen pictures of good and bad. Yeah, so the first item here, this is basically selling power generation so these are allowed in the ag district by special use and in the industrial district by right this would change it to a special use both in the ag district and industrial district that was requested by the Board of County Commissioners. And I can I I'll just add something in there. The reason we have the industrial use by right is this commission for many years that some of us have been on this. We're very protective of our butch heads from the highways. The scenic byways. We've got two scenic byways in Montrose County and we're very cautious about putting things in right adjacent to the highway that might not be attractive to the visitors in Tauruson. and we're very cautious about putting things in, right adjacent to the highway, that might not be attractive to the visitors and tourists in the area. So the special use permit process, it doesn't eliminate it, it just gives us the opportunity to make sure it's cited to where it's not messing with the view sheds. And if it is we can buffer it or it gives us the opportunity to do it. If it's a use by right, they can just plop them in all over the place like LP and it would be a problem. We think it'd be a problem. So that's primarily why it's used by right in the industrial zone. So, I clarify one thing from that. Okay. The LP plants are slightly different, but the difference between allowing by special use, as opposed to that right, is that special use goes to the staff, plant and cushion, and the board, where use by right goes to the just staff. To you, yeah. It'd be held to the same standard, but again, staff could have a different philosophy on what buffering's required where the planning commissioner board might have a different one. So if you still have the opportunity to decide. There's still require everything the same. It would just be our, but that's not on the table because the board kind of commissioners would like it to be special. Okay. Okay. I agree with that. So I do too. And I'll just go rapid fire. Yeah. And you guys, I'll rely on you guys stop and if you have anything. The next one is to add in use designation for battery energy storage systems. And this is related to standalone battery energy storage systems. I think we can clarify that accessory best are accessory to the large scale or small scale facilities. Anyway, just allowing it in the ag district and the industrial district as a special use. Currently, we don't have it designated specifically. It's staff's interpretation has been to call it a public utility facility, which is allowed by right in these districts. So this is a fairly substantial change for us. The townments we did get some comments about the variety of battery storages out there. Do you feel that this covers all of those? I'm not that familiar with the differences between batteries. I'm learning more every day. I just had a meeting today of changing every day. It is. That's the problem. This stuff changes. We'll be rewriting these every other month. So we have our building official actually went to a building official conference in Denver last week and one of the courses was on best facilities and they showed them a video of one of them exploding. So there's for my knowledge there's two different There's two different chemistries to it. One, chemistry is, I'm sorry, I can't remember the chemicals in it, but it's related to lithium, and it's a short-term storage, something that's found in cars in a Tesla. And then there's another technology or chemistry, excuse me, that's more long-term. You have the Benadium storage. So it's nickel-magnesium cobalt with the short-term. That's the one that has had a couple accidents of explosion and the fire stuff. And then lithium iron phosphate is the one that's more long-term. And to my knowledge, and we haven't had any known accidents to that, I think that technology is relatively recent. I believe the people I was talking to did have been doing it for only about five or six years now. But still five or six years with no track record of an accent is anyway, it's safer. It's the, I guess I can't use words now, but the risk of fire with that lithium chemistry is days, weeks, it's a long period of time. Removing oxygen doesn't end the fire. other form that the lithium iron phosphate, that's 24 to 48 hours. So very different chemistries have very different effects and my understanding is very safe and a lot less risky. So to answer your question, no, I don't know everything but they would would all be lumped into battery energy storage systems. We have some flexibility in our application requirements that would require a fire suppression, and that plan would be changed depending on the type of facility. Just to throw another little wrench in it, I was reading an article in the Denver Post a month or two ago about a proposal to where they have a train with batteries on it, and they're going to send it out to the eastern plains in the morning or at night, or whatever, charge the batteries up with the wind on the eastern plains and then run it back to Denver to use it. It's like a mobile battery system There's so many different So fast. Yeah, that's I don't know how How we can keep up with I wish I have short Okay, real short so what what your time on is chemical? And so there's mechanical energy storage where there's no chemistry involved whatsoever. Where for example, you have a power surge, it winds up a toy and then when you need that power, that one. Potential, a kinetic. you have chemical, mechanical, hydro, and more. And I think the majority are low density and high density chemistry, where you're talking about lithium ferrous and you're talking about your others, your sodium and so on. So I think that this could be expanded. And I've happily send presentation that I've already written just for you to review it if you want. Okay, we'll keep that in mind. All right. Okay. The next one, this section is on the division of large scale, small scale solar energy facilities, again, and to the dividing line being five megawatts. This is proposed to continue to allow large scale in ag as a special use, to allow large scale in AG as a special use to allow large scale in industrials as a special use and then allow small scale as a use by right in AG residential commercial and industrial. We certainly could expand that to multifamily, to business. The reason I left it up, I do not. Well, the reason I left out of business is because that's more of a quaint, smaller, lower density commercial use and felt that, and on smaller lots, you don't have a lot of ability to put in a solar facility. Anyway, that could be a discussion point for the planning commission if you want to expand that to other districts or not. I guess I have a question. I don't know where I picked this up and some of the correspondence said one megawatt's equal to about five acres of solar Yeah, I think it's changing every day, but I think that's pretty typical So a small we're saying is 25 acres. I mean cut up to 25 That's pretty good size but So what about the backyard mom pop ones where would that would that fit What do you mean mom? Well, I like the little ray on the roofer on the backyard. That's not considered a small scale. So if it's a small scale, it's still designed for off-site use. Okay. So that's... The design that would be considered alternate on site. On site, okay. All right. You're not what the allowances are. You're not touching it. Right, right, right. This is only commercial stuff. So, okay. I have a comment about the opening sentence with the opening line here. It starts out and says, large scale renewable energy facility. And then you go over to small scale solar energy. Yeah. I think this needs to be written broad enough The solar energy is not the only source of energy that we address here. And so I'm suggesting that we not use the word solar exactly, but renewable energy. And that was done by design because the input I've received is the applicable small scale facilities are solar. So if we open it up to wind, hydro those other ones we certainly could and we could replace solar with renewable energy facility. I think the reason we have solar is the impact is smaller than say one huge windmill. I can't really speak to that because I don't know the power generated by windmill. A lot of that depends