for hemail well good evening it's 6:00 we're going to get started at the February 5th Planning Commission hearing the City of Reno and we are going to begin with the Pledge of Allegiance commissioner velto take it away to the flag unites and to the rep God invisible jcece for all all right next we'll do roll call commissioner vill NOA here commissioner Basera howdy commissioner delvar present commissioner draulic here commissioner VTO here uh chair rer we have a quorum perfect thank you all right next is public comment this is for any item on the agenda or any item not posted on the agenda um should we start with request to speak online sure 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 for links. reno.gov capital P capital c 02- 05-25-18 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'll be asked to leave Chambers if the behavior continues um we did receive um public comment for a future agenda item um but I do not have any request to speak forms for this particular item unless that is not the case according to the folks in the room does anyone wish to speak under general public comment we do have one participant with their hands raised in Zoom so maybe we go to them first yes please all right and and please um unmute yourself you'll have 3 minutes to speak and state your name for the record [Applause] hello hi my name is Ann Evans I'm a constituent in w six I am um just voicing my concerns around the data centers and am in support of the moratorium on accepting any data centers um and planning for Reno until we have a better sense of of the strain on our resources especially from the perspective of using water in a city so vulnerable to fires I like many have had GO bags packed and watched watch Duty as fires ravaged South Reno specifically and encroached into down possibly into the greater City and know that any exceptions of data centers without further research is really slapping the face to our firefighters and our First Responders and telling them they're about to fight bigger fires more extreme fir with less water as data centers are arrain on our power grids and our water supply all right thank you do we have any other online public comment um no one else online has their hand raised at this time okay um do we have requests to speak forms for general public comment not for this item I see a few hands if you'd like to speak under general public comment you're welcome to come to the podium um but please fill out a comment card when you're done can you hear me I filled out a public comment card and I also submitted written here um hello everyone my name is Lisa Hill and I have been participating in some of the meetings related to Data Centers so this is on item number five and I'm speaking in favor of the moratorium um um I do live in Reno have been for many years and I have been participating in the recent meetings with interest and I've actually learned quite a bit about data centers the different types and have actually um emailed some questions to Mr Ry and some of the development staff here and they've been very kind in answering some of my questions I wanted to just say for the record because I think sometimes it's assumed that somebody like myself that has concerns about the data centers or the energy or water use is anti- dat Center or anti-development which I am not I understand that data centers are part of our future that artificial intelligence is part of our future and um we need development in this community for our economic stability and for our people um I am Pro pro quality of life though and I am Pro environment and I would like to see this moratorium in a sensible way to allow Representatives like yourself as well as City staff to really truly investigate the impact that these types of developments will have on our community and on our environment um and I was told by Mr Ry and some of the staff that including my council person Mr reath that there are a lot of barriers to my question was why can't we require data centers to use solar electricity and bring that with them we have abundant solar energy um we don't have a lot of water and if we continue to put in data centers that use a large amount of say for example the in the one that was appr that you denied and was overturned by the city council the web um As I understood it in that discussion that that data center was going to use a large amount of capacity of that red rock is that my time okay so what I've done is I have since learned that there are a number of different Nevada resis statutes and I as I understand it um I don't believe any of the statutes preclude the council from looking into these requirements and I've written them out and I would just request that you do investigate data seter types that are suited to our environment and that you do look into some of the things that I've submitted in writing and I just want to see us provide clear sustainable requirements for developers and investors so they know how to do business in our community and I want to thank you so much for listening and taking time thank you thank you does anybody else wish to speak under general public comment okay please come and then make sure you fill out a comment yes F on hello everyone my name is Shantel Dominguez my pronouns are she her I am a constituent of Sparks Nevada I've been born and raised in Reno Nevada and I've lived here almost my whole life um I'm also speaking to the issue of data centers I have the privilege of working with Frontline communities organizations and municipalities water Warriors Across the Nation that are fighting to protect their reverse and Waters we work on ever evolving and expanding threats such as dams mining infrastructure mismanagement toxic pollution and more one of the major growing threats both in severity and quantity that we're seeing Across the Nation are the impacts of data centers and the impacts and consequences that they have on our lands local ecology and Waters really truly Across the Nation um as such I also speak in favor of the moratorium uh Manny beera in the moratorium called for a proactive and thoughtful approach to understanding the impacts of the emerging land use um he also reminds us of the Reno Master plan's commitment to sustainability quality of life for all residents in this beautiful place that we all have the immense privilege of calling home our River the trucky River provides drinking water um provides over 80% of our drinking water it's more than a resource it's lifeblood of our communities it's the lifeblood of us it is life um as we move forward um I also call for increased research sustainability um a focus on natural infrastructure where are we getting the water supplies what is this going to do in our already immensely drought stricken environment um thank you so much for your time I hope that that you will think of the health of the river the health of all of you and the health of our community thank you thank you any others under general public comment yes please yes all right uh hi my name is Nick migori uh I'm here as a citizen concerned about the web data center um and specifically the uh Administration interpretation that categorize data centers as warehouses um as I'm sure you know data from the Dr shows that we are the fastest warming city in the US which means that we need a scrutinized development that could exacerbate our for our problems even further uh the US Department of energy estimates that a typical data center can consume up to 50 times more energy than a commercial building of the same size due to the processing power required um data centers need an extraordinary amount of water to cool this equipment maintain indoor humidity at around 50% um this is to stop uh uh Electric fires uh but maintaining cool temperatures and high humidities in 82,000 ft building during our increasingly hotter Summers does not seem like a reasonable use of our limited and valuable Water Resources um an average data center of this size can consume more than 5 million gallons annually and according to the USGS uh drought monitoring Nevada has spent around 34 of the last 25 years about my lifetime um in some level of drought a third of that time being in an extreme drought with a climate so to Drought it seems unintelligent frankly Reckless to allow companies uh company to consume millions of gallons of water a year especially when the blame for these drought conditions is being passed on to ordinary citizens I remember as a kid being taught to ration water in elementary school let's be real data centers like this are not going to make Reno a tech Hub uh civor one of the companies most likely to set up shop at that location is based in Santa Clara in the heart of Silicon Valley and I don't see why they would come to move here when they're already in the heart of that Tech World um instead they plan on using water electricity and land for profit land which um has been given out cheaply to corporations like Tesla who laid off 10% of their Workforce last uh year um and with no regards to the actual people who live and have to deal with these environmental consequences um I'd like you to reconsider your interpretation and do further research into categorizing um these structures not as warehous but with actual um signs behind it uh thank you very much have a good one thank you um May would you fill out a comment okay thank you right are there other comment cards or I don't have any more for this item no okay all right we will close um general public comment and U move forward to the approval of the minutes from the meeting of January 15th 2025 move to approve I second all in favor I I motion passes all right um moving on to number five which is the presentation discussion and possible recommendation to encourage city council to adopt a moratorium on the filing and issuance of permits for data centers um staff want to give some words yes I'll just give a quick overview of what this some background on this item and then um turn it over to commissioner Basera for a presentation um this item was put on the agenda at the request of commissioner Basera um I do want to clarify that only the city manager and city council have the ability to initiate a moratorium of any sort so this is a recommendation to the city council uh staff will summarize um the outcome of this meeting and and all the public comment and that will be included as an attachment to a staff report being prepared by staff that will be presented to the city council on February 26th um which the Council has requested um potentially initiating a text Amendment to the code to address data center so that will be included under that item so with that I will uh turn it over to commissioner Basera sure thank you so much Mike and thank you uh everyone here that's shared their input for again s neutral um really tonight's presentation on data centers and the topic at hand is more of a discussion that hopefully leads to a resolution that we can Elevate to our elected officials City at the city council level um as you all know or most folks know the last probably six to eight weeks have been um a little confusing with regards to how we evaluate data centers uh one core pillar that I hope we can establish moving forward with this proposed resolution and is that um we can find predictability for applicants um community um the staff this body and everyone else involved uh so we have something that reflects the Reno master plan and also a comprehensive framework that is Nimble or adaptable right we don't want something that is set in stone but something that we can iterate on as well as life changes or happens in a year or two uh but definitely something that's more than what we have today um Miss cie would you be able to pull up my presentation or or fine staff member there next to you so I'm just going to kind of fly through this I'm not sure folks can see this I'm not sure if we can put it um in the big screen up here just so the folks up front can see it uh most of the sentiments that I highlight here are probably sentiments or points that uh the general public or staff have shared at some point or another so we'll fly through this pretty quickly at the end there's a proposed motion the mo the motion is kind of work in progress It's meant to just uh start the the the kind of conversation and this body uh can you know finesse it and either approve it or not or take other action as the body uh sees fit so uh click please uh quickly in summary since December uh our body has reviewed three data centers uh with more expected uh is my understanding and the interest will just continue to grow and uh it's imperative that we have something to work with in terms of long-term economic Workforce sustainable and Community impacts there's a lot of now benefits but I think what's missing is the long-term right um and that's key and um I think smart collaborative and flexible planning breeds predictability and I'm hoping that most folks can get around that um click please um so further on that the you know the the framework that we're missing um and what we hope to accomplish with a Mor torium or a temporary pause really right and a temporary pause that's time- certain because we don't want to also Elevate something to city council that is a year from now or two years from now let's be a little agile about this let's move fast right I think we can make that happen and I think most folks would appreciate that both on the business side or private side and the and the general public side and staff um click please so again this is not a ban but we're going to uh hopefully focus more on on not allowing new permits to flow through which can cause strain our on our infrastructure and our resources um and we're not really sure what the economic returns for the city and the residents are long term right and um and really this is a good opportunity to to uh level up as a City and see what we can do to keep business open uh be a place that we call home and have good quality of life click so um what this resolution proposes is to do that research and Analysis that we heard from the general public I think part of the sentiment I heard from staff in the last six to eight weeks has been that uh they to would prefer some level of predictability I don't want to speak for them but I'll let uh Mr Ry and his staff opine on that this evening if they'd wish and of course ultimately develop a policy uh that again is n Nimble or adaptable that uh we can all use moving forward click all right uh yep we don't want to react we're going to just lead uh be a bit more strategic about this and uh we're going to go and move to the next slide to please sir and I think the the the m opportunity so far is that uh everyone wants to play ball uh we have Edon trucky meow's Regional planning agency uh or the reg Regional Planning Commission we have our uh fine friends at the renos Sparks Indian colony and so many more on the both the public and private side um that have so much knowledge experience and valuable input on how to move forward with this land use and if we can all kind of uh bring it to the table in this public venue uh