sorry Harris did you want to chare this meeting as your last meeting or would you want us to sorry I figured since I wasn't in person it would be easier uh if the if someone who is in person would would share it looks like the vice chair is there yes all right well yeah sorry about that I kind of took that for granted apologies I didn't mean to keep everybody hanging there but I guess I'll just participate as a regular panelist for my last meeting terrific good to know uh we're begin with the Pledge of Allegiance how about commissioner velto lead us pledge [Music] aliance all right we'll do our roll call Harris Armstrong here Carrie R here Manny Basera here Christina delvar here JD dulich here Alex velto here Sylvia villin NOA here we have a quorum excellent we'll open it to public comment and this public comment is for any item that's agendized or any general public comment do we have anyone on Zoom not at the moment let me read the language in members of the public may call into the meeting to provide public comment by using the zoom link provided on the agenda specifically https colon SL links. reno.gov capital P Capital C1 2-1 18-24 it should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be add addressed to the Planning Commission as a whole comments heard under this item will be limited to 3 minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the Planning Commission agenda please note that the Planning Commission may not take action upon any matter not agendized for possible action on today's agenda when you are called on for public comment please state your name for the record and begin speaking the timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded 3 minutes if you are an attendee in the zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time please raise your hand lastly while in this room please be respectful warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there is disruptive behavior and you will be asked to leave Chambers if the behavior continues we do not have anyone with their hands raised in Zoom I do not have any public comment forms for this particular item do we have anyone in Chambers wishing to speak under general public comment seeing none we'll close that all right um opening approval of the minutes those would be from the November 21st 2024 meeting commissioner VTA move to approve commissioner berer second all in favor I commissioner direct I was abent so sorry to interrup all right motion passes right um yes we're going to ask for we are going to I'm going to ask the commission if they're okay with changing the agenda item order so that item number six uh this case of L DC 250021 Roy um would be interested in going first okay here yes all right well I think we can make that happen so we will begin that um we will begin the public hearing with a presentation from staff all right good evening members of the Planning Commission Jeff Foster associate planner for the record uh the first case that I am bringing you tonight is the Royce CA LDC 25-21 this is a an approximately 1.12 Acre Site on the north side of sharp Hill Circle at the intersection uh of sharp Hill and circlestone Court it's developed sorry in Somerset it's developed with a single family home and the request before you tonight is a major deviation to increase the allowable accessory structure square footage by about 44% which would thereby allow an approximately 1150 ft Cita uh zooming in you can see that there are single family residences in all directions and the the two issues that staff looked at in the staff report are compatibility with surrounding land uses as well as site design uh the zoning is Somerset planned unit development Somerset PUD and the master plan land use is large lot neighborhood and here are four policies from the master plan that support the proposed request a little bit of background the sumerset Pud handbook includes development standards for the estate homes Villages uh in which uh one of those Villages um the proposed project uh lies in the Pud hook limits the maximum accessory building coverage to 800 square fet and a single story um as you know the Planning Commission has the power to Grant a major deviation uh of up to 50% um of allowable development standards in this case a 50% increase would allow up to a 1200t accessory structure uh to the left you can see the somerset Owners Association Association aesthetic guideline committee approval letter for this project and in terms of compatibility with surrounding land uses uh what most homes in the area do not have separate guest quarters but the request is not unprecedented uh in fact at least three other estate homes in the area have detached cedos including two in the immediate vicinity shown here there will be a significant distance between the proposed CA and the adjacent homes um you saw the uh AGC the athetic guideline committee approve a letter on the previous slide and staff is recommending condition number five for the allowable days and hours of construction given the above the proposed CA appears to be generally consistent with surrounding land juices in terms of the proposed design the ca has a kitchen and is set back approximately 2 feet farther than the existing primary structure so it is outside of the front yard as required by code um the Pud handbook requires a parking space for every bedroom uh the proposed one-bedroom CA does include a single vehicle garage and room on the driveway for two additional vehicles uh the proposed landscape uh trees will comply with the minimum size requirements listed in the approval letter two slides previous and no uplighting is proposed uh here are the recommended findings for a major deviation staff can make all recommended findings and here's the recommended motion I will also point out that the applicant is not planning on making a presentation but they are present here should you have any questions thank you we'll open this item up for public comment this would be public comment specific to 6.1 Roy Cita do we have anyone no I don't think we have anyone on Zoom um we don't have any comment cards um voicemails or correspondents for this item very good do we have anyone in Chambers wishing to speak on this item that looks like a no so we'll go ahead and close the public comment and open it up to questions from the commission do we want disclosures or anything like that very good as you can see I'm filling in the first time um we'll take disclosures from the commission starting with commissioner Basera U familiar with the site read and reviewed materials and that's it commissioner villanua no disclosures Comm commissioner delr no disclosures commissioner VTO no disclosures commissioner dracul familiar with the neighborhood commissioner Armstrong no disclosures commissioner RoR May are the same very good does anyone on the commission have questions for staff or the applicant um yeah I just have one question and and for me it was just trying to really understand the difference between like summer sets like ccrs PUD Reno just trying to kind of package it all in my head so I can understand a little better so the Pud handbook sorry Jeff Foster associate planner um the Pud handbook uh does limit the maximum allowable size of a detached guest quarters basically to 800 square fet um however that they're effectively under the same tools for deviations I.E a major deviation um for the City of Reno that would allow up to a 50% increase so um yeah perfect thank you okay that was all I had any other questions I'm prepared to make a motion okay on the matter of case number LDC 25- 000021 uh based upon compliance of the applicable findings I move to approve the major deviation subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings commissioner vill w a second all in favor I I I sorry I was on mute but I the case passes unanimously good luck with your project now we will um reopen The Unfinished Business um and that would be the LDC 25-14 web data center we'll start with a presentation from the applicant or I'm sorry with the staff start from the staff okay uh Jeff Foster associate planner for the record um the second case I'm bringing you tonight is the continuance of the web data center from two weeks ago LDC 25-14 I was actually not planning on making a presentation tonight um but commissioner NOA uh did not have a chance to view the hearing from two weeks ago so I will go ahead and make uh the presentation okay so as a refresher the site is about 6.02 acres in size uh located on the north side of North Virginia Street about 1100 ft east of its intersection with stead Boulevard the site is comprised of three vacant Parcels uh in a frame of reference uh you can see the Amazon facility here that it's just to the south of the request before you is a conditional use permit to allow the development of a data center as well as operations between 11:00 p.m. and 6: a.m. um as you recall this the Planning Commission approved another case in March of 20 March of this year um on this same site that was a request for a conditional use permit to allow 24-hour operations grading resulting in fills greater than 10 ft and disturbance of a major drainage way associated with an industrial Warehouse development that request uh included the same three subject Parcels along with a fourth parcel that contained the major drainage way again that fourth parcel is not a part of the current request zooming in you can see that the site is primarily surrounded by industrial uses to the north east and south as well as a vacant parcel to the West there are also multiple non-conforming residential uses uh specifically there's a mobile home park about 470 feet to the east shown here separated from the site by a parking lot and a business development there's a second mobile home park located about 550 ft to the Northwest shown here and that is separated from the subject site by a parking lot there's also a third mobile home park shown here further to the Southwest the key issues that staff analyzed are compatibility with surrounding land uses and and site design and I also included on this slide um kind of an encapsulation of the key issues that were addressed at the Planning Commission two weeks ago namely the uh ability of NV Energy to supply power to the data center sustainable design and operations elements as well as Ward for Equity again the zoning district is mixed use suburban and the master plan land use is industrial and here are six policies and goals from the master plan that support the proposed request a little bit of background on data centers on January 25th of this year an administrative interpretation was issued that um added the definition of a data center into Rena Municipal Code um I'm not going to read the long definition of a data center but I do have it if you would like uh to know more a data center is now recognized as a permitted use in the MS Zone with the approval of a conditional use permit data centers are recognized as having significantly less truck traffic and loading and unloading requirements uh and the need for dock doors as opposed to warehouse and distribution centers data centers typically do not require many dock doors so the use standard from the administrative interpretation does limit the number of dock doors to three per building and the uh parking is required to be a a minimum of one space per 3300 Square ft those are the only two Ed standards um uh in code for data centers moving on to compatibility with surrounding land uses the proposed project does uh involve 24-hour indoor op operations the area is generally characterized by industrial zoning and uses that would allow 24-hour operations indoors by right uh there is a residentially zon property the nearest one is 1500 ft away uh shown up there and is separated from the site by the freeway as well as intervening land uses there are significant buffers between the site and the two non-conforming uh mobile home parks within 550 ft again those are shown here and it is anticipated that the indoor operations would not have impacts on those two non-conforming uses uh there is a proposed uh truck Dock and drive up door on the northwest corner of the building um and staff is recommending condition number five to limit the hours of truck arrivals and departures idling and on-site movement as a result of the location of that truck uh Dock and drive up door and staff is Al also recommending condition number six which is the standard uh limitation on construction hours um with all of that the proposed use is generally compatible with existing land uses in the area moving on to site design the site plan includes two triller yards and a backup generator yard with about 10 emergency generators which are only to be used during uh a power failure and during necessary periodic testing and maintenance and that's per condition number seven one of the chiller yards faces North Virginia Street and that's shown here um and the generator yard is also visible from North Virginia Street shown here the chillers are about 10 ft tall and the pipe with additional height for piping and the generators are about 25 ft tall there's a 15t tall screening Security Fence proposed to screen the chillers and the piping along with most of the height of the generators and the location of that fence is shown here the proposed Street tree canopy along the North Virginia will obscure the visibility of the top of the generators and the southernmost generator will be painted a custom color to coordinate with the building color per condition number eight continuing continuing with site design the mix use Suburban Zone requires a minimum of 20% Landscaping which the project does propose the project also includes a 20ft landscape buffer between the sidewalk and the screening fence with a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees in that buffer area in a staggered Arrangement at elevations which would help obscure the screening and Security Fence the top of the generators and the building per condition number nine here are the recommended conditional use permit findings staff can make all recommended findings and here's the recommended motion I did also want to call your attention to the memo that was sent around earlier today with additional conditions that are actually requested by the applicant um uh to go fall in line with sustainable development and operation ations so those additional conditions would also be a part of the recommended motion I'm available for any questions and the applicant is going to make a presentation thank you yeah uh if the applicant can come up and give their presentation forward backward um Dave Hardy with Ellis Partners um great to see you all again and uh thanks for having us