Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Highway95 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Yuma County supervisors deny plan to strip Highway 95 scenic-corridor protections, direct staff to redraw boundary
Summary
The Yuma County Board of Supervisors on April 7 denied minor amendment 24-06, which would have removed U.S. Highway 95 from the county's official list of visual corridors, and instructed staff to return with a revised map that preserves scenic protections for the highway's northern reaches.
The Yuma County Board of Supervisors on April 7 voted to deny minor amendment case 24-06, a proposal that would have removed U.S. Highway 95 from the county's 2030 Comprehensive Plan list of designated visual corridors.
Supporters of the corridor designation, including residents, conservation groups and Yuma Proving Ground representatives, urged supervisors to keep at least the northern stretch of Highway 95 protected. The board denied the amendment and directed staff to return with revised language that would preserve scenic protections for areas north of a yet-to-be-finalized cutoff.
The dispute opened during the meeting's call to the public, where multiple emailed comments and in-person speakers framed the issue as a choice between allowing more billboard and commercial signage or protecting the scenic desert approach that visitors see when arriving in Yuma County. Javier Barraza, senior planner, told the board the amendment arose from a discrepancy between the comprehensive plan map and its legend; the map showed Highway 95 as a visual corridor but the legend omitted it. Planning staff brought the item after the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended removing the corridor in its entirety.
Local residents said the corridor is the county's “front door.” Jay Meijer, a resident and retired city planner, told the board: “All that we're asking is that you maintain the full intent of the 2030 Yuma County comprehensive plan for another 5 years.” He urged supervisors to preserve the section of Highway 95 that runs along federal lands and military property.
Representatives of Yuma Proving Ground also urged the board to retain protections. Isaac Rodriguez, range operations and training division chief at Yuma Proving Ground, reiterated concerns in a written memo about the potential operational and public-safety impacts if development and new signage were allowed adjacent to test ranges and military airspace.
Supervisors expressed differing views on the scope of protection. Several members said they did not support removing the corridor in its entirety; some suggested preserving the corridor from Laguna Dam Road (or Dome Valley Road) north to the county boundary because that stretch is flanked by BLM lands, the Cofa National Wildlife Refuge and Yuma Proving Ground. Other supervisors noted commercial interests and local property rights to the south, and discussed leaving the southern portion of the highway more permissive for signage and business uses.
After public comment closed, a supervisor moved to deny minor amendment 24-06 as submitted and to return with a revised amendment that would retain scenic protections for the northern portion of U.S. Highway 95. The motion carried. The board did not adopt a new specific northern boundary at the April 7 meeting; staff were tasked with drafting language reflecting the direction the board gave.
Why it matters: Highway 95 is a long east–west approach that traverses public lands and sensitive military and wildlife areas. Removing the corridor designation without substitution could allow new commercial signage and other development along stretches currently treated as scenic. Proponents say the corridor supports tourism and protects habitat and military testing, while opponents cited private property rights and commercial opportunity in parts of the corridor.
What happens next: Planning staff will draft a revised amendment with the boundary changes the board asked for and return to the board for further consideration. Any new amendment will be subject to public notice and the county's Planning and Zoning process.
Votes at a glance: The board denied minor amendment case 24-06 (motion to deny carried; vote tally not specified in the record). The board directed staff to return with a revised corridor that maintains visual-corridor protections for the northern Highway 95 segment.
Sources: county staff presentation and map, written memo from Yuma Proving Ground read into the record, public commenters and Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation.