and come up with a solution I think I think we'll be in good hands um so if we do pass something this evening uh my hope is that it's a temporary time- certain pause and again would allow for a more data driven review of the true impact of data centers in Reno uh really takes into consideration all the public input that we've heard not just this evening but the last 6 to8 weeks and is business friendly as well uh we want to be a place that businesses come and say we want to do business there because uh we know what to expect they support us and at the same time they feel like they have uh skin in the game as far as vested interest here in in this community that we all call home um and let's go ahead and go to the next one please so here's the proposed motion kind of a lengthy one doesn't have to be this by any stretch it's just to kind of get the conversation going uh I'll let folks kind of read it on their own main thing at the end though is that I do believe it needs to be time- certain right we don't we don't want to drag this out either um so kind of with that I'm going to pause and I would love to open it up to my fellow Commissioners staff and anyone else who would like to chime in and hear your thoughts on whether you're four you're Swiss you're maybe against and if you are against maybe would love to know specifically why I have a question do we do disclosures on these things or probably should okay our next step would be disclosures from the Commissioners I'll go and start since I'm uh chatting and I'll hand it off uh let's see I spoke with Edon um staff from T tmpa trow Regional planning agency and read and reviewed material submitted from the general public on this matter over the course of the last two months commissioner villanua I read emails I spoke with representatives from Sierra Club and I believe that's it commission oh we'll go this way commissioner rorer I have read and reviewed emails I've spoken to the regional planning agency I've spoken to staff um I have also talked with Sarah Club many residents and of course I work at The Nature Conservancy uh commissioner lvr similar to what other folks have done um I also spoke to uh Edon recently about the data centers um and a lot of folks in Ward 4 um as that is where I live and that's where a lot of these are going um and then read all of the comments public comments and emails that have come in uh commissioner VTO rece read and received emails uh spoke with City staff about uh this resolution uh and I think that's it commissioner dracul are you on Zoom yeah I'm here yep read read and received emails that's it thank you all right following disclosures we'll open this up to public comment uh we have a number of comment cards here I'll just go through them I just remind everyone that there's 3 minutes to speak um and then we'll do the online public comment as well so starting with Bill Miller good evening Planning Commission members staff and fellow concerned citizens I'm Bill Miller a longtime reeno resident who is deeply concerned about the escalating impact of climate change on our community as most of you know Reno holds the record as the fastest warming city in America 7.1 de since the 70s like Southern California we are now home for a new type of explosive Wildfire never before seen due to this warning warming and as everyone should know this warming is being caused by humans burning colossal amounts of fossil fuels that create a greenhouse effect that can last millions of years the point being if we intend to survive as a civilization or even a species we need to reduce our output of carbon carbon not increase it that brings us directly to the topic of data centers which consume enormous amounts of power far more than can currently be supplied by Renewables due to the bantine business model of our local power Monopoly that model discourages solar specifically rooftop solar in favor of building new methane burning power plants NB energy was recently greenlighted for two new methane pth plants for Peak loads only well that's pure wishful thinking according to jat GPT and yes I actually am in favor of progress the typical data center consumes 50 megawatt of power enough to power 40,000 homes that's each data center so if we allow them on our grid with no restrictions soon we're up to 200,000 homes or more where does that power come from virtually overnight Envy Energy's Peak load will become a 247 reality and we will be filling our skies with heat trapping carbon and setting the stage for unprecedented wildfires leading to death and destruction on a massive scale the answer to this dilemma is simple require data centers Supply their own green power there is ample geothermal thermal potential in Nevada build the centers where the geothermal power is avoiding costly delays and to permit and install new power lines besides that we have Sun almost every day battery storage is Affordable and reliable as an auxiliary Source we are facing a lifethreatening crisis there are ways to mitigate it you have the power to do so please use it wisely thank you for your time thank you next we'll hear from Ruth flock FL good evening planning Commissioners staff and citizens of Reno my name is Ruth Flack a retired nurse a longtime Reno resident and climate Advocate I'm speaking in favor of the moratorium as you know our planet is on fire in Reno the Davis and Callahan wildfires this fall were are examples of what citizens can expect every season for many years to come as you also know Reno is experiencing the highest temperature increases in our nation all across the western United States wildfires Blaze destroying communities and precious resources sources This Global overheating due to human activity of the burning of fossil fuels triggering a climate crisis is the reason I am speaking to you tonight Nevada continues to burn carbon for power generation and will do so far into the future meanwhile Reno city council has just approved two new data centers against your advice the size of the web data center as stated by its developers will be 82,000 ft however these developers do not divulge how much power they intend to consume yet it was approved by the Reno city council with that in mind we know that an average data center similar to the web data center will consume 50 megaw of power enough to power 40,000 homes some estimates are higher where will the power be coming from presumably there will be some solar some wind but most of the power will be generated by the burning of fossil fuels such as the coal burning plant and valy although it is being converted to natural gas it will continue to spew emotion emotions emissions Additionally the power to run this data center will also come from the incineration of Highly toxic methane gas from the two new power plants that the state has approved Nevada energy to build considering that Nevada is one of the sunniest and driest states in the nation the Lo The Logical answer to power these centers I believe is to use the sun energy and batteries or geothermal both abundant resources here in Nevada and mostly untapped these data centers should be required to provide their own green power as a legally binding part of their contracts rather than Shifting the burden of the cost to the Nevada Energy rate payers many of whom are struggling to pay their current bill for the comparatively small amount of power that average householders use a data center is not required to provide their own if data centers are not required to provide their own green power the burden adversely affects the citizens of our community both in terms of their health by breathing toxic air and other heat related effects on their body the threat of vire and burden and the burden of paying the bill for a data center industry operations I ask that you mandate a moratorium on data centers and consider this proposal the these proposals when creating guidelines for allowing data centers here in Reno thank you thank you Bobby [Applause] Ma good evening my name is Bobby Ma and I've been a Reno resident for 6 years I came from Arizona so I know about water shortages I know that will probably approve data centers what I'd like to do is to make sure that the Planning Commission adopts rules such as the data center should use all renewable energy for its operations also to use claimed water and then used water efficient cooling system technology to maximize efficiency and which allows a net positive water impact also the data center should avoid blow down pollutants and they should require that the water be treated before discharge we have switch in Reno Nevada and if you research switch they are about 13 times bigger than the 50 megawatt places they use all of these things that's my statement and I hope you consider it thank you mancy Anne leader hello Commissioners I am Nancy and leader and I'd like to um assume to my own talk everything that everybody else has said because I agree with that and I'll shorten what I said I live out in wfor also I'm very concerned with water and electricity especially some other things bother me also because I don't think there warehouse and I don't think they should have been considered a warehouse they don't store things but in the north we have already two recycle plants that are discharging reclaimed water into Swan Lake creating a problem for Swan Lake so there is some reach reusable water that could be mandated to be used for data center for this data center I'm concerned about fire because I'm administrator of an estate within maybe one mile maybe a half a mile of the beginning of the Davis fire luckily the fire jumped over us with the help of the wonderful firemen we had down there but I live in Wood 4 and have since 1965 so I've seen the growth out there I'm not against growth but I think we have to have sensible growth and every time a data center is approved knowing that all of this water has to be used for cooling purposes you are pre preventing not you of course the Commissioners but the city is preventing home building we have a home shortage so is that a reasonable choice for the citizens of Areno I would say not so on the on the uh water side we have fire danger we have taking water using water that otherwise could support family families in houses in the city and we have a use of all this electricity using methane gas thank you thank you Jordan dashel hello my name is Jordan d uh good evening guys thanks for having us here to listen appreciate it um I represent Reno Sunrise movement which is a climate advocacy group that's new in Reno I'm also an environmental engineering major at UNR re in the sweatshirt today um and I believe that you should support this moratorium I've seen a couple of presentations and I think that the lack of Regulation and policy allows for data Cent data center Builders to be a little bit LAX in the information that they present to you regarding environmental impacts of their projects um particularly when the project boasts that there are low vocc emissions from the center they fail to communicate the true air pollution of the center uh commissioner velto I think rightly compared data centers to a semic semiconductor manufacturing plant um but to my understanding data centers use a lot more energy than uh a semiconductor manufacturer manufacturer um and to that end the low VOC claim pales in comparison to the carbon emissions from producing the energy to run a data center like the web data center or the other ones that I've seen uh in this case the voccs are only a small fraction of the air pollution that would result from a data center being built secondly I think a few proposals I've seen have boasted their Su sustainability through the number of native trees that they're going to plant um however I think that planting trees especially up in the North Valleys will actually end up destroying the biodiversity of the area by taking nutrients from the Sage Brush which grows so readily out there I think we're going to end up speeding up the desert desertification of the area um by allowing developers to plant trees where they would naturally grow not to mention the water needs um the water needed to irrigate such large numbers of trees on a site that would negate any sustainability that the trees would offer I would also like to add that I personally am not anti- dat Center my sister is a computer scientist she loves chat GPT she's used it to help me out on a lot of stuff um but I think sustainability is definitely something that should be considered especially when it comes to Data Centers which will take so much of our natural resources thank you thank you um Lisa Hill who spoke under general public comment did you want to add anything um same is true for Chantel Dominguez said spoke under item three to okay you're good all right uh Barry leston good evening Commissioners thanks for being here thanks for letting us speak uh my name is Barry levenson I'm a retired physician and engineer and I'm Justin Green so you know where I stand um I would like to speak in strong support of the resolution by commissioner bisera uh to recommend a moratorium on data centers the writing is on the wall data centers are coming and we really can't stop them from coming to Reena whether we want to or not I recognize this truth and it's not a bad thing however we can put in place reasonable criteria and guidelines for allowing them into our community to protect the public and the environment from their effects firstly data centers consume a huge amount of energy as we all know the web data center is a 30 megawatt facility which is enough electricity to supply about 20,000 homes according to my calculation um who should rightly pay for the infrastructure needed to generate this electricity I believe it is simply not fair to ask the population the rate payers to cover these costs Reno rate payers should not be on the hook to pay for data center electricity demand then there's the effect on greenhouse gas emissions are state is far from our goal of 45% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 adding these data centers powered by fossil fuel gas generation is going to blow a hole in the city the county and the state goals I believe that these data centers should be required to supply at least a large portion of their own renewable energy including rooftop solar with battery storage or geothermal energy as has been um mentioned we also need guard rails on water usage some data centers use a tremendous amount of cooling water whereas there are other much more water conserving Technologies available this issue should be studied thoroughly and our city should Define limits and the amount of water usage finally the economic benefits to our community are far from Clear especially given the large tax abatements afforded to Data Centers after construction is completed long-term employment at data centers is minuscule like 10 people in this huge building to run the place how effective is a new data center in attracting other new businesses we don't really know we need a clear accounting of the true economic and employment benefits to Reno in summary the City of Reno should