back um also want to thank uh Jeff and uh Marino staff for all their hard work over the last uh two weeks um and we have a lot to to cover with this presentation so I'm going to move fairly quickly and and Jeff also covered a lot of uh uh similar topics so happy to Circle back for anything that that we um we pass by quickly um here here's the agenda quick intro to Ellis Partners in Kore uh a brief uh discussion of what the project is within the zoning um cover uh the Envy energy commitments and the energization schedule um and then we also uh want to talk about some of the economic benefits uh to Reno that the data center will be bringing uh first an introduction to um Ellis Partners so we are um a 31y old uh real estate investor and developer uh uh really at heart where mixed use and Retail and office developer uh um and we've been executing projects um all over Northern California and uh we're really we also have a deep uh history in Industrial Development and we're really excited to be introduced to Reno uh by this project uh Kore uh who's our tenant and uh data center operator um they are founded in 2012 and they're a pioneer of liquid cooled high density uh data centers um they're they're uh Santa Clair facility has been awarded for reducing carbon emissions um uh uh due it next to its industry peers um and really what Kore uh the service they offer is a scalable uh and cost- effective Enterprise uh Network solutions for small businesses so um for example their their Santa Clara facility is about onethird of the size of uh the project that we are proposing and there are currently 40 different companies who are operating their servers out of that facility so um when Kore uh gets ready to open this facility uh in Reno you know they will go out and have a a marketing campaign to the local business Community offering you know their services and um a well-managed uh efficiently managed data center for for them to house their equipment in um here's just the site location uh Jeff touched on this but um the use is uh compatible with the surrounding uses and uh the master plan and Zoning it's it's all zoned industrial so the the project is uh is compatible uh with the the master plan um and here is the uh just on the top is a picture of the existing use permit that was approved uh by this commission back in March that's for 164,000 ft² industrial warehouse and then our project on the bottom um it's actually a smaller site and then Al a smaller project overall it's half the size at uh 82,000 sare ft um and before I move on uh from this I just want to touch on a couple of things that uh commissioner delvar uh and and and Dean and I discussed um in our meeting this morning um one of those is um this the noise that will be generated so as Jeff uh mentioned we have a noise uh analysis that's been done for the project um and it shows that you know even when the general ators are in use the the noise at uh level at the nearest properties will actually still be below the ambient noise level at those properties um furthermore um as just as a wave example at the at col War's current facility in Santa Clara over an 11year history of operating their generators have only run for an hour and a half of total unplanned uh runtime so um so it's it's it's very uh infrequent U and very minor so they're not going to be Genera noise frequently disturbing the community um also uh just with the the use compatibility we are as I mentioned uh LS Partners is a is really u a lot of our history has been in developing you know mixed use and Comm Community serving uses and um if and we we would love to U find Opportunities to uh invest in those types of uses throughout Rena and W 4 um this site is uh as we've covered is is is unfortunately not compatible with those uses um this I'll gloss over but this is you know what is a data center um there's a lot of data centers from small ones the large ones user owned uh collocation and you know there really are found foundational pieces of the modern economy and civor facility is a 30 megawatt um collocation facility um the web data center project uh we're proud to um say that it really aligns with the master plan as we discussed not only from the use but also from the the goals and visions of the master plan to you know Foster growth in high-tech knowledge-based Industries um Advanced telecommunications and to uh diversify the labor pool um and I'm I'm happy to to be able to talk about this slide with you all today um uh sustainability is something that's core to Ellis partners and uh really really dear to us and we we try our hardest to implement on every project and we know it's really important to um this commission um and so we have been working with our uh with all our stakeholders our uh vendors equipment suppliers with our our friends at uh NV Energy to um to explore the viability of doing a solar array on the project and we are happy to announce today um that we are committing to do that uh to do a roughly 4,000 square foot array on top of the front of house area of the project um and we have provided the U the written uh commitment to to to deliver that um to to the city um and then what what we show up here that's not on here because we had to uh submit this yesterday before we were able to make this commitment but um what what we show here is the all the other above code um sustainability features of the project that we discussed at the last meeting um and now I'll turn it over to Dean rubinson who Ellis Partners director of development to take you through the NV Energy uh status thank you Dave and thank you to our friends at Envy energy who've joined us today and were on some of the meetings with many of you over the last couple of weeks um we we know that that condition four was a subject of discussion at the prior meeting and we hope that um between the information that we've provided and the conversations that we've facilitated you're all comfortable that we have the commitments needed from Envy energy and the timeline by which they can deliver that power is consistent with our timeline for delivery and energization and I'll go through that in in a few minutes but as you know this this body approved the peine substation uh last April it is um under construction and will be ready for use by October of 2026 well in advance of our first phase of energization uh we have an Envy energy will serve letter for the full phase for for the full need for the facility phase one is about 40% of our demand of about 12 and a half mve and second phase Bank uh second phase is 17 and A2 so the first phase of our facility which we anticipate coming online uh in early 2027 will be served by peine Bank One peine bank one is under construction will be delivered as shown here on October 26th and the amount of infrastructure needed for us to connect to Pine fa phase one to to Pine bank one is literally some wires coming from the overhead lines across the street from us so the generation delivery distribution uh infrastructure is either in place or under construction Bank two of the peine sub station is being catalyzed by this project we're funding a significant sum of money to the EnV energy to procure the equipment construct the facility so it can be in place for our needs uh for phase two by the beginning of 2029 we're only going to be using a part of the bank two uh capacity so it our catalyzation of that construction will create additional capacity for the region for the for the area um beyond what we need uh this is a list of the agreements that we are in process with with NV Energy and have been working with them since last May uh I'll show you this in a more visually uh easy to digest format but essentially all the agreements will be signed by uh next summer the majority of them will be signed by the end of January of next year this is a gan chart showing the overlay of the Envy energy agreements on the top section and our design permitting and construction and energization in the middle the cluster of green boxes in the top left representing the agreements that we expect to have signed both the procurement of apparatus for the phase 2 and the bank two of pine as well as the design approval agreements and the phase one line extension agreement will all be signed by the end of January we anticipate of next year and then by uh the end of June we expect to be able to sign the phase 2 line extension agreement and as you can see here the uh construction which would follow our design and permitting in 2025 for phase one would complete Itself by um the end of 2026 uh for our shell The Phase 1 TI work would continue on until Q3 of 2027 and the green box sitting out there in the middle at the end of 2026 is the energization of phase one so we have even a 9 month cushion within this schedule in case there's some delay with the energization of pine bank one so the second phase would be complete of our construction would be complete by the end of 2028 in advance of the energization of Bank two so we're confident that our timing and NV Energy's timing are aligned and they are they are here to answer any questions pull up any documents so should there be any additional questions in terms of Revenue this is obviously very important to the City of Reno we did a lot of research over the last couple of weeks we actually surprised pleasantly at the volume of Revenue that will be generated both annually uh and immediately with this project so uh this project over its 30-year lifespan is estimated to generate $165 million in additional Revenue just to the City of Reno That's not including the county or the state that breaks into three categories the sales tax revenue 2.8 million per year of annual sales tax revenue the facility will have over a billion dollars worth of server equipment in it that server equipment has a 3 to 5year lifespan so as that server equipment is continually replaced Reno's portion of the sales tax revenue will be 2.8 million annually the power usage will result in a franchise tax uh of a million dollars a year for the City of Reno lastly the property tax uh and real estate taxes um will generate 1.7 of incremental Revenue to the City of Reno annually coming up with 5.5 million annually this is approximately 10 times the revenue that would be estimated for a comparable sized industrial facility distribution warehousing Etc in terms of more near-term the construction jobs starting in 2026 um and the purchase of equipment for the project will generate approximately 1.7 million for the City of Reno uh as well as uh labor hours projected for the shell work and the Tenant improvement work of 500,000 hours of construction labor we're represented here by Devcon our contractor and they will be hiring the vast majority of their trades from the local community the um move on so um in terms of Catal izing Tech growth this facility being a collocation facility will attract other companies to Reno because most uh of the um use of this facility Beyond what's already serving local Reno businesses will be businesses out of the area high-tech users who will be exposed and will be coming to Reno to U maintain their servers update their servers um and we'll spend time in downtown and we'll be exposed to Reno and it could uh you know attract them to Reno as a destination for a um perhaps a satellite office perhaps eventually um you know relocating their headquarters here uh the project will also reduce the number of server closets that are in offices all around the county that can um allow them to collocate here so much of the energy usage that we will be um utilizing will actually be offset by the reduction of those server closets which are no longer needed good for the economy 166 million dollars over the 30-year life uh as um our planner Jeff uh mentioned there will be much reduced traffic compared to other uses a reduction Demand on public services a variety of Highly skilled jobs both construction jobs and a range of jobs within the facility that I'll get to in a moment uh and catalyzing Reno's high-tech growth in summary the project is consistent with Reno zoning and master plans it's half the size of the project that was approved on this site nine months ago it will generate 10 times the revenue for Reno at a fraction of the traffic and impact on public services there'd be 17 full-time jobs with with a average income well over the local Ami and dozens of jobs for other vendors um contractors maintaining the facilities the mechanical electrical plumbing and service equipment in here so there'll be a significant amount of additional jobs we have the commitments from MV energy and we believe we are coming forward with sustainability measures uh and we've heard you we understand how important that is to all of you we're proud of this project and we ask for your support thank you right um I believe we open it up to public comment um do we have anyone on Zoom who wishes to speak uh no one on Zoom has their hand raised at this time okay we'll shift to the folks in the room we have three public uh requests to speak forms um we'll begin with Taylor Adams good evening members of the commission for the record Taylor Adams chief executive officer Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada commonly called Edon um in the interest of brevity knowing that there others are going to speak here ju I'll just open by saying we uh we fully support everything that the that the applicant has brought forth this evening we think this is exactly the type of development that's driving our economy forward uh there was a letter that uh that we provided to to each member of the commission earlier today um I'll just reference that letter and the points that are made in there regard regarding traffic tax base and the investment in the community and we do hope that you'll find a way to support the project thank you thank you Doug Brown hello good evening Doug Brown uh Devcon construction I'm Devcon constructions Reno branch manager um Reno or Devcon has had a Reno office here since 2000 I've been their branch manager since 2004 and as Dean mentioned and Dave alluded to Ella's partners and Kore have selected us as their uh design build general contractor uh for this um this is the second data center that we have worked on collaboratively with this team uh and I think it's significant that they've recognized the need to use local General Contractors and local subcontractors and vendors because if you look around most of the data centers is coming here in this data center boom first of all they aren't necessarily focused on coming into the the core of the cities or going to the outward counties and other uh jurisdictions uh but they're also using uh General Contractors designers Architects that aren't