on the wind obviously, but with our location and solar really being a driving force in the power generation world, that was done by design. That large scale would still include when all the renewables, but small scale would specifically capture solar, which is in terms of small scale is the most applicable one in life. But as we've stated here this evening, this is changing on the daily basis, weekly daily basis. And so I, they're again, I don't want to bind ourselves to, there could be somewhere, small scale renewable energy. This not just solar. You know, there's talk of nuclear power or something like that. I don't know where it's at, but as we say, it's changing daily. And so that limiting it to solar may not be in the best interest to long term here. I think something we need to keep in mind along those lines David is these can be amended. This will not be perfect. I agree with you but we should get it the best we can but we could spend years on this. It's still not going to be perfect and it's changing and we can amend it as changes might happen. I think it'd be good to say small scale energy facility, not solar, not limiting to solar. Or you could say small scale and or renewable. What we would do is we would replace solar with renewable. So if that's what the planning was just to do, we would say small scale renewable energy facility as a solution. That would satisfy my question, yeah. I don't know any problem with it. It sounds like all four of you. Yeah, yeah. OK. OK. the land is common there is it says needs rules, regs to apply to these installations, property protections, views, quality of life. So I believe what she's talking about is that small scale just because it's smaller shouldn't be, should still adhere to those standards. How this is written and I think this is part of what goes back to Mr. Hoax County is these regulations are designed and are going to be applied whether you spy right or especially these two both large scale and small scale. So I think Lannis County satisfied there and I think that's what Mr. Hogan said. That was a big concern of hers. I talked about that. So that's good. I just assumed that was the case, but I wasn't sure. Okay. The next section is the actual language that will go in section three the use standards. So this is power generation facilities is the whole section. And then what we're talking about now is A, renewable energy facilities. If it's OK, I'm going to skip down the B to kind of explain the order. So A, all of this has to do with just renewable energy facilities. All of this. And then the next section is B, under PowerGeneration. Since this is a focus on renewables, I have not spent any time reviewing any liquid, solid, fuel, nuclear, any other fuels for power generation. So just included a catch all that says other types of power generation shall adhere to similar standards procedures and review processes those listed above. We can workshop that a little bit to add in as applicable to those other types of power generation facilities. Okay. Anyway, any thoughts on that? I think it's a good, good to have it. So back to the post-renewal issues. Purpose, purpose and intent of the second. Do you want me to read it? Do you want me to summarize it? What would be best for you to plan? Summarizing, it's fine. I think we've all up here anyway. We've hopefully all read it a few times. And I won't bore you too much. I guess the main thing is that this is applicable to, well, this is the purpose, obviously, to define reasonable standards for renewable energy facilities that allow for the placement of renewable energy facilities, but protect other properties from any potentially negative impacts. Definitions, agricultural tags, that would be new. And I believe I think I pulled that as a combination. I can't remember if I just got that from San Mego counties. It's a fairly standard definition of agricultural takes. This combination of renewables and air solar and the ag. Could be animal or crop. California, they actually have goat companies that they drive their goats around and they let them graze underneath. Yeah, we heard a solar symposium I went to last year. They had one of those developers that specifically designed solar fields for cubs. Yeah. Yeah. Alternate on-site energy generation, this definition exists. The reason it's in your draft is because there is a slight change that it appears is a fan of, but I'll explain what it is. So, energy generation methods for use on the same property which is located and this was added or to adjacent off-site facilities under the same ownership. Is that because of Cata? Yeah and I maybe I talked about last night. I know of that situation. I put the curtain rods up in that place, so I'm very familiar with it. So that I'll zoom into what Dennis has talked to me about. So you are probably familiar with the village of San Juan here. It's on this property. I'll pull up the tap and tap. Exactly. So, you can actually see it there, huh? So, this green, the greenest city, the clear is county. So, Casa owns both this property and this property, this property is the kind of property in the city. Casa Colled in was thinking about putting solar here to power the village. And they did. They could because it was zone industrial. If it wasn't zone industrial though, the moratorium would have applied to that and since it was technically off site, they wouldn't have been able to put that solar in. So when I was thinking about that, this is not direction from the board. I don't even remember if they had an opinion on it. I think they thought it was okay and didn't really have an opinion on it. The intent is, as you can see in this situation, is the same. That it's for onsite use. There are two separate properties. So technically it's off-site use, and that's why we added in... But same owner. Also under same ownership. And one of the downfalls is that could get DIC if for some reason one of these properties was transferred to a separate owner. I don't know how that could happen but I would imagine it could. So that could happen in a lot of cases. Yeah. Yeah. In this specific instance I don't know that that would ever happen but I'm sure there are applications where it could and that could cause some problems but so anyway that's probably up for your discussion, which you think about. Atlanta's comment, obviously, do you want this? Do we want this? It must consider impact others, property values, e-sheds, and quality value. I guess I don't know if I have those same concerns. There's always scenarios you can come up with that are my cause problem. What's her comment to eliminate something there? Unless considering other things. I think she would just go around the. So that would be part of the process anyway when they put it in. You'd review it. The difference with these onsite ones is we don't review them. We don't have a permit process. If you want to put on rooftop solar, we'll have to do it. Right, right, right, that's right. Okay. Is there a size limit? For alternate. The intention of the size limit, and that's why in the definition, it specifies one to five acres, or one to five megawatts, excuse me, because whether the intention of that is weather or not they are using it on site if it is does have the request to use one megawatt it would then be triggered into small scale as opposed to staying as alternate on site energy. Does that make sense? Yeah. That kind of having a minimum in there was actually sparked by the LP plan one. Where that one has the capacity, they told that they come in and tell us we're using a all on site. We, like at our comfort and say, okay, on site energy, that's used by right, no permits necessary. Where under this code, they could say it's still on use for on for on site but since it has the capacitors in excess of one megawatt it would trigger it up to this to the staff or yes actually LP was also we resounded to industrial would allow them to do it as he used by right yeah question if one more question. If it's a join by a row uniform, a county row person separates it. And we consider that a joining? That's a good question. I would say no. That's a good saying. The same property, just with a county row again. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking, just to have a suggestion. I would say no, I wouldn't be considered a chase, but that's, yeah, that's a good point. It's an excuse to turn you in. Okay. It would be one for the attorney. Thank you. Any questions or proposed changes to that definition? I can move on. Go for it. Okay. BESS is I believe I pulled this definition from something from Kosa. Nice. As they sometimes receive store and provide electric power to a building. What we're we're gonna see a lot of standalone BESS is that near substations That's one where we've seen them already And then obviously the ESS Accessory to a renewable energy facility would not need a special a use permit. It would be a part of one special use permit. Lannis comment is safety. She is not sure the technology is there for this to be a safe viable option. And I think one of those, I guess, to respond to Lannis being required as a special use, hopefully would prevent that or mitigate that. Well, and I'm not sure the technology would be allowed to be used if it wasn't tested and safe. Or if we don't have a fire mitigation plan. And the technology's changing. I mean, you can't. That's why they have testing. A little bit by the way. So yeah, I don't have any problem with that. Okay, the next definition is for large scale renewables, anything in excess of five megawatts for off-site use. Okay. So that's a public utility. Lannis comments who really benefits from these projects. Again, I think that's outside the scope of the definition section. Renewable energy facility, that's pretty straightforward. There is one thing that we probably should change. Before we added a separate use designation for BESS, we considered them, or we were proposing considered them or we were proposing to consider them a renewable energy. Now that we have a separate BES, stand-alone BESS designation, I think I can make it clear that at the end there where it says, and battery energy storage systems, I can put something like an accessory battery energy storage system. Is that work reasonable? Yeah. OK, small scale. Again, between one and five, I think we had some comment today. And if we remove the one and you say less than five, I think the, again, the intent of the one is to put it to prevent an LP plant type situation. I don't know what other codes do to prevent that. Would it make much difference if we had an AC? Oh yeah, that was the AC power to the clarification of how it measured. And both that and large scale. Right. Lannes' count are to limit small scale to on-site use. 25 acres of on-site. I don't know about that because you got all these companies that are building your own onsite power. So it would be hard to limit that, I would think. If we think that would have to come with the permit, the application, and all that would have to be considered. Yeah. And I think the intent of the Small Scales Solar Facility would, keeping it for on-site would remove the purpose of having this designation. We might just have it. Right. We already have a definition for this, it's alternate onset generation. So adding a second definition, but then also limiting it to onset, really doesn't have a whole lot of sense. But I think, anyway, I assume you'll be continuing this to the next meeting with that could be different. And I understand Lanna to be there at that meeting so she could have a chance. And Mark's meeting, okay. She can speak to that a little more better than I can read her. Okay. Probably. Soar and je Solar engine facility that's pretty typical language for the definition of land energy same thing that's you've been seeing that for two years. Applicability we're talking about again this is related to whether it's used by right more special use. We're applying this to stuff that's a large scale or small scale. Not alternate. related to whether it's used by right or special use. We're applying this to stuff that's a large scale or small scale, not alternate on-site generation. Okay. And again, exceptions is not applicable on shouldn't it? And right as concern is what are their regulations. I guess my response is typically they'll need a lot of tuition to get the correct hookups for that. And that's done and reviewed by the state. So I guess I can't answer exactly what the regulations are, but I'm confident that. It wouldn't be the Kelly. Right, and I'm confident that it's being checked. It's not the sketchy thing that no one's regulating or looking after. Yes. There's the loophole closed. Since these regulations don't apply to that, I'm not sure it's worth elaborating on kind of too much. Okay. If there's a disclaimer we could say in there that would address it be okay but I'm yeah okay also another good point this does not apply to New Blanche facilities located on state or federal federal lands right and they've been working on an analysis of different areas where on federal land that these would be most beneficial. So there's some stuff, there's some BLM land in Monter's County that they're looking at. But these rights will multiply. Right. As I sit here and I've had a little bit of experience years ago, but there is a method of producing energy through methane, for a mentation of calmenor. It has been done and it is applicable. I think the reason it went under is it became a little financially infeasible, but the technology is there. And such as a dairy could take and ferment their methane or ferment their waste into methane to heat their facility and heat their hot water, that type of thing. That would be renewable energy. It wouldn't necessarily be measured in megawatts, but it would be renewable energy that could be consumed as heat units on site. So it wouldn't really need regulation. This is for alternate off-site. Well, it was a small energy, renewable energy. That's the reason I keep pushing to kind of put the word solar aside here and just and say with renewable energy because there's other forms right and this is a viable form of renewable energy. And in this section I believe it speaks just so I believe it's renewables it's talking about this home. Yeah there's a lot of I might be nervous in my explanation. I might be saying so I mentioned solar in that one because Specifically the state came out with locations where solar would be viable But but yeah, this regulation has to do with all renewables not just Okay, but yes, if there are other locations as we're going through this and we see it's just specifically to solar and should be, should it be that I agree, David, I think we should remove that. Okay, this gets into the standards, the minimum standards location, set back at least 50 feet from property lines, 200 feet from off-site residential structures, and then we add in at the request of the, well, Koso suggested the BOCC agreed to reduce setback requirement, maybe granted if negotiated between adjacent property owner. Lanna has that crossed out. Again, red is Lanna's red lines and blue is Lanna's comments. She says no special agreements stick to the rules. And then substation constricted as a part of the facility will get at least 500 feet from offstate residential structures. Any thoughts on that section? You know the way I look at most of the renewables, they're not permanent facilities on properties. Most of the, I know I've watched shows in the Midwest where companies will come in and offer farmers 25, 30-year leases. So after that lease is done, it's back to Ag again or whatever, Chris, we probably haven't hit 25 or 30 years in the solar business. But I guess thinking about Lanna's comments, if we keep that in there, if we keep the agreement allowable between two landowners that are in agreement, it's only going to be for maybe 25 or 30 years. It's not a permanent situation, so I don't really have a problem leaving it in. Okay, then I think the main, this measure of mitigation is mainly geared towards protecting adjacent property nodes from Claire and those are probably the main two. So having a setback, I mean, and if a neighbor, that neighbor feels to agree to a decrease setback or decrease buffering requirements, I don't see why the county should... Yeah, that's what I'm saying. If it doesn't, what's the harm? Right. Yeah, I'm saying eventually it's going to be good. Yeah. What did the mayor setback? 