have a moratorium on approval of any new data centers until we fully understand the impacts of data centers on our electricity Supply on any projected electricity rate increases on our water supply on projected greenhouse gas emissions and to fully understand the economic impact I urge you to adopt this resolution thank you very much uh Kathy Fulkerson hi um I'm Kathy Fulkerson I'm facilitator of third act Nevada a National Organization empowering seniors to protect the planet I was born and raised in Reno and support agenda item 5 the recommendation to the Reno city council to adopt a pause on data centers a pause is needed to consider their impacts on the lives of Reno residents data centers are already here in Nevada and Across the Nation the use of data centers and AI is becoming more and more integrated into our data lives into our data lives our daily lives um I get that but here's the rub data centers typically demand huge amounts of energy requiring infrastructure costs that are currently borne by Nevada rate payers the recently approved web data center will demand an energy load of 30 megaw this is comparable to the total output of the steamboat G geothermal power station the developers have agreed to pay for a fraction of the infrastructure cost the upgrading the peine substation that they will need because of the energy they will need to run on a 24-hour basis however the cost of building a power source that can generate and deliver 30 megawatt of electricity to that peine substation will be born by rate payers Nevada rate payers will pay for the design construction and operation of something equivalent to Steamboat in order to generate enough energy to meet the demand for one Data Center and for any cost of any Wildfire started by the power transmission a 24 a 2024 study found that low-income nevadans carry severe energy burdens defined as a 10% or more of their household income going toward energy bills that's up from their 2020 study in four years lowincome Nevada households has have shifted from carrying a high energy burden to carrying a severe energy burden and I have the reference in my footnote in this sheet will give to you energy insecurity is life-threatening and renew and unless data centers and other high energy users such as cryptocurrency mines are required to carry their full energy costs in a sustainable manner each one will negatively impact the quality of life in Reno nevadans will end up paying unless something's done during this pause nevadans will continue to pay for increasing energy rate hikes will experience increasing power shut offs because of grin demand and Wildfire prevention and will feel the increasing effects of climate change for all of these reasons I urge you to consider this resolution thank you thank you uh Robin Palmer and it notes that there's a presentation good evening for the record Robin Palmer climate and Community Advocate I agree with the wear AES and support commissioner B's resolution to encourage Reno city council to adopt a res a moratorium on data centers data centers are typically resource intensive and have significant detrimental impacts on a community and its residents a planning commissioner for Santa Clara California has likened data centers to tapeworms in that quote they continue to grow they continue to feed they continue to consume resources and they provide almost nothing to the city end of quotes the process of incorporating this definition of data centers into County or into City of Reno code by means of administrative interpretation was deceptive and does not instill public trust there was little to no effort by the city to Garner public comment prior to this administrative interpretation there was little to know effort to inform the public of this administrative interpretation the the public had little real opportunity to appeal the decision within the obligatory 10 days after issuance in the December 18th Planning Commission meeting doc Mr Carl maintained that the administrative interpretation immediately upon issuance established code and set the requirements for a conditional use permit for data centers however in that same meeting Mr Foster said that an administrative interpretation had not been formally adopted formal adoption would be considered with the perfunctory second reading at the January 8th Reno city council meeting the code language was agendized as zoning code cleanup for the January 8th meeting the administrative interpretation was new code language and in my opinion was not code cleanup title title 1803 205 specifies the procedure for an administrative interpretation oh that's not this yet um specifies a procedure for an administrative interpretation when an application is received for use not addressed by code the administrator is to consider several facets of the impact of the proposed use and establish use specific standards to quote decrease the potential impact to the surrounding Properties or the community end of quotes the administrator did not fully consider the potential impacts of data centers new code necessitates a code text amendment in my mind this is new code here are the procedural steps for consideration of a code text Amendment Amendment administrative interpretations are not provide not precluded from this process this administrative interpretation smells funny thank you Olivia Tanager hi Olivia Tanager for the record I didn't prepare comments nearly as eloquent as the folks who have spoken before me but I don't believe I've yet spoken to this body about some of the economic impacts of data centers that we've made before other bodies um so after speaking to you last time we did some digging about some of the tax abatements pertaining to Data Centers and I did want to raise that on the record once more so at the state level per the goed website uh there is a 75% property tax abatement for qualifying data centers uh there's also a reduction in sales tax abatement down to 2% and I think that that's notable because uh you've had several data centers come before this body and say that there's going to be a substantial amount of tax revenue that you're going to get I heard through the grap Vine that maybe your meals are now being cancelled because of uh budget shortfalls at the City of Reno and certainly uh Reno is not alone in that and and so I think we need to be really cautious here and and put a pause on data centers like this moratorium is suggesting while we fully evaluate the economic impacts or lack thereof of data centers uh and certainly evaluate what other Industries we could be bringing here that would bring more tax revenue or how we can fix that tax piece um I in my opinion we should be bringing uh industry here who is able to bring in tax revenue and who is able to bring more economic benefit to the city and to Nevada uh rather than just employing a handful of full-time employees and and getting very little in the way of taxes um so that's the only thing that I will note other than I will reiterate that we are also concerned about the rising utility costs associated with data centers and the infrastructure um related there too so thank you thank you Zach hooker hello everybody um my name is Zach hooker I am also an environmental engineering student at UNR and I have lived here my whole life I'm here to support uh Mr B's um moratorium on data centers thank you for proposing that um all of my points have already been said plenty of times but I just really want to um reiterate that I am really concerned about the resource use that these data centers will hold especially with how water is such a limited resource in Reno right now and additionally I think that with having a lot of the data centers being um designed by outside developers it doesn't really they don't have a quite a good understanding of Reno's resources like my friend Jordan talked about planting um deciduous and pine trees where they do not grow normally is going to put a large strain on the Water Resources as well as the soil um and additionally um I want to talk about how I would like these to help support um employing Reno whites um I've heard that um the 75% tax abatement will go to dino centers that can employ 10 Reno whites within 5 years I think that's a little bit ridiculous um and so I want to make sure and additionally as well as the um concerns about the rising energy costs associated with this especially since Reno is kind of in a housing crisis right now and um housing for people is really important close to my heart um I also just want to reiterate that um with the city council members um and just everything that's going on things have felt really Bleak as a young person and with last week the two plus hours of public comments about um the no sitting no lying ordinance for it to just get ignored was really defeating and I really want to um just say that a lot of our me and a lot of other people are putting our hopes in you to help to see if you can get the council people to listen to um us and do go by our city so thank you I appreciate it thank you uh Nick mcor you already spoke um under General did you want to say anything else I think he left okay uh Bob Blackstock yes my name is Bob Blackstock my wife and I live in West Reno uh which is a w five which is the award for Devon Reese uh we've lived there the last 5 years we moved here from Southern California uh she wanted to move up here to family so uh we've been making trips up here to Reno for for years and it's been quite a delight to actually finally live here in Reno um uh my background is in engineering business and um uh inventions and and similar items um so I'm here to speak uh in favor of the moratorium on the data centers and uh my first uh engineering job out of uh engineering school at Stanford University was to work for one of the big tech companies there in Silicon Valley so I I feel like I'm I'm fairly familiar with electronics and software and similar technical technical items um I also was a venture capitalist in uh in Santa Barbara uh we did uh several deep Dives on energy generation capabilities solar panels and and also energy storage and so forth so I feel like I'm I'm fairly familiar with those kinds of issues um and definitely I'm uh in in favor of environmental issues and uh green energy um but let me leave you with this and that is this seems like a very wild idea and I've been wondering why it is that uh president Trump wants to buy or actually occupy um Greenland the island uh uh that's off Canada and it's full of Ice uh one of Trump's bestest buddies is Elon Musk who is an artificial intelligence uh proponent and uh so what do you do to generate artificial intelligence you use data centers to do that with you need to cool those data centers what does greena have more than anything else ice so uh could it be I haven't heard it explained why it what why it is that Trump wants to to uh to possess own occupy Greenland but my guess is he's working with his Tech buddies to find ways to cool data centers that are going to be necessary for artificial intelligence and one would think melting the Greenland ice Camp would not be a good idea so uh if that's not a good idea to put these data centers in there and data centers really are uh to a large extent thermal dissipation facilities uh the one that's being considered there and uh actually was approved a couple weeks ago here by the the rener center cancel is a 30 megawatt facility uh so uh if you use an energy conversion uh rate on that so that's going to be dissipating something like 3 megawatts of thermal energy uh so if it's not okay to melt the Greenland ice Camp I don't know why it would be okay to put uh thermal energy dissipation centers here in Reno thank you thank you and we have a statement from Tracy cinski that um in in favor of the moratorium but wishes not to speak um did we have any public comment on Zoom or I believe we have quite a few people registered to speak on Zoom um if you would like to speak during public comment please raise your hand at this time all right Maddie we're going to go ahead and unmute yourself state your name for the record you'll have 3 minutes Maddie are you able to unmute your mic hello can you all hear me yes perfect um hi everyone my name is Maddie Casey I've lived in Reno for 20 years I'm 25 now and this is my first ever public comment I'm speaking today because recent local National and Global events have made me realize that if I want to live somewhere that is respectful and kind to its people and the land they live on I have no choice but to become more vocal whether it be with my family and friends in online spaces or by making a comment to my local city officials so as my first baby step into the foray of Reno's many pressing issues I would like to voice my strong unwavering support for commissioner B's recommendation of a data center moratorium and encourage my fellow constituents to speak on this issue to proceed with the permitting of data centers in Nevada without appropriately thorough consideration for economic environmental and social impacts would pose great detriment to the land and the people that we so desperately need to protect I want to be clear I wholeheartedly recognize and respect the potential benefits of data centers I might not love the idea of another big concrete building in our world but I can still understand the appeal and necessity of bringing data centers to Nevada I appreciate the potential of increased job opportunity and more fiscal assets resources flowing into our community I respect the goal of adopting to be a more Tech forward City in an increasingly technologically focused world but I urge you and I will also urge city council to consider that as it stands We are failing to be proactive and these advantages would come at Great cost our land which is not an empty desert but rather a stunning example of vibrant and resilient life deserves consideration our demand for clean water and efficient energy with an already strained treatment production and allocation processes would increase greatly and that deserves consideration our peaceful communities that we that would be polluted by increased light noise and traffic deserve consideration our City's backbone the people who would live near these centers build them and work in them deserve consideration we must relentlessly advocate for all entities to pull their own weight in our communities and that means actually holding data centers accountable for the resources they want to use rather than allowing them to shift the responsibility and detriments onto our fellow constituents I believe we can and will move forward with data center permitting and construction I respect their necessity and benefits of bringing Reno into a new digital era My Hope Is that we only do so when we have exhausted all possible Avenues to ensure our people animals flora and Landscapes these core pillars of the beautiful nadaan communities we love and live in are best protected from negative outcomes I thank you for your time thoughts and energy tonight be well if there's anyone else who would like to speak on Zoom please raise your hand at this