local here they're bringing them in from all over the country and this team has done that and made a significant investment and using a company like Devcon has been here for 25 years and has owns a building here in Reno and employs 30 people and will use the vast majority where're most of our projects is 95 to 100% of our subcontractors and vendors are from sourc right here from Reno was County in Northern Nevada um as far as the labor you saw 500,000 hours that's probably very very close we look at this thing and if you put that on the average uh scale out there of 75 to $95 in the Tradesman you come to about 40 million to $45 million somewhere in that range is where I was estimating it and over a three-year period for Architects Engineers laborers everyone else is going to be involved in this that's a significant amount of employment for our construction trades here then outside of the construction trades like we said there's probably about $80 million this overall project is probably going to be about $150 million with about 100 million of that from the Construction contract and about 80 million of that carved out to our local subcontractors it's a huge dollar amount whereas if you were to go through there and we've built Devon's put up nine buildings in the the North Valleys we know what they cost if we were to go do that 100,000 ft building on that same parcel like we've done so many others there on North Virginia it would be about 100 I mean about a 12 about a 12 to20 million project this one's going to be about 150 million somewhere in that range so 7 and a half to 20 time or 7 and a half to 12 times more than your standard building out there and again that revenue is coming back to the contractors and vendors here in this community something that we highly support and applaud them that they've shown that they want to use the local businesses here we hope this goes forward and the other thing is to keep some of the construction uh guys from going out to trick doing all those data centers we have a lot of our guys in Ward 4 that live out there and in Reno doing that drive every day out there to trick into Fernley is hey keep them here not only work you know work and live here but do build here too all right thank you Len Savage good evening uh chairman Armstrong Vice chair and Commissioners I thank you for allowing the time here my name is len Savage president CEO of Savage and Sun Nevada's oldest contractor 131 years uh about a license number 10 as a family business we're humbled and honored and proud to fully support this web data center here in Reno Nevada as you can probably imagine we get approached by many potential developers and projects specifically data centers but I'm here to reassure each and every one of you that this Ellis group and Kore is a team that is genuine and first class that we don't see every day there are people's people who care about our community and the people of Northern Nevada and being fifth generation business sixth generation naden that's very important it's very refreshing to see that this Ellis team and Kore team walk their talk they don't talk the talk they're true they come with court they come with respect showing True Value with sincere investment while aligning themselves with strong local contractors And Trades people they believe in local they believe in the community so it's few and far between because like Doug said in story there's a lot of contractors that come and go and we live and breathe this C this city and always have and always will we don't go to Vegas we do everything right here in Nevada in in Northern Nevada so to end it and wrap up I strongly believe that this web data center bu be a win-win from the beginning to the end for our great City of Reno there will be continued service like the gentleman said earlier for maintenance beyond the initial construction which is a mechanical contractor plumbing contractor we would be involved hopefully not guaranteed but honored and proud to be a part of it so therefore we support permanently high-skilled jobs right here in Reno Nevada so thank you very much for your time thank you do we have anyone else in the Chambers wishing to speak under public comment seeing none I'll ask is there any comment on Zoom uh no one has their hand raised on Zoom we did receive other correspondents that was uh forwarded to the Planning Commission and entered into the record excellent so I'll close the public comment and um take commissioner disclosures starting with uh Armstrong and dracul commissioner go and received emails um spoke with the applicants representative uh prior to the last meeting and also prior to this meeting and am familiar with the site commissioner Armstrong I spoke with the applicants representative prior to this meeting only and those are my only disclosures my apologies commissioner VTO spoke with the applicants representative as well as the applicant uh also read and received uh correspondence including an email delivered to the City attorney a letter delivered to the city attorney's office commissioner delvar similar to commissioner vro over here commissioner V and away I uh reviewed the memo from development services department someone reached out one of the applicants reps I don't know who it was um we did not speak materially about the project um but that was a and that was a really brief conversation um and that's the extent of my disclosures commissioner baser engaged with residents engaged with city council by a public comment letter for their December 11th 2024 meeting um engaged with the applicant and Nevada Energy visited the site familiar with the site and engage with former council members uh that are familiar with the sustainability action plan for the City of Reno commissioner rorer familiar with the site read comments staff report materials and spoke with the applicant representative Envy energy and um yep I think that's that's where we are I appreciate you coming back to us I'll close the disclosures and open up for questions from the commission who wants to start uh I can oh we'll start to my right okay sorry um I have a couple of questions for a variety of folks um and I'm not sure who should actually address this but it um concerns that I have with the ability of our Public Services mostly uh Reno fire to potentially um mitigate any fires that are there um but I'm more concerned with their ability to contain any chemical that they use in putting out um hopefully is not going to be a fire but um I just want to sort of get a better understanding of what the city Reno uh has the capacity and capabilities of doing Jeff Foster associate planner for the record um so the as a part of the standard review process for LDC cases uh the fire department does uh have the opportunity to review uh the project each project um and provide comments they the fire department did provide comments on this application uh but they centered around more access site design things like that they did not bring up anything substantive or anything at all with regard to putting out fires or responding in a service time or anything like that so we would then therefore treat it as they don't have any concerns okay yeah because the uh one of the concerns I have is um again if because I'm assuming going to use some sort of foam to put out the electrical fire in the data center or something that potentially um has toxins in it or I'm not sure but um I'm concerned about it because uh if there isn't a containment plan then is that potentially going to flow as part of the um the water detention that goes into Swan Lake I don't know if anybody has the answer Mike really for the record um I don't have that specific answer but I did want to also point out that in addition to the fire department review our code sets um essentially thresholds for hazardous materials and chemicals this project does not meet those um if if it did it would require a supplemental review a supplemental conditional use permit um so the fire department has reviewed that they do not trip any of those those um thresholds also uh this is within the appropriate response time for the fire department department and the building will be constructed to current we have adopted the international fire code so it will be constructed to that got it thank you I'll let others ask questions I'm sure there's some more I'd be allowed to uh just provide a answer so I just want to ask we don't have any chemical fire suppression as part of the project sorry I meant the City of Reno not you guys okay fa all right well um commissioner velto you have a question yeah uh so I want to talk about energy and I think these questions might be probably better suited for the uh applicant I would guess is it Mr I don't recall your name I'm sorry rubson Mr rubinson yeah um so I I appreciated that your presentation tonight focused on the second half of the fourth finding for the conv conditional use permit I think during our last discussion we had here we focused mostly on the first portion which says public services and Facilities able available to serve the project I think it was really was noted to me at least that you focused on the second half as well which was that or there will be or public services will be provided with the development uh it's my understanding from your presentation that phase one of the project is already served by Pine bank one but phase two is dependent on Pine bank 2 um can you just explain kind of how you know that peine bank 2 is going to be constructed and able to serve the project we've been negotiating a an apparatus procurement agreement with Envy energy uh they've said to us Pine bank 2 is not needed for the community overall but since you are asking to catalyze it we need you to fund the procurement of the equipment and the construction of it so we have an agreement that is literally ready to sign and as soon as we finalize what we're doing here and go through a number of other parameters with our um transmission line it's about a mile long line there are uh a couple of civil related uh components and that's why it's pushed out until the middle of next year so once we resolve those we will sign our the APA write the check and sign the line extension agreement and then the equipment will be purchased by Envy energy takes several years to obtain and then construction can commence so they have come to us and said if you want it pay for it we'll build it and then over time there'll be some measure of reimbursement as the power starts to get utilized and that will actually create half of the bank will actually be available for other users that come along so we actually catalyzing that additional capacity and I'm glad you mentioned that so Pine bank 2 is not going to be used excl exclusively by this data center there's some sort of positive benefit to the Greater Community by the construction of pine bank 2 that otherwise would not be built is that fair that I don't have the specifics of it that is that half of it we're using is that roughly roughly half of what that bank will provide great um okay that that helps me a lot understand and I do I just want to say I do appreciate the inclusion of that Focus because I think that was probably left out of the first discussion we had um so I appreciate you bringing that up tonight and pointing that second half of the cup finding that gives us another Avenue to make that finding thank you so much questions to my left we'll start with commissioner for me go ahead uh question for staff okay so I need some um a lot of these questions are just going to be allowing me to better understand the project uh the development components of this so there is nothing in the current development code providing for data centers is that correct no it was added in January of this year there was through an administrative interpretation added the definition of data centers as well as two use specific standards to RMC and that is also now being formally uh adopted through the title 18 zoning code update that's currently winding its way through the review process so the the admin interpretation effectively anal uh adds them to Title 18 and then they will formally be added to Title 18 through the zoning code cleanup how how is that if it's an I mean isn't it legis like an ordinance is effectively a legislative process through the city council and so how can an administrative memo or administrative interpretation thereby make it LW and how does that work I mean where would I find that process in the law Mike I might defer this ultimately to legal but the administrator has the ability to determine if if there's a use that's not defined in the code has the ability to make an interpretation of that use and that's what occurred in this case so we were getting multiple calls regarding data centers um it was not a defined use um we essentially we're categorizing them as warehousing uh prior to the admin interpretation and so what we did is we researched what other jurisdictions how they Define them and and based our um determination on that and that method that you guys Ed where is that in statute or is that case law Carl correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it's it's actually in Title 18 yeah development services has the ability to Define different uses and they did that in this case and it's going to be incorporated in Title 18 so so so H so how do we really have any public comment or public say how does the city council really get public comment with regard to new ordinances that are passed if an administrative interpretation is made and then thereby effectively adopted there thereafter I don't understand where there's a public input and public process in that um and so I guess that's where I'm confused I don't understand how this is actually law in the development code um so that's my first concern I don't really understand that um and then my next thing is so mixed you Suburban this is I think the site is mixed you suburan is that right correct and under the master plan it what is it zoned under the master plan the master plan land use designation is industrial industrial okay so so if I may offer something there the mixed use Suburban zone is a non-compatible Zone under the master plan so in theory the applicant could have requested a zone change to Industrial okay but they didn't need to so because of this administrative interpretation well the the the administrative interpretation requires a conditional use permit for data centers in all zones not just Ms so even if the Zone had been changed to Industrial or industrial commercial which would be a conforming Zone under the master plan designation would still require a conditional use permit okay so what I'm really concerned about