50 feet of fur panels from probably... Yeah, he doesn't agree to what he does. Reverts back to what this is. So we don't have a less than yeah, just it just says reduced. Yeah, it can increase it. I think Kim's concern is if it's reduced from 50 to what to zero. So that might be something we could add a sideboard into. I'll put a limit on it. Yeah, I would a 10 foot setback is our building setbacks. I think that could be fair I don't know I would think most property owners adjacent property owners would want to adequate buffer but you know, maybe a relative or something like that. I think that's a good point. It's something we could add in. 20 years down the road is a problem. Yep. You know, it's still tall and kind of. Anything else on that one? I'm good. Okay. Structures associated with this will include panels and for solar, windmills for wind, that anything shall not be located in a regulatory floodplain or the flood hazard areas as it in front of the master plan. Good I like that one. This one specific to wind energy facilities. Shall we look at at at least one point one times the system height from property lines, public roads and railroads. They shall be looking at least two times the system height from ahead of buildings. What land I as proposed is to cross out unless appropriate easements are secured from adjacent properties or other exceptional limitations. I think this one's similar to the comment we were just talking about. And the principle is the same if we're looking to protect the adjacent property owners mainly. In this case, there is with wind systems being an increased risk to the next property or maybe the adjacent property. Physical damage. Yeah, maybe we could word it that way. Or if it's 150 feet tall, the lot's only 100 feet. We should probably be talking to a lot of them or that's within 150 feet too. That's just like the cell towers you have the fall zone. Yeah we can include more like a radius as opposed to just a Jason. Yeah. Yeah. And then the system height is not just the tower, it's the turbine, or the blade sticking up. The blade is as high as the furthest from the ground. Vertical. And then this one's new. This is my effort to the board of commissioners is interested in encouraging these types of facilities on all of your developed plans. And also if they're not going on all of your developed plans, keeping eggs somehow. So this is an attempt at that. I'm hopefully we can have a good conversation if there's other ideas of ways we can achieve that. Landsmen previously disturbed by reclaim mining operations or other similar disturbances may be encouraged for use of a new language facility where this is not possible to propose on-prime farmland agrialtate shall be encouraged and then the next sentence is how they're encouraged where agriolethex operations are implemented, reduced by free and landscaping may be considered. I know Lana had little heartburn with this one but I actually think it's it's a much fairer than the way we had it before. You know if you look at the average age of a farmer in this valley they're in their 60s the kids are not wanting to farm. Their farms are 401K and I know in the Midwest, again I watch a lot of shows on this stuff, their farmers are getting offered $2,000 to $2,500 an acre per year for solar releases. If a farmer is 70 years old doesn't want to farm anymore, he should have the same right some guy on the other side of the valley has. I think what's going to hurt him over here is there is no way to move the power to get it where you have the tri-state line on the other side. But I think this evens the playing field to allow all farmers the opportunity to do it to some degree. So, and keep the farm. They could keep the farm and, you know, not have to farm 20 or 40 acres of their land, whatever they want to lease out, and make an income. So, I'm not adverse to that. David, you're the farmer or the group. What do you think of that? Do you think a farmer should have the right to? One of the things that needs to be considered that agricultural land, whether it's in production or not, has an overhead cost of the navigation water. And that water goes with land and whatever the land is doing, that overhead cost has to be met every year. That's right. I failed to mention that. I talked to Steve, what's his name, his UVWA and he said no matter what they do with it they got to pay for it. So that would be part of the agreement if they're going to go solar without agri, well they have to go and encourage agrivoltaics. No, No, that's not exactly our belly-wicked unit. No, no. But that is, yeah, that's true. That would be added to that. They do need to recognize that overhead column. Right. Right. Well, the other benefit of that is the way the water situation is in the basin, the Colorado River basin, if a few farms went this way and freed the water up water up for the other farmers could use it, you would know this guy is paying for it. But that's not the same. Still not with the ice in the rice. So it's not the same. What do you mean? Well like I know they pay some of them not to farm, but the water rites are still there. Right. So they're not're not really other, they're chairs. Yeah. But yeah, they'd still have to pay for that either way. But they're talking that section of land. But they may not use it. Water can't be separated from the ground in this family. Right. Nope. I think we're saying the same thing just different ways. Yeah. And I think there is a water plant, there is a water plant element in the application which is a little large, so maybe we could beef that up when we get there. But to Lanna's point, I do have land that's previously been disturbed, maybe encouraged, and then later, Agririval takes shall be encouraged. I agree whatever It's encouraged either way. It's it's a weird one where it's in the regulations, but we're not requiring it We're encouraging it Do you guys have any thoughts on if you'd like may will shall I think both of us probably see I would say shall Both shall be well, which one's stronger will Will and shall are fairly similar I don't know how you flip a coin I've done that My language needs to encourage that that's what will happen right? Okay Anything else on that section Okay Okay. Buffer landscaping. This is another one that's tricky. I haven't been able to figure out a way to regulations generally should be objective. This one's subjective. It talks about a combination of that ex-Burham Spence's landscaping to effectively insulate adjacent properties from adverse vision model. So this is where who's approving, whether it's by special use or respire, right? This is where that's important, right? The board's determining that as opposed to the staff with the small scale soldiers that he staff would be doing as opposed to the staff and with a special with a small scale solar facility staff would be doing as opposed to the board. And that's if the facility oh that's between sorry the facility and all residential structures within 1300, within a quarter mile. That's a quarter mile. Now this does not include roads. This is just residential structures, just to be clear. Okay. From that mistaken, a lot of the newer solar panels are fairly glare free. Well, it's in their best interest to have no glare because that means they're keeping all the recording. Right. And you're right, they're getting better. We added in some, again, relate to the glare. Regardless of they're getting better, there still is. And that has certain restrictions. And they have requirements for certain forms to be filled out. I worked with Lloyd Arnold to make sure I got the correct language on what the form is called. But any of those of the three miles of a kind of airport would be required to fill those out. Any concerns with that on? No. And then this one feels a little out of order. Basically the standard is saying later on we require that a dust mitigation plan be submitted. This is saying that they have to adhere to those that approve dust mitigation plan, including these four things. Which again, our kind of subjective being minimize, minimize the state, CDPHE has standards for dust and they have a way to measure it. So while minimizing it is fairly subjective, there are state standards set in stone. That could be looked at particulates. The land is currently should also include owner, operator and land owners as opposed to, I assume as opposed to just the applicants. Oh, as opposed to just the operator. Wait a minute, County, County should not be left. Why would the county be left to do the cleaning? Maybe this is just a B4. It says all areas disturbed by construction, maintenance or reclamation so shall we restore it