time we do not have anyone else on Zoom with their hand raised all right seeing no more public comment we will close the public comment and open this to discussion and questions from the Commissioners uh I have a lot of comments on this and I want to I want to start by acknowledging that data centers um raise legitimate concerns regarding energy use land use environmental concerns uh these are really important issues that deserve thoughtful discussion my concern is that while are called the Planning Commission I think there's an assumption of the power we have and what we can do as a Planning Commission that goes far beyond the scope of us passing a resolution uh this type of resolution is more appropriate for either the planning or the city council or a neighborhood advisory commission and there's three reasons why I think that that I think are very important for us to think about when we decide to make policy decisions as a board first we are not a political body we are first and foremost a fact finding body that applies established law and determines whether there is substantial evidence to make certain findings UNS under NRS chapter 278 it is very important that as a board we maintain impartiality uh and passing a resolution that predisposes us and tells the public how we feel about a certain type of land use will only be used against against us and I'm really struck by this because we as a city do not want to incur unwanted litigation waste resources if the commission takes a formal stance against data centers it would call into question objectivity for all future land use decisions regarding data centers I'm I'm telling you as a lawyer that if there's a future Planning Commission item where someone comes forward with the data center project and we have already passed a resolution seeking a moratorium then we vote against it that resolution is exhibit a to a Judicial action arguing that we have violated their due process came to a meeting predisposed on the outcome and not given them a impartial hearing I want to say that more simply if the commission passes a resolution seeking a moratorium that will be used to make a due process argument if we vote against the data center and give them an argument in District Court to try to reverse our decision that is why it is so important for us to be impartial when we are approaching land use decisions and not make policy decisions that predispose us and tell the public how we're going to vote um because we act in a quasi judicial manner uh it's important that we don't make up our minds beforehand and even if we do we don't tell the public we've already made up our minds because that will be used against you in future decisions the second issue I have with the resolution is I don't think we have authority as a Planning Commission to do this our Authority is outlined under NRS chapter 278 specifically if you start at NRS 27830 and go down to 265 that outlines all of our Authority there's nothing in there that authorizes us to make resolutions to another body which is again why I think this discussion while very important needs to happen at either a neighborhood advisory Comm commission or at the city council level and for us to make the decision here I think violates what power we have under Nevada revised statutes third and I I want to underscore this the city council makes this policy decisions and tells us its policy it's not the other way around I was very struck at the last hearing we had where it was expressed by some of the Commissioners that the city council had already told us or expressed that they were considering a moratorium and I was kind of in shocked by that cuz I assumed if that had happened I would have read about it that would be significant but I kind of accepted at face value only then to hear a few weeks later they vote to pass or approve data centers which tells me they were not contemplating a moratorium now again this discussion is super important we've heard abundance of public comment telling us their problem with data centers that all needs to be evaluated I have no reason to think that that is not important and we shouldn't be talking about it but for us as a commission to make a resolution and say Here's how we feel about these data centers we are totally screwed on future agenda items when data centers come forward because that's the first argument in court and that is a devastating argument that our commission was not impartial so I am urging you all to consider the significance of your vote today versus the significance of your vote on a project when it matters and what will matter more because this resolution can be submitted to council by public comment or as a recommendation but the minute we as a body take action we are in serious trouble for the fairness of future hearings and think about how that will affect the importance of your vote on those projects that's all I have to say about this I think we should really reconsider becoming a political body as opposed to what we actually are commissioner dra if I can just chime in um commissioner belto thank you for that um I don't have the legal e for that and you bring up I guess something I always inherently knew for my four years on this commission is impartiality um I read a staff report on Friday I do my best to meet with applicants express my concerns ask questions come to a meeting ready to hear fellow Commissioners and staff and legal you know help advise me to make the best decision I can so thank you for bringing that forward because I do not want to to hurt the future of this board or this city with the decision as serious as moratorium on any type of land use so I I don't support the land use what I would say too is when it comes to the issues being raised which I respect everybody's public comment is ultimately I look at the staff report and for the previous data centers tellw they can deliver the water that's needed for that data center NV Energy or they're building a substation each data center is unique and different and I can see how now at times we may be concerned to not make the findings with certain data centers and then many times we can whether it's with or against the staff's approval so I will not be supporting this resolution thank you commissioner VTO and thank you all who have come here tonight to express your concerns uh commissioner berer for the record um don't want to unpack the whole thing but I I'll chime in a little bit and then uh let others respond first I do want to say that um boy um though we disagree from time to time tonight being obviously uh the latest example I do want to share my utmost respect and appreciation for every single individual up here I have had the privilege of getting to know every single person individually and I know their heart's in the right place and I think that's what makes his body pretty strong is that we all bring a different perspective and strengths and and um I appreciate that so uh thank you fellow Commissioners so far who've chimed in and look forward to hearing from others I do want to touch on the whole judicial do topic and all that I like to kind of keep things a bit more simple uh um just how I roll but I do appreciate that perspective um we are a advisory body recommending body use another synonym if you will but along those lines and what's before us is just that we are recommending for consideration a a resolution for city council to to take a paused on issuing new data center permits we're not mandating we're not making policy but we are advising as is part of our purview um and all of us every single meeting are required to be in partial um we make disclosures sometimes we get eye rolls sometimes we don't for whatever reasons right and but I do trust that we are impartial if folks remember the last meeting I was actually in favor of one Data Center and against another I believe I can be impartial moving forward regardless of how tonight roles and I trust every single one of my Commissioners to be impartial as well so I'll I'll pause there for a moment commissioner filla um I Echo a lot of uh commissioner basser's comments I do appreciate the input from uh my fellow Commissioners um I think it helps for a nice diverse uh conversation um and as commissioner Basera stated we are uh review board or advisory ultimately um while we have the option to be the last stop we are not necessarily the last stop and so there's always options for um the applicant to to go to the next and final level which is city council um a resolution like this I think um does not prohibit us from being able to be impartial to the facts um or to the fact finding process with regard to the law as it is presented um today or at the time that we are reviewing an application um what this does do is allow us to um provide some recommendations to council you know uh recommend that council do a deeper dive into the considerations that we talked about that were mentioned during public comment energy use water use um biodiversity so on and so forth um that does not mean that that's going to um that does not mean that I have bias going into the applications that come in Fr in front of me as those who have seen me um in meetings no I'm do my best to be impartial and to to look at the facts um that's one of the reasons I typically do not meet with applicants because we are a quasi judicial body and I do try and be unbiased I allow both sides to present their argument equally and transparently here in front of the public so by presenting this resolution to council I don't believe that we would be creating any kind of bias um or impacting due process rights or um creating uh some eminent domain or taking uh issues um so that's my position thank you commissioner Del VR um and again I again thank as everybody's saying here thank you all the Commissioners thanks to you Mike and your team and Jeff who's uh been been up here quite often um and everyone who's made uh public comments um again I'm not I don't feel like I'm here to make policy and that's not what this is about uh I am absolutely not opposed to data centers or growth of any kind in Reno I just think it needs um that we need to take a look at it uh as I feel like there's a lack of policy and guidelines to help me decide on whether um as they come to us individually they make sense there are different kinds of data centers they use different kinds of energy they use different kinds of cooling processes so each of the data centers let alone everything else that comes before us should be looked at individually um but I think that um you know we're not the first city to go through this uh we don't even have to recreate the wheel there are other cities who do and have been through this process before cities counties and states and I think it's just putting a pause so that we can uh come up with some guidelines and policies that will help mitigate some of the issues that people have brought up here today um and I also feel like this should be as is part of what Manny commissioner ber talked about more strategic like what does Reno want to see from Data Centers do we you know does Reno want to become you know this the the beacon and the leader of data centers and if so we have to put something in place to help um Edon and other folks uh bring in the right types of candidates and and applicants um and and also I've I've mentioned many times this other people have too uh I am concerned about um fire protection and our First Responders and safety of our citizens and I think that we just need to look at that there are different types of fire suppression systems that go into Data Centers there's different types of clusters blades batteries servers everything that's used in there and I think that uh it would just behoove us to understand that a little better um and so that's all I'm asking for is just a little more guidelines on what makes the most sense so that's all I have um I'll give a comment and then commissioner VTO can respond um I find the number of people who showed up for issues of data centers impressive the hours people have put into this topic is something that I've not seen in my 20 years of visiting this Das for plan planning related issues and that is important and it is significant we are talking about a recommendation for a resolution this body is not judging or making a vote on a resolution we don't have that perview thank you for reminding us um in my opinion and I think how actually planning works is that this is the job of Reno planning staff unfortunately in our city unlike other cities Across America and this is a criticism I take that is that we look to our Council to give direction to staff to address these planning issues so that the staff has time and money and the uh space that they need to do the kind of research it takes that direction never took place here and that is why as a Planning Commission a sort of quasi body with expertise we are asking for that kind of dedication of resources of staff to do the work that needs to be done also um in terms of impartiality I voted twice to approve data centers based on the facts presented the information that was provided and the follow-up information so I don't think that if Council decides a moratorium is inappropriate that that would limit my ability to make sound decisions going forward um I have high standard ards I believe in having high standards for our city this is an opportunity to do that in a way we haven't before this is an unusual land use category that has no analogous use and that there's considerable literature and scholarship around what makes good planning that has not been considered here and that is strongly influencing my decision to support this and uh energy and climate are generally the issues of our time we happen to live in a geography with energy and good climate and so I don't want to give it all away at the expense of the longer good future of our city um those are my positions and so Mr VTO please expand yeah I um I hear all of you saying that you would not be impartial when you are making future decisions on data centers um I believe you I think you're being candid it doesn't matter what either of us think me or you all that matters is what a future Court looking at a record would think and I want to illustrate this by giving a hypothetical so I'm a labor and employment lawyer I represent employees that have been discriminated against and I fight for them to get their jobs back or get pay right let's say that a developer in town was had a bunch of conduct where they were discriminating against employees and I were to come to the Planning Commission and I would propose a resolution that said Acme developer I don't like their discriminatory practices I think we should pass a resolution that ask the city council to put a moratorium on approving any developments that this developer did and city council ignores me the very next time that that developer comes before this dis and asks for a land use decision if I vote no that developer when they get to court is going to be using that resolution I supported to say I was impartial and that is very good evidence so I