is just setting precedent before we even have anything really formal so for example if this is mixed use Suburban I don't see anything in the master plan that allows for mixed use Suburban in an industrial zone so I see what you're saying you're basically saying they could have come in and asked for um you know to change the zoning to allow for it to be industrial but I think that was not done because I think it is still unclear what is moving forward going to happen with this and the way it stands today they really didn't need to um if I'm understanding you correctly that there's really there was really no need for them to do that so that's a concern for me my concern is what's going to happen to the site moving forward are we really going to interpret are we really going to adopt this administrative interpretation as is or are there going to be changes because the ordinance process is can be a lengthy process um and obviously there's public input there so that's a concern of mine the other concern is non-conforming residential you kept referring to non-conforming residential what did you mean by that so let me uh just scan to the the slide here so these residential uses these mobile home parks are non-conforming in the sense that they are a residential use in a zone that does not allow residential uses so they predated the Zone the the the current zoning so they're non-conforming in other words they wouldn't be allowed to be built if they were proposed now in those zones so they're non-conforming with the zoning that they that they are built upon yeah okay that's what I I thought you met by that so that was that was kind of the interesting thing that I see this a lot and I'm I'm not talking at you I'm just kind of thinking out loud so excuse me but I see this a lot with um because in this is this the this is the North Valley four where there's a lot of different Zone because it feels like there's just mix match of zoning so these were in previously what do you happen to know what those were they weren't industrial previously what are they what were they before you probably don't know what was the zoning before I I don't know but they're industrial now see well actually you can see so on this slide you can see where those circles were uhhuh they're zoned Ms Ms okay okay okay um but they're the they're they're non-conforming in the sense of here's the master plan for the entire area you can see the entire area is master planned industrial industrial so were those sites to be proposed to be redeveloped at some point in the future they would need to be developed with something that conforms with the zoning and the master plan designation okay last question I apologize this will be it and then we can continue um this is another zoning question so if we were say we were to move forward and approve this application based on this um administrative interpretation which for this plot of land which is Ms what could be the implications later for other areas in other parts of the city that are zoned Ms because if the plan is to move this indust and become for this to site to become industrial later on and we approve it as is today with Ms what happens later in the other parts of the city that are Zone Ms does that automatically mean that we can we're kind of tying our hands into um kind of as far as precedent is concerned tying our hands and obligated at that point to start approving these data centers in Ms zones so no so every every again so the administrative interpretation requires a conditional use permit for data centers in any Zone that they're allowed in in the administrative interpretation so I don't remember all of them off the top of my head but I know that I I me mixed employment uh Ms mixed use Suburban those are all zones that under the admin interpretation allow a data center with approval of a conditional use permit so every conditional use permit that comes in is going to have to go through the cup process and that is also that admin inter turp and the and the uh the two uh standards the use specific standards the parking and the number of dock doors those are also proposed to be added through the the the title 18 zoning code cleanup so to your question uh if a if a anywhere in the city if a cup or sorry if a data center is proposed on a parcel that is zoned Ms it will be required to go through the cup process and that project would be evaluated on its own merits it would by no means be a An approved you know a deao approval of data centers on parcel zoned MS every one of them would have to be analyzed on their own merits uh taken into context surrounding land uses um you know and the other things that we look at when we when we review entitlement applications okay thank you no further questions thank you commissioner berer no questions kidding kidding um sure I want to kind of level set though um I want to build upon commissioner velto delvar and V noa's line of questioning and just kind of bring it back for folks on the interwebs and anyone that needs to kind of recap this in the future on 125 if we had taken a vote from recollection commissioner VTO did the math and it would have been a technical denial more likely than not uh we afforded the um the applicant a continuance in good faith to you know build upon this conversation and try to make findings around issues four or the findings four potentially two and five as well around my concerns also for with commissioner R um so given that and given actually what commissioner Villa just mentioned that uh this is uh an administrator interpretation um you know it compounds issues for us right now especially since uh city council has only approved the first reading of the ordinance which is packaged with Title 18 cleanup changes so we do have something some challenges here uh and I and I appreciate those line lines of questions so given that I also want to say thank you to uh the applicant Mr Harvey Nevada Energy and folks for uh playing ball with us the last 48 hours and trying to work with us so thank you for that um so there we go first question is probably going to be to the applicant Mr Harvey yeah hi David Hardy Ellis Partners hey thank thank you so much so thank you so much for your recent memo on on trying to find alignment with our sustainability goals two weeks ago it seemed like it was not feasible to do solar and now it is which again I'm all for um could you explain to us why it's feasible now and why it wasn't before um I I stated at the last meeting that I um was it was not we didn't have a plan of able plan to provide solar um it was had never been requested of us it wasn't part of the requirement so it hadn't been studied um providing solar on a facility like this is quite complex um given the the kind of purpose built uh systems and equipment that serve the facility in order for it to um to uh you know deploy the electricity you know with maximum efficiency so we um spent uh the last uh two weeks um working with Engineers uh vendors and equipment suppliers to you know understand the opportunity um and if it if it were viable and so we're making some changes to the specifications of the equipment um such that we can accommodate the solar system the solar system on the roof great thank you so much thank you chair if I may have a followup with um I think this will be for Mr Jeff when you have a moment hey Jeff um I was curious you know you mentioned that the this administrative interpretation came into play in January and since then perhaps there's been some Outreach through staff um to to perhaps gather feedback uh from stakeholders and I was curious how feedback since then from any stakeholder whether residents or others has been Incorporated to strengthen this potential ordinance that would that will come before Council and I believe commissioner RM shared some some feedback during those public discussions and probably more recent as well to staff could you highlight how that feedback has made its way into the final ordinance being presented to council so uh um you're talking about post the the hearing two weeks ago uh I guess pre pre and post so I I'm not involved with the title 18 zoning code cleanup so I I wouldn't be able to to give a qualified answer on what kind of Outreach has been done um Visa data centers in particular um I know that the the zoning code cleanup as you all are aware has gone through uh a substantial public Outreach process but um as to particular discussions on data centers and the like I'm not aware right and I appreciate that I think Mike's going to probably tag team with you here and I guess um yeah I'll go and let him speak sure once again Mike really for the record so the this admin interpretation as Jeff mentioned was was made in January um That Was Then added in as part of the code cleanup from that point on that those edits were made um so it was still there was still some public output or input during that but I to say it was specific to Data Centers I I I can't speak to that but when this was presented to city council um Angela fous when in her presentation was specifically referenced the data center addition um in case Council had concerns or questions related to that um there was there was no significant discussion um council did approve the Zone code Cleanup in fact it goes back on January 8th for the second reading and will be finalized on January 8th great thank you mik quick followup on that um since it's the first reading and there and to your words there wasn't meaningful engagement from Council would it not be customary for there to be a mandatory language upon the final reading to accommodate feedback whether from Council or constituents I I think that would probably be a better question for for Mr Hall car Hall City attorney no typically after the first reading the it's not amended it won't be amended and under code 1808 502 um the development services does have the um approval to make administrative interpretations of this title and um it's on file with the clerk's office and it's part of the of the code now so um will be a second reading but it's it's going to be the law so uh thank you Carl I'm going to yield some time here for my fellow Commissioners but I do have some others I wanted to ask a question following up on that because when the code cleanup was presented to us and data centers were included I know I specifically gave public comment on hey we need to address things like the infrastructure what's going to happen with things like over headlines and substations when we review those projects none of that feedback made it into the comments along with the data center so I just wanted to find out what from the city was taken from those public comments around data centers because none of that language ended up in the code cleanup I personally was not on the team that did the code cleanup but I know that they had I believe it was about 20 stakeholder me meetings once with the addition of of that the data centers they collected you know dozens of of comments and and different input from from different interests um I would have to talk to Angela and her team to see how all that was sorted through and Incorporated commissioner velto you have a question yeah I think my question is probably for you Jeff um possibly Carl um does an administrative interpretation need to be incorporated into code in order to carry the force of law the answer is no um we have and and we're in the process of looking up the code section but this would feed back into commissioner Villa's uh question um uh on the ability of an admin interpretation to be issued under which we would be proceeding forth tonight and there is a code section in Title 18 that does allow the administrator to issue administrative interpretations for uses that are not defined in the code currently um and I don't remember the rest of the language and then we're hoping to find it so it's specifically section 180325 classification of new and unlisted uses so and that's that's consistent with my understanding of how administrative interpretations work is that administrative bodies that have the ability to interpret things are able to implement them or issue an interpretation then that becomes effective with the law is that you're understanding that the process of putting that administrative interpretation into the code is merely perfunctory as opposed to something that requires it to actually become effective as administrative interpretation are sorry are you asking it in terms of a public review process or are you just asking I think um I think I was kind of asking the same question two ways to be totally candid and I I'm just getting out of a trial where I've doing cross Examination for a couple days apologize if that's the style I'm going into um but I uh the simplest sense I I'm hearing from my fellow Commissioners that they are concerned that this admin administrative interpretation is not yet in code my understanding is that that's not relevant to put the applicant on notice that this is what the rules are for developing in the City of Reno is that consistent with your understanding that is consistent with my understanding that the administrative interpretation effectively added the use and the use specific standards to code without officially being in Title 18 100% printed online Etc so the administrative interpretation is effectively an accompanying document that we have many administrative interpretations on all sorts of things that um uh eventually they they uh because we don't update Title 18 on a on a daily or weekly or monthly basis we have things that get us through until the next zoning code cleanup IE where we're at now um that uh address issues that are either holes in the code or to this one was a use that was not in the use table Mike do you want to finish reading yeah and not I don't hopefully this is clarifying doesn't muddy the waters but had this project been submitted in December of last year we would be here tonight reviewing a cup for 24-Hour operations for a warehouse we would have considered it to be a warehouse and I guess I want to understand kind of what the applicant was expecting when they applied because there's been a line of questioning that really gets to this issue of Precedence and I I question whether or not we ever have precedence because we're kind of administrative body that makes decisions on a application by application basis but assuming there is some concept of Precedence that we as Commissioners are supposed to apply are you aware of any instances where an applicant has a applied when there's an administrative interpretation expressly allowing their use and then the Planning Commission has decided that that interpretation does not have enough information so we're