and re-veg it within a designated time frame by the applicant. Oh, as opposed to just the applicant, it should include owner, operator, and landowner. Oh, well, okay. And that's maybe something we put in at the beginning is any reference to applicant owner operator landowner We could write you clarify Okay, who that means okay It says that in one before but then say that now So this owner operator for so And a and then seeing that amount. So it's owner operator for us. NA. Yeah, could we just duplicate what's in it? The first couple of words in A, owner operator? Yeah, just put that in B. Yeah, I'm writing a note down to make sure it's consistent. Okay. I'm sure some places, I've been developer, some places I've been owner operator, is owner operator the way to go? I would say so. Yeah, covers more than one. Yeah, there's one of them. So yeah. Rocky and Dennis are going with that David and Cliff. Second, somebody. Speak up if you have, if you're not hearing what you like. So I'll replace applicant, developer, landowner, whatever with owner operating. Yeah. Owner slash operator. Okay. All right. Next one, power lines. This one, BMEU is pretty helpful in, it's pretty straightforward language we did. We did it just for order to make a lot more sense to the developers and to the utility. Right. Well, except for the, well, these are utilities so they could be used. They won't be able to be built in accesses, or potentially other ones. Oh, go up on B. We talk about shall be installed that the wiring for system should be installed underground except where the electrical connecting wire brought to. So throughout most of the solar array you're going to have buried wire. How deep? One of the commenters that our last meeting mentioned we talk a somewhere in here a couple of feet or three feet. But that one I believe the comments are related to when we require remedi that we reclaim with them three feet. Okay, I was going to let the three feet. So this doesn't refer to that thing that the recombion doesn't refer to how deep the. Oh, okay, that's just okay. Re-claim within the three. Okay, well, so this would do we need something, you know, if they're gonna be buried, you wouldn't wanna put the mass of wireings between the panels two or three feet. I'm thinking, it's probably a standard on that. Yeah, I don't know if the, if you're doing agrivoltaics, you might need to plow something. What do you plow you plow ten inches? I don't know. I can check to see if that's within our scope to set a minimum depth. Okay. If that's something that's controlled by the state. Oh, okay. That would be nice. I'll research that one. If that was controlled by the state, it'd be nice to take it off our backs. We know. Do you know? Just hold your hand up is it? Go ahead. I think probably tell them to see these two that's okay. I'm sorry. I don't know. He means I'm the installation. Yeah. I don't know. I think in 18, like the irrigation line, like a foot. Why would I talk to that twice? Is that interesting? All that would have to be taken from the river. That's typically sufficient. Yeah, so by the installation, I thought there's 12 inches and thus it's a roadway that's 18. Okay, so a roadway goes a little deeper. Yeah, it checks the line better. Yeah. So and that's a minimum. So it has to be at least 12 inches in the minimum. 18 under, so 12 everywhere. It's only to have in a minute of depth to those. Well, maybe you may want to research at the 12 and if it's on a road it's 18 minimum. Yeah, because again with your question with the adjacent and the county road, I could see a small or large potentially being on two sides of the county road where even if it was a dirt road I would trench it very well that's that's completely different now the the public works department has standards for public right away you tell it they certainly have minimum debts for that I think the what we could add in here is really the onsite. Right. Yeah, we could do that. Okay. That's all I had on that. Okay. You just want to hit it with a rotor toy. Yeah. Yeah. So. Or if it goes digging. And that's why I think the removal thing at 36 inches is good. It's in all that house to come out. And we'll get, I think we'll get to that. Yeah, that's right, we'll get back in here. That's the commissioning. It's done. This one's a requirement to have a sign posted at all access points that has a contact hour, or a 24 hour contact information. Lannus comment is to add lighted lighting to the sign and show the name address of the facility. Any thoughts on adding that? I had a comment further on down about what about our down directed lighting requirements. I think we should apply that here too for across the board. Okay. But lighting of the sign? The sign, I mean, yeah, if you're going to have a sign up there, it should be directed on the sign. It's sort of the feats of purpose of it if you don't. Say it, sorry. I was... You have to direct the light, should be directed to the sign. I guess they could shoot it up on the sign. I think she's saying a sign should be lighted. What kind of other. Yeah. You could do that down direct and still. It just be attached to the sign. Yeah, to the toss. Yeah. So yeah, I'm fine. Yeah. I'm saying what kind of light she's saying. Yeah. Yeah. That's not a rocket. And then if we get into your comment in a minute, we can, that would have pointed this one too. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Standards, limitations. They're designed to minimize site disturbances. I have a recommendation here. Or we can talk about ensuring drainage patterns do not materially increase off site discharge and permeable ground cover. I think if we just take out and sharing drainage which patterns do not material increase and just say to, let's see, including the restored disturbed areas to original surface water hydrology. Because that covers your physical channel and includes water quality. It's kind of more overarching than what we have in there. But I think we originally had that, but then we wondered if that was too specific to the exact topography of the entire facility. Or if we just ensured that the drainage patterns that we can capture that without requiring revamping the whole facility. I think that's what we're talking about. Okay, I know there was another place in here where we talked about that, indeed commissioning. But all right, yeah, I was just thinking something a little more comprehensive, but it's okay the way it is. Okay, I'll look at that. If you look up the definition of surface water hydrology, it covers water sheds, the whole water shed basically. It's comprehensive. Okay, I'll check that. Okay. Access permit required and then those last two are just basically saying you can't submit this facility, this plan for the facility and build something completely different. You have to stick to the plan for the commission for construction. Yep. Of course I can. It probably is. It would depend on the state federal or local health plan. If there was one on public lands, we probably wouldn't have really much to say about it. Right, these rights don't apply to facilities and public land. But Kim's question is do we want to specify that it's a commercial access permit? So we might need to add that in there. I don't know if we want it to differentiate it leave it up to the different departments. Well, we can talk about that. Okay. Plants comment is emphasis on maintained IE weeds panels, blades, buildings. And that's part of the maintenance plan for maintenance. And then this is application requirements. So, moving on for minimum standards, this is the minimum standards for their application. Site plan, pretty typical dimensions of the facility, setbacks, and like that, locations of landscape in Fencing, you need. Schematic drawing showing solar panels, turbines, or other uses. I think there were concerns with this, with the potential for replacing solar panels and when you replace them, sometimes you don't replace with the same model. I think that was somewhere in the public comment. So if you have any thoughts on visual standpoint, the visual impact of mixing up? Well, I think the question is, if they're required to stick to this drawing, or this specific schematic, or this specific solar panel, and then 20 years down the line, they have to replace a panel, and they don't replace it with that specific model from 20 years ago does that