respect all of your opinions obviously you know I you've all thought about this a lot I respect that there are a lot of people here in her support I think that this deserves a discussion I just disagree about how we do it because I am concern that the process will result in future decisions that are actually disadvantageous to what your goals are and all I will say is that if there are future data centers that end up failing before this commission do not be surprised if this is referenced in future cases where people are arguing that we were impartial that's all I'm saying is that I I I think I'm with you on the goal I disagree with the process and with that that's where I'm at but I I appreciate the consideration and I hope this is discussed later on but we got to be really cautious what we do because it will be used against us Mr Hall could you chime in please well I agree with Mr VTO I you know every time I make a statement I support um one side or the other and if we end up in litigation then everything that's on the record is going to be used by one side or the other so I mean that's just a fact um in in these cases you have to look at the findings and have some facts to support your findings on the conditional use permits with respect to this particular item it's a recommendation to city council if you want to make a recommendation to city council then make a recommendation to city council and if I end up in litigation on a future data center which I probably will then you we'll deal with it thank you I yes please I just want to add some statements um or response to commissioner valto as far as why I see where your coming from I still disagree mainly because I've already voted no no I did two no votes and one exstension on data centers if you know potentially it could be that these the impacts on the reasons why I voted no could be in could be ultimately mitigated as a result thereby allowing me to begin to vote Yes moving forward if we can begin to address some of the needs for mitigation um again as I indicated previously I have no qualms I have no issues with data centers um my votes were based on the facts that were presented I voted no however you know I have no issues with voting yes on data centers if we can actually make it more appealable to if we can make make the circumstances uh more appealing to allow me to vote Yes moving forward um and that would actually be more in the long run advantageous to Data Centers I think um if we can look at ways to mitigate and get me to a yes vote in the future um but the way things stand now I've voted no even before the resolution was presented in front of me potentially it could be that moving forward I I begin to vote Yes I don't know I just I don't think that this is going to impact impartiality one way or the other and as um Mr Hall mentioned we're law I mean lawyers are lawyers they're GNA argue one way or the other that's just the way it is um commissioner B uh commissioner VTO thank you um always appreciate it Mr Hall as well thank you um I was wondering uh velto you mentioned that you disagree with what we're doing tonight or the approach right the method perhaps um but I was curious in your mind what would a better path look like and is that something that you believe is going to happen anytime soon if you don't know no I know the better path is to go to a neighborhood Advisory Board and bring this to councel through that because it then it doesn't impair the impartiality of the Planning Commission and allows for us to rule on future data centers without this being used against us in the event of litigation or option b going directly to a council person and getting them to sponsor a proposed resolution option C pack the room at city council and do exactly the same thing without risking harming our ability to be impartial oh I appreciate that honestly I think it's semantics at this point because if this goes to NAB or you know uh some other path we're here there's no taking this back I I disagree at this point you have proposed a resolution for discussion correct and you have not voted on a resolution which affirms your commitment to wanting a moratorium neither has anybody else in this commission but the minute we do that again that's exhibit a okay then then I'm going to I think there's Nuance right you're saying proposing a moratorium and in in my little deck here I've been very intentional about actually highlighting that this is a temporary pause and I'm going to read some of the language because this isn't like a moratorium forever um I do come from the private side where we move fast and I think I've shown that that that's I have a bias for Action um so we're not talking about about uh crippling our city if anything we want to find out how we can actually make our city more lively and treat our city like a sustainable business because right now we're in the red and obviously we're not doing that right so let me let me just read a little bit about it so people understand what what we're proposing here um I blink that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution encouraging the Reno city council to consider a temporary pause on the filing and issuance of new permits for data centers this pause will direct and allow the city to study the economic environmental and Community impacts of data centers engage stakeholders and develop a framework for ensuring that future approvals align with the Reno Master plan's goals for sustainability economic growth quality of life and other relevant metrics as identified by stakeholders additionally we would propose that we invite stakeholders like Edon tmrp RS utility providers Workforce Development leaders state level partners and the broader public two part participate in shaping this framework ensuring that future projects bring clear and measurable benefits to Reno's residence and economy and I'm out of breath folks can read the rest but I don't see anything wrong with that but the language doesn't have to stay that way and as the other Commissioners mentioned I can be impar like I can be I can look at the facts for anything brought before us and either say yay nay and defend that I I believe you yeah and here's the reality it's just I'm concerned we are shooting oursel in the foot because when a future data center comes in let's say this resolution passes and city council decides not to act we would be shooting ourselves in the foot the minute we genuinely want to vote against a data center because there are problems with its compliance with the master plan the code something we are giving them an out when they go to District Court by passing a resolution now now the alternative that I think is more appropriate is to go through NAB go through council member go through public comment that removes that tool that a data center would have in the event that we on the facts impartially decided on a caseby casee basis this is problematic I just I don't want to be here a year later two years later where we denied a project and we find out that there's a district court judge that grants a petition for judicial review reversing the action because it determined that there was an unfair hearing at the Planning Commission because there was a resolution passed by them that predetermined their decision that's my concern I I understand that but commissioner reserve for the record but this also assumes that there's a lot of assumptions there right that we would pass something here and it wouldn't get supported at city council for whatever reason that's the Nuance I'm reading here and so now it's Planning Commission perhaps as a body that is somehow saying no to Future projects which again I appreciate that that that cautiousness um but I trust that um we have a viable path forward and that everyone can be uh fair in evaluating future projects and and I don't want to be here year from now two years from now what we've been dealing with in the last two months right uh for both applicants or for all applicants residents staff and so forth I would have a question for uh Mr Mike is are do we have any other data centers you don't have to obviously mentioned but are there any others filed under the current administrative interpretation that might be before us two weeks from now 6 months from now and so forth no we do not amen I um I hope you're correct sorry sorry commission dra sorry do you mind if I Chim in is that okay yes thank you uh this question is for Mike Mike is there any appetite that we haven't seen from Council or from staff to engage with the moratorium on data centers is there anything we're missing the the council has requested the staff put together a a staff report to potentially initiate a text Amendment to the code to further address data centers but at this point we do not have any formal direction that that meeting will occur on the 26th and that's where we will take any direction that the council kind of sends our way so to speak okay and I ask one because i' I've been wanting to hear more communication with counsel or staff and I'm I'm with everybody here wanting to fact fine what I'm seeing with this resolution is it feels very performative because that's going to go up to the council um if I have no reason to believe that you know that's going to get passed then why pass something that's just going to shoot ourselves in the foot is commissioner VTO was saying we know it's not going to pass up there once again just kind of hammering the point on this feels performative um you know I'd rather see some of this verbiage feel more cohesive and safer for all of us moving forward for the legal aspects um commissioner Basera you know I mean the part that kind of catches me is this is now therefore being resolved by the Reno Planning Commission item one and a the city council has encourage to adopt a moratorium suspending the filing and issuance of permits for data centers for the purpose of understanding gr studies so it doesn't have any date certain or anything you know what does that really mean what message are we sending even with that is it six months are we waiting for Edon and NV Energy and what what is that so I don't love the verbiage I don't support the resolution in general but once again I just kind of feel like this is performative at this point and now we have legal issues if we take this action thank you I want to make make a comment to the 40 or so people in this room that this is not a performative exercise and thank you for your time and commissioner Basera um thank you commissioner drailed um not sure what language you're you're reading I I know the latest one before us at least here on the screen does have a Time certain mention and and I would add too that again this is just a recommendation right um I fully believe that whatever we bubble up if if we do decide as a body to pass something this evening that it wouldn't stay identical to to how we propose it I I actually demand or expect further deliberation at the city council level with further public input and other stakeholder input so that language gets finessed right again this is a recommendation just to kind of get things going um because if we don't uh I'm just afraid that we're going to have these same conversations over and over again and that's not good uh use of our resources peoplewise judicial money whatever else you know and um I just feel like like commissioner rary mentioned this is by no means performative this is actually part of our duty and responsibilities yeah and commissioner drich I I don't mean that in a condescending manner what I mean is I I don't believe this is g to there's no appetite for this at the next level so now we're taking a risk as commissioner belto is stating for something that we're pushing it through just to put ourselves in Jeopardy um I always appreciate public comment I listen to every single word um I feel like there's a better Avenue commissioner VTO kind of struck that chord for me um and continue the public conversation and I get it you probably feel like we're going to spin our wheels and not get what you need luckily there's no data centers coming up anytime soon so there's that um they were kind of crammed at us you know starting in December with three so I get that I had my concerns as well but once again I'm just not comfortable with this and the things are at stake for that can I can I say something here I I think my concern is if if our concern is we want the city to have like better code that helps us understand how to evaluate data centers why isn't the resolution we request the city council consider um like code cleanup with regard to data centers that that that in my mind would avoid a lot of my concerns because it wouldn't be a like a policy stance about a type of land use it would be more of a help us do our job better and and that aligns I think more with my understanding of 278 so why is that not the angle because I do think that would avoid some of my concerns um sure I'll try and let others kind of chime in as well um it could be I mean uh if if supporting staff wouldn't mind putting my proposed motion back on the screen oh I guess it's back here at the very top open refinement so however you want that language to look like and if everyone else is on board totally we can get down with that um but I I think I think what's missing here the is that there's a lack of ownership if if we've been here for two months now where is that feedback loop closing it city council knows that this has been a struggle why isn't it before us already so we are taking ownership again within within our purview we're not going out of bounds like we just recommending I I understand what you're you're saying but I think if I would feel a lot more comfortable about this from both a Planning Commission perspective and it's really hard for me to take my lawyer hat off like from a liability perspective if we were just asking if city council would consider like looking at the code to make it so we have some extra guidance like I'd feel way more comfortable with that and I think that's more consistent with our job I I believe we've been asking for two months for that very thing I agree I know commissioner rer and myself when staff presented title 19 the last time prior to this the reading in front of council we asked specifically about data centers and we and we gave recommendations which to my recollection were never actually presented to the council um so well we could pass I still think resolutions are outside of our purview but we could pass a resolution asking for code modifications to help us better evaluate data centers period that in my mind avoids the issue of liability gives it to PL city council for them to consider if they are interested and does not affect our impartiality as a commission which allows for us to evaluate data centers impartially in the future I I think that is more reasonable and or we have asked and city council has not cared in which case we are really shooting ourselves in the foot if they don't do anything about this so my suggestion would be if we're going to do this we heavily limit it to make it confined to please look