going to deny the use or that interpretation is not in code so we're going to deny the use because I'm personally more concerned about that precedential effect of possibly limiting our ability to comply with our code that says administrative interpretations can work and be done so are you aware of any instances where that has happened where the Planning Commission has said we're going to ignore this administrative interpretation this isn't good enough uh I am not um but I but I don't have U the the depth of history that might be able to speak to that there it may have happened it may not have I don't know um Mike can we read the the administrative I'm sorry the 180325 section me just one second I've got it so under 180325 classification of new and unlisted uses the following procedure shall apply if an application is submitted for use category or use type that is not specifically listed in table 3-1 table of allowed uses submission and approval of such an application shall be required prior to approval of any other permit or development approval associated with the use a administrator determination of appropriate use category and use type the administrator shall determine the appropriate use category and use type for the proposed use and making such determination the administrator shall consider the potential impacts of the proposed use including the nature of the use and whether it includes dwelling CES processing or storage and typical operations employment characteristics nuisances requirements for public utilities and transportation requirements B establish use specific standards if necessary when establishing a use category and specific use type the administrator shall determine whether additional use specific standards are necessary to reduce potential impacts to surrounding Properties or the community C uses requiring a code text amendment in deciding a new or U unlisted use the administrator May determine that such new or unlisted use requires a text amendment of this title a text amendment to this title shall follow the procedure in section 1808 501 code text Amendment appeal of administrator's determination an appeal of the administrator's determination may be made pursuant to the procedures in subsection 18837 J an appeal and there's been no appeal can I follow up on that so I what I just heard from city attorney's office is that there is an appeal process if anyone wanted to challenge this administrative interpretation have you even heard of anyone trying to challenge this administrative interpretation I have not okay may I ask who would be notified on such administrative notific on an administrative decision like this there's no 750 fot applicant parcel no we do not send it out so because it applies across the entire city so it's not like it would we would send a 750 foot notice from this particular site um when we looked at that admin interpretation for example like I mentioned previously a warehouse is permitted by right in this Zone um we added the requirement for conditional use permit just based on on their operational characteristics and what other jurisdictions had done most notably that we know it would be operating 24 hours which would normally trigger a conditional use permit regardless so as I mentioned had this come in last year Jeff would be making a very similar presentation to what is tonight we would have just classified this as a warehouse that was functioning as a data center but it would have triggered a conditional use permit for the 24-hour operation I think if if you'll entertain one more question along these lines if it wasn't publicly noticed and then an administrator makes a decision but does not adequately consider things such as the actual type of use or the public utilities and no use specific standards were applied or were there use use specific standards it seems that there aren't and that the issue outside of this applicant is that we're asking the city to make use specific recommendations through the code cleanup process and that hasn't been entertained or considered Jeff Foster associate planner for the record so there are two use specific standards that I referred to in the two the last two bullets on this slide um uh the in if I don't have the full copy of the administrative interpretation with me but effectively the data center use was recognized as being closest to a warehouse or distribution center and therefore the uh the two standards well one standard it directly at ties to Warehouse or Distribution Center that's the one parking space per 3,300 sare ft the only other you specific standard that was applied that is um unique to the data center use is the Li limitation on the number of dock doors um since doc since data centers don't need a bunch of truck docks so as opposed to a traditional Warehouse or Distribution Center so there were used specific standards applied in the administrative interpretation for data centers I think I'll pass questions to Sylvia commissioner villan NOA so clarifying question so there's this issue that's in front of us between the administrative the administrator and then the board and I mean if if this is a decision that generally could be made by the administrator why is it I mean I get it we're here for the cup but we're out this is a land use board and we're here to question an applications appropriate land use so I mean as a lawyer myself I would I would look at this and I would say there's a board and an administrator and the board disagrees with the administrator the board from a regulatory perspective is typically the the deciding factor not the administrator that's in regulator regulatory bodies quasi judicial bodies that's generally the case so that's kind of my position here is this is a matter that's in front of the board why would we defer to administrative interpretation when we have the body here in front of us looking at the application and essentially saying you know we're making the interpretation not the administrator um and so what I mean in your mind is that in your I guess history of working with the city and government agencies and a body like this isn't that typically how things are handled you come to the body to make interpretative interpretation uh decisions if I can if I can cut in here you know we're not debating whether or not the administrator has the ability to Define what a data center is they've done that they have that ability to do that and so they Define what what the use is and the question is is is this an appropriate place for this use to go so I I'm directing you to please look at the findings uh that you're required to look at under the conditional use permit and make a decision based on those findings and not get talking about things that aren't connected to those findings commissioner Basera thank you chair um thank you Mr Hall um commissioner V folks uh I do wanted to state that um uh this is good healthy discussion I do want to point out that uh between now and the final reading even post reading under Reno Charter uh section 7A 185 there is ample room to amend um these ordinances I'll just have that for the record uh I am focused on findings number 2 four5 four seems like we've made good good Headway so I I'll put less focus on that right now but focus on two and five um Jeff without tools like scorecards or rubrics how does staff evaluate whether a data center aligns with Community priorities and goals again tying it to two and five so I don't have the findings memorized what ises what does finding number five two say sure it is compatibility with surrounding development and reasonability reasonable compatibility with surrounding uses okay so uh um I believe that's the second one in my chart here land use and project design are compatible with surrounding development is that fair is that correct okay all right so uh my characterization is that this use is that sorry that the area that that the site is generally surrounded by other Industrial Level uses or industrial types of uses um and that the uh condition number five does limit the allowed hours for business vehicle activity which is tied to those non-conforming resid potential uses that are relatively close um so the the essentially it's an industrial area this is an industrial use that is a low impact use um that doesn't have uh that's not going to to cause issues with the surrounding development um even the the residential uses that are relatively close and therefore uh staff could make that finding correct and part of my question though was well maybe a follow-up question question would staff be amendable to using some level of scorecard on top of a checklist to help evaluate data centers moving forward because there is a couple more before us and we don't want to play whacka all about the sustainability or Outlets or whatever else right um and so what we owe applicants is predictability and we owe our residents that and um and so I'm just curious if there are tools or such as scorecards that staff would be amenable to adopting or considering perhaps even bringing forth to council to consider that way there's some level of predictability moving forward in 2025 because what I've seen is the applicants and anyone else they're willing to play ball but they just need to know where you know where the hoop is at or where the bar is at so I appreciate the question and I tying back into the earlier part of your question I uh sorry that I didn't answer in terms of the rubric or the or the scorecard um at the end of the day there is no scorecard or rubric for any land use in the City of Reno in terms of you know a checklist and you know some kind of grades or anything like that um it's up to staff um to you know to look at the application the findings uh and the the uh are they met on balance or not um sometimes we can make some of the findings but not all of the findings uh um so but would I be open to a rubric sure if it's a if it's a a process that is established but it's not established not just for this use for any use we don't have such a scorecard or a rubric by which we great you know judge our the findings thanks Jeff I'll just and let me rephrase as one followup and I'll pass a baton is in your in your Sayan world do you want to do the same dance two weeks from now no precisely okay and that and that's where standards uh or some level of predictability uh comes into play that I'm asking for I think um we should open up questions for Commissioners dracul and Armstrong who are joining us online I don't actually have any questions uh I'll just kind of reserve for a discussion whenever we get there but thank you commissioner dra yeah same thing I'm I'm prepared to have a good lengthy discussion I thought the applicants solved a lot of problems from the previous meeting I don't have any further questions for them or staff at the moment very good uh commissioner velto did I see you have your hand no notion I mean I would suggest we we move into discussion it seems like that would be my suggestion I obviously my commissioner my left might have more questions so I don't want to intrude on that one more thank you this is for the applicants one of yeah one of you guys whichever one is brave enough no I'm just kidding um you guys talk a lot in your presentation about the standards of the Santa Clara Data Center and how it's won a bunch of awards and I'm just wondering how that data center compares to the data center that would be built for the web data center um it is substantially similar in design it is it is a smaller facility um but substantially uh similar in how it operates um Santa Clara has a different climate it's also at a different elevation than Reno is so the mechanical equipment that the specific like specifications on mechanical equipment um might be different but as far as the the operation um of of the facility and you know the customer base of the facility is substantially similar okay thank you thank you this is for the applicant thank you um so I as you know I was not present at the last meeting so you'll have to forgive me if this is a question that was previously answered um regarding the sewer capacity uh can you talk a little bit about that for me because I see in the packet that the Renoe uh Renoe what does it say the that sewer um plant is nearing capacity what's the situation there and how is the applicant dealing with that is there even sewage at the site I'm not sure how these sites work yeah yeah we so this I I might uh call on um tectonics group um to answer more specific technical questions but um this use has um compared to espe particularly compared to other industrial uses um there's there's no um uh significant you know sewage uh creation other than the you know toilet facilities um and and you know kitchen facilities that that kitchenet facilities that serve the um The Operators okay okay so this this operation again you also have to forgive me because I don't know a lot about data centers in general um so some of these questions just come from my ignorance with respect to Data Centers I this is a land use board so I was asking land use questions um as those are within my perview um but if you want to answer the commissioner vinoa I'd like to chime in and I'd also like to invite John Brown in from tectonics up here to to provide a little bit more information on on uh the Renoe facility but I would point out that um condition number two uh the standard time frame for require requirement in code for um uh applying for a building permit is 18 months however in the geographic area that we're talking about um because of the uncertainty of Wastewater and the ability to be served uh in that area we typically extend the condition uh the uh building permit uh application time frame out and you'll see that in condition number two it's been extended to 36 months effectively what we're doing is we're recognizing that uh there that uh the it would be appropriate for the applicant to be afforded more time to apply for a building permit because of the uncertainty of the Wastewater situation in that area so what type of Wastewater is it what kind of sewage we talking here is it like he said restrooms just restrooms or yes okay Y and then um again comes this next question is stems from my ignorance on data centers um what's the water consumption that we're thinking with these I I have all these you know ideas in my head I don't really know if they're true um are these you know there's cooling happening from water are we you know are any of these are there machines that need to to be cooled with water I mean is any of that happening yeah I I'll take that one I just finished managing the construction of their Santa Clara facility so I'm a little more familiar with it they use an