technically not align with their... I think my concern there would be if the technology improves the efficiency of solar panels and they want to upgrade to a better more efficient solar panel and that's the intent of that final So final sentence. There's a new detail of the new model. Should I just send it if there's any? At least. OK, that new detail of the new model. OK. We'd be limited. That's DC. You'd be limited by the method of inversion. And the grid would not allow you to connect a new inverter without a permit. So the DC is fairly irrelevant, it would be captured before it even gets to the grid. Okay. Okay. All right. Good to next one. Yep. The narrative, this one's pretty straightforward. Looking like Lanna's requesting that we record the narrative with the application. I'm guessing I agree. I think she means with the resolution. I don't know that that's a process. I don't know that that would be part of the zoning regulations, but She also says detailed maintenance outline What she So the two letters C requires that the narrative addresses ongoing maintenance and their plans for maintenance guessing she wants us to put Eat or eat that up a little bit, and require additional information. I think the reason we left it general is if they say, in their narrative, we will maintain and provide weed control. We could, as a staff review, I would see that and say, that's cool, explain how you're gonna do that instead of just saying that you're gonna do it. Right. And maybe she's asking that we put in there to ask to me specific. That the detail of how you're gonna do it? Yeah I don't know if we want to go into minimum standards of that, or if we leave that up to sites with sites. I wouldn't want to tell them how to do it, but it might not be bad to have them specify how they're going to do it. So we could beef that language up to make sure the applicant or sends it as to be detailed. Yeah. Yeah. We're talking weed control. Are we talking noxious weeds? Are we talking plants in general? How do you define a weed? What's the definition of a weed that they have to control? The plant you don't like. Yeah, plant that's supposed to be the weed. That's what definition. So that would include all Noxious Weeds and Tumble Weeds and Coaches. You have invasives, you have Noxious, you got all kinds of classifications and weeds. Okay, but that's all weeds. All weeds are pretty general. Is there still a weed board in the county? Yeah. Would they be consulted could they be consulted or whatever review this for whatever? Well they could. I'm not qualified to say this. I'm chairman but I'm not qualified to say. We could have a provision in there that's recommends that we send this their narrative or we control plan to the weed board. I think that'd be a good idea because David's right there is a lot two weeds. We haven't even considered another weed. Well that's a good weed. Yeah, well just going to say. Okay, we'll be that section up. I will okay. And then the next one in in the description of the financing or performance bond of its for installation facility. And her questions of who or from where I think that's typical information for that type of security that we're looking for. So we would certainly have that information. Any questions on the narrative? I can go through the rest of that and try to add details of the need. We'd like to keep it general. Leave it up to the applicant to add that information, and if we need more, we certainly can ask for it. Okay. Impact analysis. One of the things we added is that the applicant shall consult with CPW in developing a Habt Impact Assessment. And then they need to provide documentation of that consultation. Good. I like that. The fourth one's current photos of the site, Alan has added up before and after, I would assume, well, she says that there are any any disturbance of the property. Which is typical, the timelines are long. So the time of the application would be well before any disturbance or minimal way in disturbance. I can clarify that if you guys need that. It wouldn't hurt. I don't think it hurt to put before and after or something. Yeah. Okay. They probably do that anyway as you say. But. Okay. I think the original side. And then the part of the impact analysis is assessing any potential effects on roads like electric police, fire schools, things of that nature. And how they're going to get it. OK, utility interconnection and crossing. This is fairly similar to what you've been working with the last couple of years. Any questions about that one? I didn't have any notes on mine. And then the decommissioning plan. Again, I don't know that this has changed a lot since it was before you, a year and a half ago. A cost estimate, prepared by an engineer or contractor with expertise of those costs. I plan on a reclamation restoration plan, land discounted to reference application photos, detailed plan for for here's the 36 inches. So here's where you acquire these rags are requiring removal of offices and equipment within two to the surface. The depth of 36 inches were cosine. What we heard today, they're requesting that reduce that to 24. Oh, they recommended that. They're recommending that because yeah. 36 is pretty deep. It's three feet. Three feet. If you deal in water lines at all, well three feet is a minimal. Well I think this would be more electrical cable, but... I think three feet would take all major cable. Yeah, I think. But I think it's probably... Think negatively on that. How would they... I think the intent of this one was that... I don't know what the standard is, but I know in the subdivision I live in, it's cool. We walk by the new houses that are being built. When they're putting gas lines and water lines, they're putting them in lower than 24 inches. They're putting them in deeper than twer- so if you're coming back and reclaiming after it's been reclaimed and putting in a residential subdivision, for example, I think the intent of 36 was to make sure that's all out of there to put in gas, water, electric, whatever. But I think that's what we discussed and that's why you guys settle on 36. And I think we should have a purpose to each number if we're requiring 36 and not 24, we should have a reason. That's up to you guys. I think 36 inches makes sure you take out any major structure under the ground. Well, that might be... Most of us going to be less than that. My concern is if there's a gas liner, power liner, the water line in there that's not part of that facility, and you would assume it's plated. But if something's not, if they take down three feet, they could damage something. I don't know how to rectify that. We often see subdivisions where, you know, so and so had a water line and nobody knows about it. And you dig down three feet and you just nuke all their facilities out of just throwing that out there as a devil's advocate kind of thing. But I don't know. And I heard you'd like to keep it at 36. I think I'd hear that from Rocky. I would keep it at 36. I agree. Could I put it here? Yeah. I can live with it. I'm just a little concerned if there's something in there that needs to stay in. I don't know how they would... There is a... There is an exception for... Well, we'll get to that at the end of for reclamation that they can keep equipment that doesn't need to be pulled or could be useful to the sub station, you could leave that. Right, but yeah, yeah, no, I remember that. You see if I can find that quick, Louie? I think I can because Lanna crossed it out. But at the time of decommission, the more they elect that certain facilities remain upon approval of the B.O.C.C. I don't know how to agree with that. So when we're at 36 inches, we're talking about things that are not approved to remain at the right doses. Okay. So when we're at 36 inches we're talking about things that are not approved to remain right. Okay. Okay. Contact information of the owner, responsible for decommissioning, and then that that be updated. Lennis comment is that that be updated within 30 days of the ownership changing. and then adding a sixth F should owner out for you no longer exist. The commission point falls to the sole response with the landowner. I think that's innate in that the bushy's permit runs with the land. And then we'd leave that up to the landowner and the developer to work that out legally. But I don't see years on why we couldn't add anything. Any