at code and we want to be able to make decisions more in line with more clear guidelines and get away from the policy aspect because it's the policy aspect that I think really gets us in trouble because the policy aspect that'll be there at Council like the minute this goes there very limited everyone in this room is probably going to be there talking about policy like we don't need that to be in the resolution it only does harm to the commission but everyone in this room is going to be there again talking about it commissioner B for the record oh I'm sorry I want to make one clarification on a previous statement when you said Do we have any data centers currently under review not that will come before this board I want to clarify that the oppidan did Center that was denied has been appealed to the city council and will be heard by the city council in March so I just want to clarify that there's no data centers currently on a review that will come back to this board great thank you Mike uh commissioner berer for the record again um see if I can gather myself here my understanding uh commissioner VTO and maybe Mike can clarify too is that um from what you stated earlier uh city council is going to be reviewing text amendments um but it's not clear what those text amendments would satisfy so maybe my question to you if you're an oracle or if you know through conversations of the sort like do those tech text amendments actually seek to satisfy the ask tonight which is a comprehensive framework to address the pain points we've been experiencing and asking for for the last two months the short answer is I don't know so the city council at their at the meeting the last meeting during the code update the the subject of data centers was brought up and that there was a desire to have further discussion about data centers which is why it's coming back for the potential to do a text amendment to make modifications to the code um regardless everything that has occurred here tonight is obviously public record will be included um with that staff report so regardless of what happens tonight all the discussion that has taken place tonight will be presented to the city council great thank you so much and Cali or and K would you mind going to the last slide there's actually one more at the end um May I make a comment in regards to expanding upon what commissioner velto said I also would support a resolution or recommendation to have a text Amendment but on the premise that it comes back to Planning Commission before it goes to city council because I've historically seen things that get presented to city council lack maybe the expansive understanding of what good planning around data centers or other topics could look like that sorry the portion about like us about it coming back before it goes back to council I just don't know if that's something that we can I guess if we're making recommendations for ordinance creation I guess we can make a recommendation it comes back to Planning Commission that possible it Mr Hall feel free to chime in if I'm misstate anything but I I think that could obviously be part of your recommendation but ultimately it would be a council decision whether that would come back before this board understood I agree great commissioner berer for the record um I asked staff to put up my last slide actually it was kind of a nice thank you to everyone uh at the very bottom uh you know little has one team I truly believe that uh not naive to you know the inner workings of of City Life and how Areno works and all that jazz but um I do believe that whatever we pass tonight if anything um that we are in it together even with disagreeing uh opinions or viewpoints uh I st I still stand with the original motion or the intent of the emotion totally open with for the language to change as well so it satisfies a level of comfort uh but still doesn't lose the essence of of what's you know before us um tonight thank you um I think we're probably going we have a lot of differing opinions perhaps or shades of what this could look like um do we want to just kind of go one by one and say I I some people have said said nay or indicated that they would say nay do we want to clarify what we're comfortable with individually okay commissioner villanua um I'm comfortable with the resolution as Ren so um I guess if others have changes then they can share those but as it's written I'm comfortable with it commissioner delv I am comfortable with it as is but to your point uh I am if there's different language that we can incorporate like tonight I don't know how I don't know I don't know the process but I'd be open to that as well quick question so council is considering code cleanup on this I'm sorry I don't know the exact item what what are they considering they will be considering a potential text amendment to whether to initiate a text Amendment to the code to address further address data centers at their meeting on the 26th of February so I I guess I would be support I still am very concerned about us doing resolutions and I just want to make that very clear uh in the interest of compromise I would be in support of a a recommendation to council that if they proceed with a text Amendment we would get a chance to review that text Amendment so I don't know how that would be phrased but a request that we get a chance to look at the text amendment in the event they decide to make a text Amendment anything beyond that that is policy focused I just I'm very I don't think we're thinking about the unintended consequences and that's why I'm very concerned about it commissioner berera thank you uh commissioner VTO honestly um thank you for being open for compromise there I I think it's just um Nuance here um I'm not sure how text amendments is not policy as much as how you're trying to refer to this resolution um adus are before the city council these days um and they're getting a good little road road show you know of public input and so forth which is phenomenal this deserves no less this did not that level of treatment we're just trying to not um you know uh do harm here and I get that where your cautiousness cautiousness comes from uh but I think we're trying to help pick up the balls that were I I would say inadvertently dropped if I'm giving benefit of Doubt um so I'll leave it at that and happy I was going to ask this too since folks are tired and we do have a few other items before us maybe uh Vice chair and chair and staff would would you all be open to tabling this till the end so we can get through the three items and then come back to this or do you just want to knock it out now I prefer we finish knock it out just for the benefit of the people here okay as much as you want to hear other public hearings I'm sure sure you want a decision we're gonna yeah we're going to wrap this up so I guess the others have weighed are been forthcoming I can support the resolution as written I can also support a text amendment should City well if city council doesn't support a text Amendment we're going to be going through this on a one-off basis every single time which nobody benefits from um but I would strongly support a resolution that brings or recommendation that brings it back to the Planning Commission first and foremost so I can support either of those things I'll look to a motion in a second to drive which direction we go so just for clarification um Comm R so your recommendation is is that the um the text Amendment comes back before the Planning Commission before it goes to city council for your input correct and and so that would be uh the resolution correct okay I just wanted to make make sure we had a record on that thank you thank you commissioner dra just for clarity I guess I want to understand what a motion would be from commissioner VTO I just his uh opinion and notes on this matter very heavily I just want Clarity there um I I don't support the resolution in it's current I would um I would support a recommendation that a text Amendment from Council come back to Planning Commission before it goes to council if Council agrees like a recommendation I would support that again because I don't think it's policy based and did that eliminate what was brought to us tonight with the resolution or is it included my support of it would not include the resolution as presented okay Mr Hall correct me if I'm wrong but I believe any text Amendment initiated by Council to Title 18 would actually come back before the Planning Commission prior to be final adoption by the city council right that's my understanding yes so you'd have input on that yes may commissioner villanua um I like commissioner B don't really see the difference between us reviewing a text Amendment and US proposing this resolution either way we're providing feedback to the council um that's really all this is is just sharing feedback with the council regarding our um you know kind of what we'd like to see moving forward it doesn't really say how we're going to rule on future application what we expect to see from future applications just like with the text Amendment we we see those anyways they come in front of us we provide our feedbook feedback I I know when we got the text clean up I provided feedback regarding parking lots that didn't mean that whenever someone came in front of me with a proposed parking lot I was going to rule against it it just it's feedback it's considerations for the future um and I think that's what this is so I don't really understand the Nuance there either no I appreciate that and uh I would say that you know maybe have had some examples of this sign codes and various other larger text amendments uh we give feedback it doesn't seem to get Incorporated so if there is a way that we can have a you know real substantial input on these text amendments then that would be I think a very nice alternative to the resolution but I'm perfectly comfortable with the resolution as written as well so uh commissioner B here I'll just uh if I may call for the vote and I'll put forth a motion and um we'll go from there if that sounds good all right buckle up belto you got to read it really fast though no you know this one's going to be the shortened version uh for for brevity sake but uh again if folks want to finesse it a little bit I'm okay with that I move that the planning Comm commission adopt a resolution encouraging the Reno city council to consider a temporary pause on the filing and issuance of new permits for data centers as presented and filed with the secretary of record for this evening's public hearing commissioner villaine by second all in favor I I all opposed no for the reasons I stated earlier commissioner draulic I'm sorry I said as well just in unison okay um recommendation for a resolution for a moratorium on data centers has passed thank you all we're going to take a five minute break e e e e e e e e e e e right me any conversations or welcome in the lobby and we're going to get uh back to our public hearings um moving to item 6.1 the arnet storage building Cup first we'll start with a presentation from staff all right good evening Planning Commission Jeff Foster associate planner for the record uh the first case that I'm bringing you tonight is the rnet storage building LDC 25-34 we not have power in our little maybe that's out of power try there we go okay all right so this project is about 1 27 Acres it is located about 80 ft southeast of the intersection of Sutro Street and Sun Villa between McCaron Boulevard and Highway 395 as you can see here it is developed with an existing non-conforming 9,750 ft uh Warehouse building the building was built in 1987 and was previously used by prec Precision sheet metal to manufacture uh metal chassis for the slot machine industry several years ago prec Precision moved their fabrication facility to a different location and currently use the building only for storage due to their business demands they now require additional storage space non-residential development adjacent to residentially zoned property requires approval of a site plan review as you know indoor manufacturing processing assembly or fabrication is not an allowed use in the mf211 Zone per RMC no non-conforming use shall be enlarged extended or changed to a different non-conforming use unless an application for a conditional use permit has first been approved as a result the entire application was elevated to a cup as we zoom in here I want to call your attention to the surrounding land land uses you can see that to the north there's a religious assembly use there is a non-conforming mini warehouse use to the east to the South you have additional non-conforming industrial buildings and uses and then to the West you have multif family residential across Sutro Street the uh key issues that staff analyzed are compatibility with surrounding land uses as well as site design the zoning is multif family residential 21 units per acre MF 21 and the man master plan land use is Suburban mixed use in terms of compatibility with surrounding land uses um the surrounding land uses on two sides are Industrial in nature and the adjacent multif family uh use across Sutro or is separated uh from the project site by a road Sutro Street um the proposed building is located on the Southeast Corner in that area shown there that's about 230 ft from Sutro and about 360 ft from the closest multif Family building uh the project includes minimal exterior lighting which is directed downward and used only when necessary the structure will only be occupied when materials are actively being stored or removed and it will not include nighttime activity uh staff has recommended restricted construction hours that will reduce potential impacts on the existing multif family across Sutro and that's condition number five given all of the above the proposed use is generally compatible with the existing land uses in the area moving on to site design the project proposes a new 24t tall single story approximately 2,640 ft metal storage building with two exterior lights that proposed sight lighting meets code and no lighting is directed onto adjacent properties the site contains no formal Landscaping yet the mf2 Zone requires a minimum Landscaping uh landscape amount of at least 20% uh since the site does not comply with Landscaping standards it must be brought up to code per RMC when an existing site or use that does not comply is expanded Landscaping shall be provided in an amount that is proportionate to the expansion preference shall be given to installing Landscaping upon along public public streets and other highly visible areas the applicant is therefore proposing approximately 2100 ft of landscaping based on that proportional expansion including a minimum of eight trees and 48 shrubs as required by code and that Landscaping will be concentrated in two areas near Sutra where the existing Paving will need to be removed and all of that is in condition number six here are the recommended findings for a conditional use permit staff can make all recommended findings here's a separate set of findings for the non-conforming use uh as required by