air cooled Chiller system which uses fills basically the loop of the chiller is filled upon initiation and then there is no more additional water use for the life of the facility other than during maintenance periods where they're going to drain it and refill it so different than water cooled chillers this uses almost no water for the operation and the water is as Dave mentioned for the kitchenet and the bathrooms okay seage is generated from the kitchenet and the bathrooms for these 17 employees so very very minimal water or waste water usage compared to other data centers even okay and then last question if I may um another question stemming from my ignorance uh with regard to is there is there any health effect from these things like I mean I don't I'm not familiar with this type of technology and necessarily how they work I mean do those around in the surrounding neighborhoods need to be concerned about um toxic impact or anything like that from I don't know you hear you know you you read stories with like airpods and things like that causing um issues with the body is do we have is there anything like that that we need to be concerned about not that I'm aware of okay thank you thank you chair um just a follow-up question uh maybe more um just want to see which one for Mr Jeff here that I had um just a quick one Jeff and and then happy to go into discussion when everyone else is but um I was just curious if since there is a lot of talk around sustainability and trying to make the findings you know 245 and so forth has the office of sustainability for the City of Reno chimed in and if so in what ways to help kind of uh strengthen that administrative interpretation and projects moving forward since we can all agree that we don't want to do this dance all the time right so uh one of our our principal planner actually reached out to um the uh head person over there and um uh she was uh interested in engaging the topic uh kind of at a broader level not specific to this project correct yeah broad um but at a at a broader level um she provided some insight on data centers in terms of energy use and water usage and and some of the things that we've been talking about here tonight um so uh you know certainly I think uh that office would would be interested in participating in a broader discussion of data centers their impacts uh you know how they might be evaluated moving forward with other cases that um might come in under you know in in the future sure thank you so much Jee and kind of with that I do want to just uh say that um um and you're good Jeff um you know this body has uh Gone against staff recommendation in the past and city council has upheld our decision which goes against staff recommendation and it's not just to say no it's just to strengthen projects because everyone has a path forward right I think from the slides our applicant before us had a um a slide that uh took into account a potential appeal timeline so I do just want to say that and I want to say thank you again for um being uh good partners with us and trying to strengthen not just this project but all projects moving forward I think in our candid conversations the applicant knew that uh there's two sides to being the first there's uh gloating rights and you're going to go through The Unofficial Reno Rodeo yeah I have two quick questions for the applicant anyone will do I I heard that there's 40,000 square fet of new solar proposed on the roof 4,000 square feet okay that's a difference can you tell me how much generation it is and kind of what that would what that would energize in the office place I'm going to let Dave take that one we have put different slices here reach out to a friend or um the the exact output of that 4,000 square ft um would be I think somewhere in the range of uh like 20 250 kilowatt system um but you know the the exact output really depends on a lot of factors I think as you know you know orientation and and um and location so um I I don't have an exact figure for you okay no that's I appreciate the details and also just one other quick question while you're there um it was mentioned I believe that the the infrastructure or the the equipment inside gets replaced on an average of three to five years is that correct the uh Network equipment and the server equipment yes it um you know that's sort of the the the typical um lifespan before you know computer equipment and um and chips uh reach obsolescence and is there a with Kore or do they have an agreement in place for like E-Waste recycling do they have some sort of endof Life plan for it's quite a lot of electric equipment just curious um I can't speak to that I'm uh exactly but um they would be following any you know local um you know you know requirements and um ordinances associated with that and um due to the value of um even at the time of obsolesence du to the value I I can pretty confidently say that you know it would be recycled and not um you know put in the trash like you know a doua battery thank you thank you does Jeff do you happen to know does the city have a requirement for E-Waste recycling yeah I'm not specifically aware on that okay thank you well does anybody have any remaining questions all right well it looks like we're ready for discussion we've already done public comment so I will open it to the Commissioners for discussion who would like to begin commissioner VTO uh the last meeting we had we really focused on seemed like the energy availability under number four in the C findings it was my impression leaving that meeting that a lot of the issues that maybe some of the Commissioners had were focused on that finding I think the applicant has largely substantiated their availability to comply their ability to comply with that finding not only with the fact that there will be energy due to a will serve letter but with their contribution to creating new energy production um through a through a facility aside from that since that time we've also received a letter that disputes in general the planning commission's ability to oversee this um I don't necessarily know if we need to NE to take that into account though I think it's uh persuasively done and something we should probably consider I think we can overwhelmingly say that there is energy for this project Envy energy is here is present I know has met with multiple Commissioners and have confirmed that they'll be able to provide Power so in my view finding number four under the cup findings is quite clear that that is that is satisfied you know we've kind of focused on issues that are distinct from what we talked about last time and I'm very concerned that we're kind of moving the goalpost for an applicant that is trying as hard as they can to try to get a project done and the remaining findings I don't think are really in dispute I mean we talk about compatibility this is a warehouse next to a warehouse and the type of activity within the warehouse doesn't cause negative externalities around the warehouse in a way that is distinct from those that are right next to it so if we're talking about compatibility with surrounding area I think that finding is fairly easy to make in my mind and I would hope that we don't create such high hurdles for future projects by trying to say that we don't have enough policy or enough structure or guidance when this is an allowed use that's legally implemented by by an administrative interpretation that is done consistent with Title 18 and the master and code which so I I mean I you know I think we asked a lot of questions tonight about different issues but I I struggle to see how the applicant hasn't really met the very high metric we've already set forth at the last meeting I think they far exceeded it and I would hate for this to have been a waste for them to have to go through the process I understand we want to vet projects and this is a new kind of concept to our city and we want to thoroughly vet them I think they've done the work though uh to show that they meet the findings or that we can meet the findings based on what they've presented and I just I don't want to do this to applicants in the future that work so hard especially when I think that the evidence is there for us to make all these findings okay thank you I'd like to just maybe piggyback off off that since my my comments are related um yeah I'm very concerned about the direction that we're kind of taking this this project and I had mentioned this in the last meeting and you know since this is my my final meeting on the commission I guess I just kind of want to make my thoughts very clear like I I just find it problematic that that we are potentially overreaching I think uh the condition related to to the to the solar being added is is an overreach by us especially when you consider the fact that um EnV energy in conjunction with the applicant was able to definitively demonstrate that there is sufficient power to make the finding I I I don't look I'm not going to obstruct um I think if it's a commercial point and folks are aligned on it that's fine I'm happy to support it but I just want to make it clear I find it problematic that we would you know put potentially set precedent for for this kind of ask it I don't think it's consistent and I think this sort of ask can just change depending on who is on the commission any particular time and um I I just think it's it's easier and better for us to to kind of stay in our lane a little bit and so um I'm happy with how how it's presented but I just want to make it clear that I I have concerns about kind of the path that that we going down on on here and and I I don't think we need additional um caveats or or information to make the findings I think that's that's been very clearly demonstrated so that's all I have thank you commissioner direct I'll chime in and if that's okay Vice chair yes of course yeah I'm with commissioner Armstrong and belto on both their points um I definitely left that last meeting thinking finding four was one of the main issues I was ready to support from what they had but you know in talking to the applicant and then knowing they met with uh fellow Commissioners at length to get us to that solar stage and get an understanding of the power situation so I can definitely meet item or finding four um I definitely don't have any concerns with two or five um five I feel like SE has done a good job with the recommendations uh conditional of approval recommended conditions of approval and I guess I'm just having trouble wondering why our commission is leaving just the simple task of reviewing a cup and when we get to item two talking about you know development standards here they were set in January um and this applicant put in an application with those standards in place and I really feel like they've fulfilled their Duty here um I do want to say thank you to commissioner baser for what a great letter like I I'll tell you right now I read it twice um and you took action after that meeting you truly are sincere um and a a solid commissioner um I thought Miss Bo answered some of the questions maybe we could have more from her on that but I do feel like you know the public has had some level of input and I think this conversation tonight should carry forward to the council and more public input but for this you know Cup in front of us I support it wholeheartedly because they've done what they've been asked to do um and to commissioner B's letter I think a denial of this project project is almost a figurative moratorium and as you proposed you wanted for six months I am just not comfortable with that at all especially coming from this body um and I don't think they should have to suffer you know this kind of uh push around there um so anyway I appreciate the conversation I'm listening intently um I'm in full support of this project and uh I hope the rest of my fellow Commissioners too because so these folks can put together a great project that means a lot to this community the the dat they brought forth as well with the impact financially um you know the companies that are coming here who need a data center to exist um has a major Financial impact to this community and even to commissioner dvr's concerns from the previous meeting yes there's not a lot of employees at this data center but God the amount of jobs that people from war for might have access to because of the companies that come here um I would imagine there's somewhat level of ripple effect we should all consider on that for the whole community so thank you for your J I'm in full support of this project um thank you commissioner delr thank you and thank you um fellow Commissioners you know as everybody has said here we're all listening intently and trying to wrap our head around it um I just want to be clear my my concerns haven't changed so the things that we're addressing were concerns that I had last week as well um and uh you know we talk about um you know depending depending on who's on the commission they could go either way and I think that's what we're trying to mitigate is not having that by having clear policies in place in criteria and understanding um at least that's where where I'm going um my my big concern is that um you know I feel like we're setting the bar Low by not having some requirements in place and um and then it would just be easy for sort of just and again the applicant has done an amazing job um you know with the first presentation and then addressing some of the concerns that we have um but my my my concerns are still for you know the safety of the residents in the area the compatibility with this uh surrounding area and um and and the fact that the um you know we talked about energy a lot but it's still and yes everybody's here but there's still nothing signed potentially for that second bank until June so I still have some concerns with that commissioner vill NOA um my primary concerns have nothing to do with the application itself it's with the land use issues I don't feel like I can make any of the findings because I don't feel like I have the appropriate I think this is premature um and I'm of the position that H how can I look at this application um and determine whether or not this is the appropriate place for it if nothing's actually in the development code we're looking at administrative interpretation um that may change may not change I don't know how what's going to be adopted and maybe this does need to just be stayed until after it is adopted um but the way I'm looking at this now how can I make it how can I make a decision I'm concerned about what this could mean moving forward for other data center applications um again has nothing to do with the the fact that it's a data center has nothing to