thoughts on that? I think we're good there. Let me let me think. Good as in yes, Adder. Good as in what's it's we're covered. I think we're covered there. Should let me just think about this for a fact. I sure no longer it should the owner no longer exist Well how with all the love of the state of earth we have in there how could that happen because that's what I'm saying That should all be covered already That could scare people if they if they if they feel If the owner no longer exists they're responsible What wording was you saying what you saying is if the developer just vanishes Well, wouldn't they we're not paying the millions dollars to reclaim this Don't they have don't they have to have that done before they Are you right so we would have security for that so yeah, we'd be fine She's saying that as opposed to as opposed to us cashing in that security, that we put it up to the land on our first. That's sort of overkill, though, isn't it? I'm not sure what she put up to the land on her. Let them decide what they want to do with it or. Maybe we can keep this conversation going when Lanna is here. Let's do that and we'll make we'll talk about this. It is March but the March. Okay, I'm not sure I fully understand that one. I think we're covered, but let's ask Lanna if there's something that she's talking about. All right. And I know for Gation of Merrill writes, that's pretty typical. That's last language I pulled from state statute. I don't know if we want to vary from that, but as I asked you to move, if applicable. It's okay for by me. I don't know. I can look at that. It's okay for by me. Okay, thank you. Just because analysis, this hasn't changed since he saw it. and land is coming up here to perhaps the table is a concerning sustainability of of you saw that. Lannis comment is to absent tables concerning sustainability of types of soil and proposed development in accordance with any standard soil classification and procedures there are up there for for the proposed use. Should I be verified and shown in comparison to county records? That's your right. Follow that one. County rec county doesn't have records of soil glass. Might be in our CS if they're still around by then. We can keep that one for discussion actually. Water system, I think this is going back to the, it's very general, but this is what we're going back to what David was talking about with the shares. This one looks like it's geared mostly towards if Agable takes us being being used. Yeah. They describe how to use that. But we could beef that up to add if they're not using agribiltakes, how they would address the use of shares. Is that something you're interested in? Don't solar. They do need to clean, they do use quite a bit of water and cleaning the panels off. I know that they. I'm not sure, I'm not sure. I don't know that they use water. But I don't know if you could use the ag water. They use a chemical for most of it anymore. I know that it needs potential for desmanigation in any water. Yeah, that and I know they cleaned the panels occasionally too. So, yeah. No more comments on that one? Yeah. So, where to ask if he can use irrigation water? I don't think that what would be our response? If they had irrigation water, I don't think we would mess with it. I think it would have to still pay for their irrigation water whether they use it or not. The way I understand it, I talked to Steve the manager. And he said they still have to pay for it. Or they get a lean against their houses with it. The use of the water and how how the water is used is up to the is between the landowner and the water users. Yeah. So I don't know if I agree. I don't know if you want to. Yeah. Oh, thanks. We haven't been to this. But adding in a section that says that they need to make a statement for that if they have a plan to sell off the shirt or whatever they have to do that they at least identify that I don't think that's okay we just don't want to get bothered okay anything on the water and or wind erosion control I think that think that's going back to what you were talking about, Dennis. Yep. The liability insurance. It's pretty straightforward maintenance of the facility. And I, Atlanta's comment is to add a fourth item, psych must be maintained so as to be visually appealing, no weed, solar panels, solar panels and sink, no broken turbine blitz. She did submit some photos of panels that were already getting except for four or five of them. I kind of looked a little wonky. I know where that is. It's in rich field. Yeah, it's in rich fields. Yeah. I was just by there. I would and this is for your discussion. If you want to add that in as D under 12 I guess the only Reconciliation I'd have for you is Remove the visually appealing I think that's subjective impossible to yeah, yeah, it's very subjective And he thoughts from you for let me I would add that it just Eliminate the visually appealing Think there might be a better way to word that but it might take me a while You'd like me to workshop that if you want to work sure on yeah, and then we can discuss it in March. Later March, our meeting in March. I don't disagree with it, but I'm not sure that's the right way to word it. The 13th is a fire mitigation plan and I think we kept this pretty general again going back to the different technologies and different most are in chemistry with, anyway, with not being able to use water on a lot of those right anyway we kept it very general we'll leave willy on the fire protection district and their conversation with the developer on how they're best good that. The panelists are including a written copy to the county emergency services director. I'm in the near water source for fire suppression and alternatives. I agree I like adding alternatives there because like I just said water is not a good not to the electric. Especially if it's salt water. I really did. They found that out of California. I think we can add other agencies to the distribution review list. Any comments? I like Linus comments on those, any concerns with adding any of those? No. No. Okay. And then additional information as required by the by staff. That's fine. And that would obviously expand to the planning commission if you need other items or the board of the commission. And then the last one, securities. This one hasn't changed at all since you guys saw it last. I believe this is exactly how you guys spent a lot of time on this two years ago and the board didn't propose to change it. I thought Lena, oh there's, Lena's comments are again, developer, owner, operator will clarify that. And then any comments or questions on that one? No. Next one's a bad amendment and removal. This one, again, didn't change a lot. Land has proposing to remove 12 replace decommissioning within 12 months after permanently ceasing power generation to six months. And then removing the ability, the flexibility for the board to leave a lot of time on this. I almost won't just leave it the way it is. I'm not sure what the justification is to reduce it to six months. Thank you. Of course, we'll make it on a cell. Well, yeah, but you know, sometimes those, I mean, if we have all the insurance and the bonds and all that, it's going to get done. But it's, if we make it too restrictive, my fear is if we get too restrictive with easier, you're not going to get anybody applying for anything. And I think we need to make it workable or usable. We're spending way too much time on it to have it too restrictive. Boarding, could you talk about this as well? I mean, we've been over that several times and everybody sort sort of kept 12, but I I just leave it. I don't know if she can convince us. Yeah. That makes me. I would consider six months under continuous operation before the other. Oh, up here? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, we can talk about that. Both of them. We'll talk about that. And that brings us to the end of Power Generation. Yay. That's it. Any other question of Power Generation before I jump into the other two? Well, actually actually that's not it. I think there's some definitions of the bottom. Any comments, questions, concerns about the applications, materials, known standards? Not at this point. Speak up if anybody speak now or for everywhere, you piece. Okay, next one's natural medicine that's proposed to be out as a use by right in the general industrial district that's It currently is not listed So this is just clarifying as loud industrial And would be there and prohibited everywhere else And then then we're adding new standards that state, no natural medicine business shall be located within a quarter mile public or private school church, both daycare, things like that. Again, I think the intent is to protect from the negative impacts of recreation. Right. These types of things. The next one is massage therapy business. We're adding is used by right in general commercial and general industrial, it being a commercial use. I debated adding is general business. That's what I think I brought that up at the last meeting unofficially. But to me, it's not really an industrial massage parlor, it's more of a business. Well, and it's allowed it because any use by right allowed in commercial is allowed by right in industrial. It just is because it's less intense, why not allowed it? Is the philosophy. Okay. But why not business? I mean, that's the question. If you'd like to, if you'd like to add business in there, we certainly, I think it's more appropriate business. I think we have the, let me put it to business use too. Can I ask, what is natural medicine? Is it, what it says, it's a use per rate in industrial, is it special use in other locations? No, it's prohibited in every other location. It seemed like it would be like in the woods. I thought we discussed last time this on the natural medicine business, it would be the production of it, maybe not the use of it. It's not the personal use of it. So I can understand that being in the commercial. But the massage is a little different. So medical, dental clinics are allowed in the jail business. Personal services, establish, you know. Personal service establishments are allowed in business professional offices, so I think it could go either way if you want to include in business, I certainly can add that. I think it makes more sense to add that. I would agree. Okay. Any other David Rocky you cliff, would you agree with that? No, I agree with that. I'd like to know what some a high-grow massage and what do we have? I read that. That's a definition of pull-stay from the statute. Basically, all that's saying is those sketchy, we're not considering sketchy massage partners that to be allowed in business. Those are those are the fact you had this fine head. Well to eliminate that you probably need these definitions to eliminate the bad stuff. That's why they're in. How do they? Sorry. How do they submit the FAR sketchy? We won. If the sketch plan looks sketchy. Thanks for your comments folks. Thank you all very much for letting us be here. What was that you mentioned? That you mentioned. What was that you mentioned? That you mentioned. To tell Maui and Jimmy business stuff as well. We have commercial investors. Get your sketchy. That's the issue. Let's get going. I'm going to in general business as well. Yes, commercial infrastructure. Not just scholarship, but just be a good company. OK, then this is the definitions. We're basically adding them in both sections. Both in new standards and at the end of definitions to make it just easy to find. So, change AOEG to include adjacent property of state ownership, add the ESS, add the massage therapy business definition, add that natural medicine business definition. Okay. And then Lana has some comments. Here any other questions or comments on those other two though? Not for me. I don't know. I have one. So the production of the natural medicine and industrial commercial. Yeah, the business. The business. And then what about the other side of it, the use of it is that that's going to be like a healing center. It has to have. No, the use, the private use of it, that's a federally state controls that. The use of a business or a structure to facilitate that, it's a weird thing where the feds still don't allow it. So the feds don't allow it. It's just like pot. Yeah is not a, is not fed really. It's a federal offense, but the state's approved it. Just think of it like when you're doing a building permit for a structure, and it looks like house, but they're going to be using it as a play every treat. Because we're not talking about that. You don't have regulations on that. Well, it would be prohibited unless it's in the state federal. I mean, they could get a similar to any other use they could get a building from a house. And we could issue that from it. That permit is issued for the use of that house as a house. Right. Then they come in and use it as a crack house. Or a crack house or something else. We would retroactively have to pull through. Okay. I just want to make sure we're not. Yeah, that's good. Yeah, a lot of the use of this stuff is for people with like PTSD and stuff. They're giving them, it's very controlled though. I mean, you go in and you spend days. That's a whole other deal that we have nothing to do with. No. It's another one of those things where there's not a lot of, I looked into a lot of studies on it to, I'm part of my job is to present any concerns that we have. And there's really not a lot of data on it. It's really, it's relatively new. Very new. But, but has been generally found to help lots of people. Yep. Anyway. Yeah. Other discussion, I have, that Elena has economic analysis, both short-term and long range. Possibly, we part of the application. I'm guessing that's related to renewable energy facilities. I think the figure was 13 million, was the revenue that Delta County is getting from the government in the solar. Anyway, I haven't done a serious analysis of it, but I certainly can if that's. Wow, I don't... I say certainly, I don't know if on the timeline we have the ability to go to the finance... I think there would be... I think everyone would be different, I would think, from how I hear they do those, it's a company comes in and maybe offers the landowner the lease kind of thing. I mean, there's a lot of variables in there, so I don't know how specific you could get with something like that. I think I could try to put together a work with the assessor's office and what kind of tax revenue at least. Between the landowner and the developer, I don't think we want to touch that or analyze that, because that's not. But I mean, I would assume that taxes tied to the South price of the power. That's going to vary. So you could, you know, what's it going to be next year or in 10 years? It's going to be a... There will be a property tax difference too. Yeah, because the use is different. But sales tax, that's true. Yeah. It will all depend. I just see a of variation there. And you might be able to verbally say something, but I don't know how you could quantify that. I'll do my best. OK. Is this spank? Is it like the old LP plant? Would be a perfect spot for a small new facility now. I mean, it would. And we're generally a lot more gates and supposedly these getting them right as you go. Colorado's all in morgue zone. Just look out. I think that's part of the equation. I mean Garfield County. Well the problem with LP is that that's all Bitcoin mining. And I don't know if that guy wants to deal with it. Well, I know, but I'm just saying it. That's how that happened down the road. Well, that building's not the big buildings not being used. It doesn't want to be. I don't know. The next one was taxation. These endeavors are all commercial nature, no matter what zoning. They're approved for their run as a business. It should be appropriately taxed as such. Now, neither cultural production should be prepared to pay their way even, look at ads on property. This issue has already come before the view. So, and that's another, I think I'll be approaching those two at the same time. Sales tax and property tax, how that's affected. Okay, I don't have any problem with that. No, cool. All right. That's all I got. Good job. All right. Everybody worn out a little bit. It was a bad, little, bad, airport stuff, for now. That was curious, because I remember when we did that before. That was, we continued that, that because we all okay, but it's it'll yeah, that's what I You mean here yeah All right Yeah, so all right before we sidetracked too much. I want to end the meeting so we're not recording So all right any any more business? No. We done. All right. Meeting adjourned. I'll let you sit down. Okay, stop. It is 7.55. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. you