code again staff can make all recommended findings and here's the recommended motion and I'm available for questions and the applicant is here but they will not be making a presentation they're just available for questions all right thank you we'll go to Commissioners for disclosures starting with commissioner Basera read and reviewed materials and I am very familiar with the site commissioner villanua um no disclosures commissioner delvar I have read and reviewed the information and I also went by the site and I also spoke to folks in the church above uh commissioner VTO familiar with the site commissioner dra familiar with the site and commissioner rer same disclosures uh we do now have a presentation for the applicants so we will go to public comment did we receive any public comment on this item we did not receive any correspondence for this item okay anybody in Chambers wishing to speak on this item seeing none we'll close public comment and go to questions from the Commissioners U commissioner villan weba I have a question [Applause] um so um May you explain to me the can you discuss for me the uh non-conforming component of this application I don't so because I'm looking at so request conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of non-conforming indoor manufacturing processing assembly so what what is this Zone like what would the zoning be would it be manufacturing um and then go ahead so the zone is Jeff Foster associate planner the zone is multifam 21 and so the existing use is non-conforming because a a warehouse is not an allowed use in the mf211 zone so by ex by proposing to expand the existing non-conforming use um that expansion of a non-conforming use is what code requires to be uh reviewed through a conditional use permit okay so snc so it's a warehouse that's expanding to a Manufacturing process so it's just to add an additional Warehouse building oh to expand the space that it literally yeah it's not it's not necessarily expanding the use so much as expanding the physical space for the use that's already there okay so it's so it's obviously I guess grandfa they so to speak into that non-conforming state and then because and the conditional use is required because it's expanding is that correct okay okay that answers my question thank you mhm a question uh commissioner delvar it's not really a question I think it was answered with the condition number five how you explained it um as I mentioned I did go to the uh Church up above and they have uh it's like a daycare I'm not really sure I can't tell how old kids are anymore um but uh I just wanted to make sure that the construction hours um that they were made aware that there might be kids being dropped off um but I think you've covered that with a residential time frame anyway so I think I'm good and they they had no problem with the folks that are there and expansion and everything so I'm good commissioner VTO did you have questions okay commissioner dulich do you have questions no thank you okay another question Jeff uh question regarding so I'm looking here it says um so it was Warehouse uh it was used Precision sheet metal to fabricate metal um for the slot machine industry and then it says uh it's no longer being used for that it's just storage is that so that's so Warehouse so storage is suitable for a warehouse category is that correct okay is manufacturing suitable for a warehouse category so even even if the existing use was currently still manufacturing even that use would be non-conforming in the mf211 zone so whether it's being currently used as a warehouse or whether it's being used as manufacturing is essentially Irrelevant in in terms of what we're looking at they're both non-conforming uses uh ex adding another building to do either one of those uses would still be an expansion of a non-conforming use and therefore trigger the cup okay and then have you gotten any feedback from folks in the area not not a not in Iota no thank you all right are there any other questions any interest in discussion I'll take a motion commissioner sure commissioner V for the record uh in the matter of case LDC 25-34 based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions list LED in the staff report and I can make all the findings commissioner delvar I second we have a motion and a second all in favor I any opposed hearing none project is approved good luck your project all right moving to case 6.2 here uh rocket batteries well Jeff are you up again I'm up again great and I'm not Leah picatti um okay so Jeff a associate Planner on behalf of Leah picatti uh bringing you LDC 25-29 rocket batteries so this site is about 1.03 Acres um and it is on the north side of Mill Street near intersection near the intersection with Greg Street uh adjacent to the GSR Aqua range and that's I didn't know what that was called but I looked it up and sure enough the aqua range um so uh and the request before you tonight is a conditional use permit for a warehouse and distribution center within an existing building and we'll get further into that so uh move as we move as we zoom in here um I wanted to call out the existing uses surrounding the project site which are partly masked by the zoning slide nevertheless uh you have a warehouse and distribution center to the West you have indoor Recreation and personal services to the east East a convenience store gas station an indoor Recreation studio and an and an industrial supply company to the South across Mill Street and then again the aqua range to the north uh the zoning on the north side of the street as you can see is mixed use urban and to the South across Mill Street is a combination of industrial commercial and mixed employment the nearest res residential zoning district is on the other side of the freeway approximately half a mile west of the site uh issues that uh Leah analyzed are compatibility with surrounding uses and traffic access and circulation so a little bit of background here's a picture of the site um the site has been permitted as a warehouse for at least 25 years dating back to at least the 1990s um over the last couple years 2023 to 2024 the overall site underwent a series of uh parking and facade improvements that you may have noticed uh when you've driven by that site they certainly have uh given it a facelift um also in 2024 the 12mon uh there were the there was a 12-month lapse in the use it was actually 16 months and because of that lapse in use of over 12 months it requires a conditional use permit to reestablish the use so as we move on to the main uh issue of the night for this particular project traffic access and circulation The Mill Street widening uh project will obtain additional rideway at the site Frontage which will result in a reduction of space between the loading dock and the rideway potentially resulting in traffic obstruction condition number five therefore limits the length of trucks using the loading dock to 30 ft trucks longer than 30 ft will be loaded and unloaded from the adjacent Alleyway and all turning Maneuvers will be made on site ensuring that there are no traffic obstructions into the Mill Street RightWay here are the recommended conditional use permit findings and staff can make all the recommended findings and here's the recommended motion do we have a presentation from the applicant tonight no okay thank you um now we'll go to commissioner disclosures who do you want to start with oh let's start with you commissioner VTO uh commissioner VTO familiar with the site um I think that's it commissioner Del are familiar with the site and spoke to company Representatives commissioner rer familiar with the site commissioner Villa familiar with the site commissioner Basera familiar with the site commissioner drage familiar with the site okay um let's go to public comment did we receive any public comment on this item we have no correspondence for this item okay anybody in Chambers wishing to speak okay closing public comment um going to questions from the commission oh I'm sorry please come up um just make sure you fill out a comment card yeah uh my name is Philip fman I just have one regard if this is battery storage has it been taken into consideration that they have some type of containment uh in case these batteries leak for two main reasons one it's proximity to the river and two is proximity to that big huge Pond which I don't know if it's going to be replaced that the old MGM placed that's all thank you thank you closing public comment and now questions for staff Jeff do you mind coming up why don't we start with the questions that were just posed so uh there was nothing in the staff report on the battery storage I would submit that the applicant is here and they might be able to address in terms of kind of containment and their operation Works um there was nothing in the staff report specifically on that issue however the agencies all had a chance to comment and as to my knowledge did not that's correct if if I can interject Mike reallyy for the record uh the Reno fire department and environmental services are both reviewing agencies of this application as well as the health department and nobody um had any recommended conditions of approval thank you Commissioners questions commissioner B just one question um Jeff you mentioned that the length of the vehicle or the 18wheeler was shortened down to 30 ft is that correct correct um just for visual does that take the vehicle to like the curb the the new curb after M Street's widened or is there a little bit of a setback there or how about this do you feel comfortable with how long that truck's going to be and the amount of space between the vehicle and pedestrians and anything else that needs to be walking in front of that vehicle say Le's ABS Jeff is pinch for Leah tonight who had another commitment so I I'll I'll cover um that condition was closely coordinated with RTC and the widening to to ensure that very scenario that there would be safe pedestrian circulation along Mill Street and that no trucks would be extending into the rideway OR blocking pedestrian circulation okay perfect thank you so much I think that's all the questions I have [Music] any other questions yes I do and actually um I it reminded me I did I should have disclose it I did read the environmental control memorandum um and I think this was maybe on there um sorry give me just a second I I have a question um commissioner DVR I think I'm not sure Jeff if you'll know but um my understanding is this Warehouse has been there it's been a battery it the batteries have been there for I don't I don't know how long um but this is just because it last it lapsed and that's why we're going through this process again but nothing's really changed with what it's been for so it's been a warehouse for at least 25 years and the immediate um uh Warehouse used prior to Rocket batteries occupying the site was a uh Furniture storage delivery type of business is my recollection M um but uh rocket batteries has been um uh on the site uh since last year um 2023 or last year just last year yeah about eight months okay so going back into 2024 rocket batteries has been on the site and we're bringing them into compliance through the business license and cup review process perfect thank you Jeff and um commissioner Villa so no I was wrong this one was not one of the ones that was in the um memorandum environmental control memorandum any other questions any discussion from the Commissioners take a motion can oh there it is uh commissioner delr in the matter of case LDC 25000000 000029 based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report commissioner rera I I second uh all in favor I I any opposed case passes unanimously congratulations all right moving on to the Cornelius fence height deviation Carter good evening commission Carter Williams associate planner for the record before you tonight is a major deviation um for a residential fence to increase the the height in a front yard um the property is located on the southwest corner of Rosell Court miroma Drive uh the specific request is to go from four to 6 feet in the secondary front yard this is a corner lot um effectively well the master PL plan designation is single family neighborhood um and the zoning district is single family residential uh at 3 units per acre um the front yard fences within the the front yard generally across the city are limited to 4 feet in height um the on a special case for Corner Lots allows for fences to go up to six feet but it must maintain at least a 5ft setback um with Landscaping from the backup sidewalk um so regarding this deviation request the scope is limited to the uh Frontage along Rose Hill Court um not miroma so the area in red would not be impacted this um anywhere any fence positioned in that location would have to be 4 feet or less um this is a request that would allow for a six foot fence to appear in that that orange area um from a Urban Design perspective um this is a good thing in code generally that we're that we look for um to kind of reduce that tunneling effect to to um increase um the perception of public SA along sidewalks but in the case in this case the applicant has provided evidence that their their situation is a little unique that they have um specific slope or sight conditions um that um that elevation changes up against That Sidewalk that makes it challenging to install a fence the fence itself right now needs to be replaced um as it stands and uh the specific area where Landscaping would be required is challenging to install generally as well so um From staff's perspective um we're looking at the potential for erosion being improved by moving this fence up to the sidewalk um it improves the uh the capacity for maintenance along in this area as um debris can collect against that fence and this down slope um and the the other um result of this would allow the property owner on the other side of the fence to improve their own site drainage um which is right now potential I mean impacted by the location of the existing fence um on the screen are the uh findings for a major deviation generally we're looking at whether the um it has any impact on surrounding properties um it cannot constitute a special privilege and in this case I think there's reasonable site conditions that warrant it um and it can't be mat materially detrimental to the public health safety or welfare um and staff's reviewed all of that I would also note that um neighboring property owners have uh submitted letters of approval and those been attached to the staff report on the screen is the recommended motion and I'm available for questions the applicant does not have a presentation but they're um they would like to introduce themselves soon good evening commission uh this is my wife lesie and I Paul U we're just here to uh obviously get our fence we basically we want to get to a point where we just would like to have a little bit more privacy and the fence needs needs to be replaced thank you thank you for your time we'll go to Commissioners for disclosures starting with commissioner VTO commissioner VTO no disclosures