do with the applicant himself this is strictly a land use concern that I have um I think this is a premature application given um the circumstances we're in the intrum of um about to develop uh about to adopt a development code uh some changes to the development code which I only learned about the data center uh changes uh couple weeks ago and when those were raised at that meeting if you if we all look back at the meeting I had a number of questions and I was under the impression we were going to have some more of an opportunity to kind of vet that um I don't it's probably fine I don't know um I just don't feel like I can make the findings CU I think it's premature and I don't think we have the information available in the code to be able to make these findings which finding can't you make compatibil compatibility what compatibility with surrounding uses specifically this is an MS Zone space mixed use Suburban it's not though who is who's speaking I I am sorry oh you yeah so but this is a the master plan zones or industrial this is industrial so it's correct mixed use Suburban is not permitted under the Max uh at least from what I'm seeing here I'm looking at the master plan right now and I see industrial industrial commercial mixed use airport mixed employment Parkways Greenways and open space um planned unit development and specific plan District those are the seven that are permitted in industrial this is not permitted based on what's presented now but maybe that's going to change I don't know JF do you want to address that so yeah Jeff Foster associate planner for the record um so just because an existing zoning District does not conform with the master plan does not mean that we cannot evaluate uses proposed in that District um whether or not um it would go straight to a building permit for example or whether it requires some kind of a staff level review or review at the at the Planning Commission so the the even though Ms is not conforming with the industrial master plan designation does not mean that um an applicant cannot come forward with an application that can that is allowed in that zone Ms um as long as it meets the development standards and has the opportunity to be reviewed by this body so so what zone in the development code and maybe this maybe I just need some more information what what in the development code what is where are data centers permitted currently that that's why I keep ending up in this circle so so they're not because again they're not in the development code currently so that they're they're because they're recognized as being very similar to a warehouse or Distribution Center they were then positioned as being allowed within the same zones that would allow a Ware a warehouse or distribution center with the caveat that they weren't allowed by right they were required to come forward to this body through a conditional use permit process well see and this is the concern that we're in this cyclical situation where it's like well they're not but then but then if but then you can consider it an under industrial but then we're looking at all I'm asking is that maybe we get we have some firmer policies that I can actually analyze this and actually give the applicant what they need which is a decision here um and uh that's all I'm asking so it's premature um I can't make the findings because I don't believe that the information is here and available for me to be able to make the findings if maybe in five weeks I can make the findings um maybe we can continue this until then um but that's kind of the situation I'm dealing with right now commissioner Jeff I think we may have discussed this at the last meeting and and apologies it may have even come up again this meeting but if this if we didn't have this data center carve out so to speak and this type of project came through and again correct me if I'm wrong we would again it would just be kind of viewed under the industrial lens right like there would still be a path forward for this project your perspective of what we're talking about and we would be able to make findings right I mean I just feel this is very circular and I feel like we've we've covered this point a few times but I I don't understand the push back um so uh and I don't remember Mike you might have been the one who brought it up last time or this time I don't recall but a data center prior to uh January of this year would have been analyzed as a warehouse or Distribution Center um for a zone that allows warehouse and distribution centers by right I get that but the circumstances have changed I just can can I actually jump in here I think I'm hearing a different concern I think the concern I'm hearing is that there is not like a additional development standards or policies that are in place that allow you to evaluate whether or not this can you can make the findings I think the difficulty with that position is even if city council were tomorrow by Fiat to implement a bunch of development standards for data centers they could not legally apply to this application because this application was submitted beforeand hand so it's as if the law changed and you you had a you know right now there's a civil claim that I'm talking like a lawyer because I know you're a lawyer and we we speak like this right but there's a civil claim right now for conversion and you file your lawsuit and then the legislature gets rid of the Civil claim for conversion your lawsuit doesn't get kicked out because they're not retroactively effective so this applicant comes to us and submits their application at a point in time with what is permitted by the code any additional changes to code later on or implementation of policies whatever you want to call it cannot retroactively apply to them because they've already submitted so for us to deny their application on that basis I see it as as akin to like a regulatory taking like we're taking away a right they have under the law saying that well we want to change the law and want to retroactively apply it to you it's just not not legal we can't do that so I I think the concern to say that well we don't have enough requirements we can never have more requirements and apply to this application legally like we're stuck with what it is right now we're just looking at cup findings and whether the administrative interpretation is consistent with the uh Title 18 which it is we're told that legally as a matter of law that's Title 18 it's not allowed to do it so it's an allowed use and we look at the C findings and that's where I I kind of struggle with that that explanation is we can't like the city's lack of preparedness cannot be a detriment to the applicant when they applied with that lack of preparedness by the city like call whatever you want but that's that's how I view this and we can't just we can't change the rules after they apply when did the application come forward um I don't remember the exact date but within the last month and a half or so October okay thank you October 24 2024 so what I was starting to say though if I may um anony I think it was commissioner Armstrong who asked the question um the if be before the admin interpretation if a data center had been submitted we don't get to just say hey look we don't have a a use and code that that use lines up with so we uh our practice was to look at them as warehouse and distribution centers okay so however recognizing that that was probably not the best course of action we decided to add via administrative interpretation the ability to look at data centers as a specific use um within Title 18 with two youth specific standards that were uh included in the administrative interpretation and that were referenced in my presentation so um that I think we are at a much different place now than we would have been before January of this year because now we at least have the opportunity to bring a data center to this very body to deliberate on its use its use it's its acceptability based on the findings for a conditional use permit so we're actually a lot further along than we were before January of this year in terms of how the city treated data centers I would if I may also I would just like to to point out that um two weeks ago we were before this body and I know commissioner villan NOA you were not here to to chime in at that point but um I left that meeting as the planner representing this project on the behalf of the city with an understanding that this body was concerned about a few key issues namely the ability to supply energy which is outside of my purview as staff to analyze however the applicant through meeting with you folks and having Envy energy and address that issue has in my mind substantially addressed that issue um and my recollection is that the the uh question was asked if the ability to demonstrate that EnV energy can supply this project would would that resolve the concerns of this body that some of the folks uh had and the answer was effectively yes so I kind of feel like you know we were led to move you know to to continue to address that issue and then a whole host of new things is being brought up today that from my point as staff that's just doesn't seem like the the right thing to do so anyway for what it's worth I have one question and I know we're in discussion so this is uh I I just um didn't get a chance to ask this the 24hour operation what is that for then the the 24-hour operations what's that needed for what kind of work will be done during the 24hour so data centers run 247 365 okay um and so they have people that will be there overnight uh security and and people that and they can obviously answer that question more specifically but because the operation does actually run around the clock that requires that 24 uh our conditional use permit okay just because someone will be present okay sure thanks thanks Commissioners uh again really appreciate everyone being here um just would like to remind folks that uh if we did take a vote a couple weeks ago again they would be on an appeal trajectory based on a technical denial we're here in good faith to try to strengthen this project and all projects moving forward um because we did not actually take a vote I think it's all fair game right uh we we get new information we get to evaluate that information and I was at the December 11th city council meeting um and I heard uh mayor shivi explicitly state that uh you know we need to keep in mind the residence of Reno when making these critical decisions and as others know that's what I do first and foremost and that's an area that I do agree with the with the the mayor especially in absence of uh call it a scorecard or rubric or policies but any level of standards that we can go off of to offer folks predictability um I do think that we need more ownership from our city council on as far as Direction goes and I think that's what an appeal pathway offers to both the applicant and the body in this case us uh that evaluat such decisions or or projects um I do believe that data centers are inevitable and I've said it before a couple of weeks ago that ironically we're all here because of data centers right people on the interwebs are listening to us because of data centers uh we're able to do everything um but this is a new land use and it's not just a hey come and play ball it's what are your impacts and what are the outcomes to Residents uh now and into the future I'm a lifelong Northern nevadan I've seen this city grow since I was uh a little kid and I've had conversations outside of my role in scope uh from Executives at Legacy companies here and small tell me what were they thinking back then and there's always going to be some level of that but I think that that's also a good call for evaluating these new major land uses to try to get it as best as possible not perfect but just towards excellence and right now I think that uh while I appreciate what the applicant has done in the last 48 hours uh I think that we on the Cityside need to uh get our ducks lined up in a row and it doesn't need to be a six-month necessarily Mortor that's aspirational I would love you you know but I do believe that we could be nimble and get something before city council if this body decides to continue with the 125 trajectory of a a denial and get further Direction that's sound and offers folks in the future uh you know some predictability and nimbleness for us as well um and I do think that it's interesting that there's talk about setting precedent um uh but then another commissioner would say well we don't really do precedent so we can't even agree on that so with that I respectfully will be a no uh but again appreciate the applicant and their work oh and I do have written remarks of what I just said anyways that I will submit for the record as well well it comes down to one no um I think we know we're at a 3 three here and then it will come down to one vote and I'll tell you we've made a lot of progress in two weeks we did we absolutely did we've now identified a process by which information can come from Envy energy and produce um timelines that correspond to building permits and construction schedules um I think that that is the kind of information that I left the last meeting that's what I asked for I asked for information about the Assurance from the Nevada Energy to be able to provide for the project other Commissioners asked for more broad sweeping sustainability issues to be addressed and I give the applicant kudos for coming to the table in the last 48 hours with additional solar opportunities and some other sustainability measures so I appreciate those things this is quite a quite a challenge we've also worked with staff and found that we can work with the regional planning Authority and look at whether these are projects of regional significance that would apply to projects Beyond this but those are ways that there can be more con conformance review so I am disappointed that the city did not create use specific standards that's not the applicant's fault um that is really a failure to recognize that data centers are a distinct use from other uses they they're not warehouses and I keep getting mixed signals because we're not supposed to consider the past but then we're supposed to consider the past these are not warehouses they might look like it from the outside but they are intense energy users and that is unlike other uses in the City of Reno so while we've come a long way I would love to see city council weigh in on this but I don't want to do it at the expense of your project that's the challenge I want City Council to act I want Direction and I want them to step up to the plate that sustainability is important to the City of Reno and that a hyperscale project is coming and a smaller scale Boutique data center is coming right after this project at what point are we going to recognize that there's been two fires in our city that were one of five top urban heat effect places two of which are in Nevada in the United States and that these things matter and this is going to be largely driven by fossil fuels your data center is going to be run on fossil fuels until 2050 when there's 100% portfolio standard for Renewables and it puts a lot of pressure on Rural communities in our state it requires big transmission upgrades that all customers are paying for and those are realities of this so I do you know I I applaud commissioner velto for making a strong case of we do have to consider what is in front of us today under the standards that are here but I guarantee you that we should all be advocating to our council members that this needs to be addressed in a different context because there is nothing else like it um and that is my final thoughts on this I think we're going to have to do a roll call vote before we do that I just this is Carl from the city attorney's office um you know what I'm perceiving is there are are no votes but I haven't heard anybody articulate the findings that are required to be made made to object to this with any specificity for example um is the proposed location in accordance with the objectives of this title and the purpose of the zoning District which it's located haven't heard anybody address that the proposed land use project is compatible with surrounding development nobody's talked about that or made any record that is defensible um further uh the proposed uh land use and project design is consistent with applicable development standards haven't heard anybody discuss that uh in any meaningful manner that I can defend um the um characteristics and use of the proposed uh as proposed and as may be condition are reasonably compatible with the types of uses permitted in the surrounding area haven't heard anybody address that which is another finding that needs to be articulated if you can't make that finding then it needs to be on the record to be defensible um you know I can go on with each of the uh of the findings here so if you want to vote no I would ask that you supplement the record with some reasons based upon the findings that you're required to make or not able to make and articulate why you can't make those particular findings thank you uh Mr Hall I I am really really pleased that you um you walked through that because I think it's important to remind this body that if we can't make findings we do have to articulate within the legal kind of parameters that you've outlined specifically why we can't make those findings it it's the same as asserting that you can make a finding you don't just get to say no and be normative I think it's a really important point and it it's again you know it's my last meeting so I guess take it with a grain of salt but I really behoove this this body to take to heart what the city of attorney just laid forward if you cannot justify a direct and straightforward reason that would hold up to a legal standard as to why you cannot support this project then I think that is problematic thank you commissioner dra piggyback that I don't know if they're going to appeal if they get denied but if they do we're talking about taxpayer money staff time those things always concern me I don't know what those really look like but in this scenario I I don't understand how this isn't a home run and how they haven't done the best they could with what's in front of them um so if someone is you know thinking of a no I would like to hear what finding that c make because I kind of haven't heard it either so I appreciate Mr Hall bringing that up as well thank you commission vter here I'm not gonna reiterate the points I I too am very concerned about the prospect of future litigation against the city if we can't articulate the rationale for voting no um yeah great uh commissioner Sarah for the record if I made sure um yeah I I think I mentioned it and I think this is just going to be one of those things we agree to disagree and not just to say that as a copout but because again the point is is that we don't have uh any kind of guidelines um or standards by which to begin at a baseline uh Al together right and and so again for the record I can't make findings two five compatibility with surrounding development reasonable compatibility with surrounding uses I'll submit this for the record and writing so it's there I do also want to ask um just for transparency I did uh because it's happened a few times and each time it's happen it seems like we've had our our respectful uh Council chime in and I think it's uh worth noting what the conversation between Mr Thornley and Mr Hall was uh that led to those conversations and and it's it's out of respect too it's not adversarial in any way I'm just curious thank you Mr Thornley of course I'm Doug Thornley law Fir molland and hard on behalf of the applicant so our conversation my conversation with the city attorney is respectfully commissioner Basera you do have standards they were adopted in the administrative interpretation and whether or not the commission is satisfied with those standards isn't really the question in front of you tonight right the application is made it needs to be evaluated under those standards and you've heard that several times from several people this evening and so my conversation with Mr Hall is that suggesting that there aren't standards inventing reasons on the Fly that the project can't be supported is the very definition of arbitrary Inc gracious thank you Mr Thornley and um I will appreciate that appreciate your your experience but I'll respectfully disagree we we all here behind the Das have taken an oath and uh that comes with a certain level of responsibilities and there's a sign that uh adjacent to Mr Hall and myself that reads pressure is a privilege and I embrace that and that's what and I believe that every commissioner including our staff Embraces and yourself Mr Thornley as as as a member of this body before or the city um it's not an easy one but uh we'll get there should we do the roll call oh correct we need a motion make a motion uh in the matter of case number make sure on the right thing case number LDC 25- 000014 uh based upon Appliance of the applicable findings I mov to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report is there an additional condition that was not listed in the staff report correct the memo that was circulated to you today was six additional conditions uh requiring implementation of sustainability features that were proposed actually by the applicant yes my motion incorporates those additional uh conditions that were referenced in the memo referenced by Mr Foster uh in subject to those conditions I can make all the findings do we have a second commissioner Dracula second commissioner Armstrong yes commissioner rer these are very hard decisions I feel very split on character which is finding number five that this is not like other uses however I recognize that what we're deciding on is what's in front of us today and yes commissioner Basera no commissioner DVR no I cannot make findings for two five and four uh commissioner Villa commissioner Villa um can I have a question for legal can I abstain since I was not here at the last meeting and I just don't I just feel like I don't have enough information to make a competent decision today no what what are the requirements for exstension typically it would be a conflict if you had a conflict then you could abstain but I haven't heard anything regarding a conflict and we no it's and we also put the presentation on again um for your benefit yeah I just feel like it would have been helpful to be here for the other discussions um so what I mean so I can't that's not an option extension is not an option while you're contemplating that I do you just want to again point for the record this commissioner Basera just give her a moment to bre uh I'm a no because I can't make findings number two and number five and again I'll provide written um corresponds for the record to supplement my vote I really do think I can abstain if I wasn't here from for the discussion the last time um I just feel like it would have been helpful to hear a lot more of the energy discussions that happened um because I don't know that I'm ready to make a no uh or yes I mean I believe an extension is appropriate um we have the energy here questions well procedurally we are in the middle of there's a motion pending there's a second we're in the middle of a roll call vote uh we have votes cast I would be averse to Breaking is my preference and I don't know procedur if we can under process well I'm going to abstain from this and then I guess we'll if if Council wants to I mean I guess I I'll just disagree with Council I just going to abstain I just feel like I need more information I can't make a thoughtful decision today um so that's what I'm going to do that would bring us to a 33 vote which is a technical denial we have four we have four A's hold up we only have sure V got four we have I haven't voted so we don't have four yet oh so we finish the roll call vote yeah you made the motion commission aboutto oh fair fair my bad so I believe that's four and the motion passes is that correct can you this is commissioner berera um my math is fuzzy after tonight how many Commissioners do we have tonight and and what's the vote if there's an abstention Kelly Kelly just for the record can we do another roll call vote are we going to have Alex make the motion again okay goad uh commission is it done can we get a con a determination from legal weed perfect well what's what's Callie could you just read back which commotion voted Which Way sure we got an I from from commissioner Armstrong Nay from commissioner Basera Nay from commissioner delr and I from commissioner dracul and I from commissioner rer an I from commissioner velto and an exstension from commissioner villin NOA in the in the matter of case LDC 250014 web data center uh your project is approved good luck with your data center yall can breathe now I think we can take a few minutes just a stand take a little breather and then come back and finish the agenda thank you thanks guys e e e e e e e e e e where were we missing no we're all here let's bring the meeting back to order we're going to continue um with item number seven Chucky midow Regional planning Le aison report um I guess I could give that on behalf of the board um at our last meeting we have oh well there were three meetings held to hear the public infrastructure plan to hear the natural resources plan to hear about the 2024 trucky M Meadows Regional plan up St all of those were approved um it went through Regional governing board um the 2024 try medow Regional plan was approved so that effort is done um and again I want to reiterate that you know tmpa is now interested in the data center issue uh not just because the city Areno requested it but also because uh the city of Sparks is dealing with this issue so that is going to come up on the January 23rd agenda um and that's all that I have as an update there moving to item number eight staff announcements U Mike do you want to let us know what's up sure just a couple quick announcements first I'd like to thank um commissioner Armstrong for his service to this board tonight as you know is his last meeting wish you all the best in your new Endeavors and in the move good luck to you and it's been a pleasure thank you I really appreciate it Mike and uh everyone on the commission I I respect you very much and appreciate the time I've gotten to spend um serving this body and again just working with with all of you as colleagues um it's been a great opportunity and something I really care about I grew up in Northern Nevada and I've spent a lot of time in in Reno since college and uh it's a special place so thank you so much um other than that just some quick updates from Council uh at their last meeting they did approve the aerol leaf zone change uh request that this board recommended approval of at their next meeting they will take up the orrest uh Drive zone change and security Circle zone change at their next meeting um staff is working on some additional trainings based on the requests made at the last meeting from commissioner Basera and commissioner R so those will be coming uh here within the next probably in the next few meetings uh just depending on case load we'll we'll obviously space those out so we're not here till till midnight but we are working on those um and it's by understanding you might have some additional suggestions so we'll we'll note those here tonight and that's that's all I had very good item number nine commissioner suggestions for future items yes uh thank you chair question to Mr Mike um since this is uh commissioner Armstrong's last uh hurrah and I salute you um would you'd like to take care of business for the next meeting on that front or is should we wait at the beginning of the next meeting with that will we will um you will we'll take a nominations for vice chair um commissioner RM will automatically become the new the new chairperson and then we'll take um nominations for a new Vice chair and the commission can vote okay perfect just housekeeping rules and I would like to ask um at the last meeting I requested a presentation on what is happening with data centers and other communities and in professional practice um Envy energy has mentioned that they gave a council and commission data center training to the city of Sparks I would love to invite them to come give that same um informational session here at our commission so any other suggestions okay closing number nine uh we can open up to public comment I don't see anyone in the chambers do we have anyone online we do not have anyone with their hand raised in zoom and I do not have any correspondence for this item do may I make a public comment chair um commissioner berer for the record uh since it is a Christmas season holiday season you know I just wanted to say thank you to all of you including legal and staff for uh making my experience so far a a really good one uh we we have really hard uh lengthy discussions at times obviously we disagree on things and I think that's the way it should be it makes us better and uh I applaud all of you and uh Armstrong uh wish you the best and uh you you come on back now you here I think along those lines happy holidays to all of our commission and to City for sticking with us through two two late nights all right closing public comment a motion to adjourn so moves excellent done [Applause]