commissioner delr no disclosures roer no disclosures commissioner uh Bill and W I read emails commissioner B familiar with with the site commissioner dra notice orders okay with that we'll go to public comment I've received a comment card from Phil Flashman well good evening uh commission members I'm proud to say that I'm a native Nevada one of the few that are here anymore I'm also a long-term resident of Hidden Valley now couple things that I would like to address is I don't know why so many people that move into our area want to change everything that's already there so per Reno municipal code on fences and walls I won't give you that code number I don't think you need it let me refresh your mind the regulation purpose statement includes these statements regarding fences there to enhance the visual appearance of the built environment in the city to establish an attractive streetcape ensure visual compatibility with public spaces promote Street and neighborhood character so per this code and my discussion with the building department a 6 foot tall fence does need to be set back at least 5 ft this proposed fence blocks the panoram panoramic view and the view of Mount Rose there's no space for trees or shrubs there's no green scaping between the fence and the street just an unattractive wooden fence and a concrete wall it creates a claustrophobic Feeling by bringing the fences in So Close more importantly it creates a less inviting less desirable area reducing property values for the entire Community it creates a safety hazard minor hazards are people walking down the street you're going to brush against the fence and get slivers in your shoulder or your arm but it will also shade the sidewalk allowing snow and ice to build up which will cause a fall Hazard more importantly the major Hazard is it reduces the view of the street and the intersection now what you can't quite tell from his photos and I apologize I also had a photo demonstration but I didn't think I would have time to let you all view that this is a pretty steep court if you put a child on a bicycle a toddler and they're riding down that Hill they're going to shoot right down into the intersection if I can see them coming I have a chance to stop but if you make this narrow claustrophobic view there's a good chance that child is going to die resulting in a wrong wrongful death lawsuit against the homeowner and possibly the city for allowing this deviation so this deviation will result in lower home values reduced taxes and reduced income for the city and County it sets sets a precedence for other people to do the same this offense was apparently apparently built with no permit near the subdivision entrance and it removes an established attractive streetcape in closing it will have a negative impact on Aesthetics Safety City and County revenue as well as liability thank you thank you do we have any other public comment do I do not have any more cards and no one online has their hand raised we'll close public comment and questions yes questions questions yes do it yes questions your St sorry it's been a long night ber yes thank you um so I I just I just want to understand I'm kind of looking at the map on like the you know like yellow guy on Google Maps he walks around um so we're talking about a fence that is on uh Rose Hill Court and across the street there's just a fence right like we're talking about that fence the side of the correct yes and are they trying to build a new fence So currently there is an existing fence that needs to be replaced gotcha so they are build they are in the process of building a new fence and then that and um um Unfortunately they did not get permit a permit ahead of time so they are coming in to come into compliance with with the understood okay um in the fence it looks like there's a steep slope so they are required even with the steep slope to then have a 4ot fence does that account for the slope so they can put up a 4 foot fence up to the sidewalk that would be allowed by right today M um but there are so but yes otherwise they in order to put up a six- foot fence regardless of the slope the code right now would require a 5ft set back off which puts it on the slope at that this in this moment on the other side of the street it's just another fence right correct probably yeah that middle picture may I ask that showing a wooden fence is that on the sidewalk so there there is an existing fence um on the neighbor directly across the street um it was not permitted to our knowledge right I guess it's not permitted the city has no record permits for that one so it looks like a 6ft fence a six fence on the sidewalk yes we're we're we're not a we are complaint based compliance so I'm not asking you to go after them I'm just trying what I'm saying is that it's it's a situation where there's M there I mean across the city I I'll speak like like this there are situations where fences are installed without permits and then this is the scenario here and in other places even in this neighborhood so did this applicant get cited and that's why they came to the city that is correct yes okay understood um okay I think that's those are all the questions I have thank you sure commissioner Basera I don't know if it's a question or statement but I do remember we had a case before us um some months back last year in Old Southwest and you know um they wanted to deviate something similar and uh you know I understand and appreciate that uh it's always not fun perhaps getting your your your hand cut in the cookie jar but I think we're in the business of trying to help people find some path forward um I don't see I do appreciate the concerns shared tonight um but uh I I would love to find a path forward for for these folks um that's all I had to say oh sorry yeah I think I heard the applicants say um I think part of it is a privacy so does that eliminate the idea of a fence that maybe was allowed for the visual of the mountain and you can kind of see what they're they're referring to right here where this Where the Sidewalk level and this is a good place for scale is that you can actually see over this 6ot fence where it's on the slope um From staff's perspective we don't have any real policies related or master plan policies are otherwise related to privacy but it is a condition that is being created with with the the fence being located 5et away well no it just seemed like that was what was important to the applicant was they were doing it for privacy the six foot was for privacy so if I understand this correctly the code is four feet is that right across the board if they're going to go up to the sidewalk it has to four feet is what code provides for is that accurate correct yes okay and then the folks across the street they obviously are not compliance CU you said it was 6 foot across the street um so it's not like I can say oh well they have it so we need to allow it here you're telling me that they are not in compliance either I'll clarify too that the code AS is explicit that we cannot use existing non-conformities to justify the the approval of this so that's and so staff's analysis is really is strictly on the condition of the slope um the uh what it does to the fence over time um and increased maintenance costs um and for that matter we've analyzed all the safety factors with with the intersection on miroma okay this isn't blocking views that's a standard across the board for any fence we analyze that so okay um all right I'm just ready for discussion uh commissioner Del VR um and maybe this is a question for the applicants and maybe it's getting to what commissioner vill was trying to get to is it I mean would you consider you know like a five- foot fence or a 4ft fence or is it just this is the if you don't if you don't mind and then uh also I can't really tell from these pictures the property across the street it looks like it has the see-through fence towards the intersection and I can't tell if this has that CU that might uh answer some of the safety concerns that um the person brought up well I'll answer the second part that the the fence line stops at the front face of the house so okay you look at this this this would be where it would it would it would stop okay um which actually this is interesting because when I visited the site the vehicle is entirely forward of where the fence is being proposed to stop so it yeah so that this area is not impacted by fencing at all okay thank you sorry could you restate that question oh sure yeah no I'm just kind of curious if you know anywhere between four and six would have worked or is it just you I get the Privacy the the picture that you showed there um that is about 4T so but basically if we if we put the fence back exactly where it's at at the 5 ft um you can actually see over the top of the fence and that's what the my wife is in the picture right there showing the the kind of yeah the one that's sentle there you can actually just see right right into the fence that's why we wanted to move it up to the fo there I understand okay and then uh this gentleman said about the safety thing that is about like said about a 6ft drop from where she's standing down to the bottom of the hole so if a kid is rolling down the thing and hits that it's going to hit the fence he's going to get a lot more hurt than rolling down into they would never do that on a roller SK skateboard down um basically just wanted the the security the safety of or not the safety but the the privacy of the fence being at the 6 feet there okay thank you and if I may say the people on the all us act above us we have the majority of signatures the two we don't have one we we actually weren't able to contact either of them but one we've heard would have signed so okay we do have perfect our neighbors thank you I had a question and and perhaps it's best for the applicant are you planning to add some Greenery behind the fence tall trees or anything to soften the cuz typically we'd have Landscaping in front of the fence yeah we are we going to be uh process of going through some uh procedures with some landscap a landscaper in town right now that's going to work in putting some trees and some Greenery there is some green re right now with some grass and stuff like that but the whole side of uphill which you saw the pictures of that there's nothing there currently but we are going to be doing something very soon on that and if you look at the present pictures there was never any Landscaping it was just dirt and chicken wire and rocks we moved in the end of September okay and about how long I mean you have a long property line there um it the total length of the fence is I think 105 ft I think I'm not sure exactly to be honest with you okay that I I think does anybody have questions still discussion discuss okay discussion thank you thank you uh to quote Robert Frost good fences make good neighbors this in my mind is a good fence um I don't see any of the concerns um being particularly persuasive that are raised by people speaking in public comments the only findings I think we're will to make is this major deviation find finding I don't see this significantly impacting nearby properties I think it enhances the overall design especially considering there's a currently a like downward slope into a fence that looks like a u which is not very aesthetically pleasing and I think would have more of a negative effect on property values I don't see this as a special privilege I get we can't evaluate the neighbor already has a six fit fence but it's tough to not I I'm not taking that into account in my analysis but I don't think this is a special a privilege and I don't see this as being detrimental to the public so I can make all the findings any other was that a motion I no no we're in discussion oh uh commissioner Basera might come to you're surprised but I wholeheartedly agree with you commissioner VTO um I disagree for that matter I I think 100 foot fence right along a sidewalk with no Greenery is a real detriment because we would have Street trees that would be required by the City of Reno every 20 or 30 ft I think is the spacing requirement um and and that Canyon effect is a real thing uh it's but you've got permission from your neighbors and you know the existing situation is not ideal any other discussion uh commissioner M you bring up a good point chair um are there conditions in there to to address some of those concerns that uh chair Ro brought up like for trees or shrubs or anything that we can chuck in there that's not an undue burden to any part of your neighbors so the the the Landscaping requirements for subdivisions um they're complicated a little on on um how we've implemented them on Corner Lots specifically um because it requires Landscaping in in the front yard and we look at unfortunately the width of that uh the primary front um which only requires two trees so when we look at it across the entire subdivision that's when we like with through a tended map process that's when we can address those things um but if you compare this lot to the lot Next Door by applying conditions for additional trees in this case case um may be inappropriate because it's it's not applicable to any other corner lot within the subdivision existing so I I I wouldn't recommend that as a condition but um okay thank you Carter just trying to hear the uh not just perspective but I know the ex expertise of uh chair Meer and see where we can find a solution or compromise um so commissioner villan W um so well I agree with Carrie or excuse me commissioner rer um I think that this is it's not necessarily the homeowners um this wasn't created by the homeowner the problem that exists with regard to this fence I think it comes down to this is why we don't typically like Hillside development because issues like this arise um and this is not typically another development that I would have been a fan of if it came in front of me um but it was approved at some point and now the homeowner is trying to deal with a situation of privacy um while also trying to kind of mitigate concerns of the neighbors but generally speaking yes I do agree with you commissioner rer um and that's something to consider when we approve developments in the future especially Hillside developments um when there's cuts and fills but with respect to this particular application um I think it it would be appropriate to allow the applicant to have some privacy and um allow the fence to be uh uh put up commissioner delv um yeah I don't really I I I hear kind of everything everybody's saying um and again while we can't put in conditions um for for trees and things it would be nice if when they have it uh when they look at having it landscaped if maybe some of the trees can hang over the fence a little bit that's all I'm ready to make a motion okay uh in the matter of case number LDC 2532 based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to approve the major deviation subject to the conditions and I can make all the findings commissioner dra I second and you can make all the findings all right Motion in second all in favor I I None post commissioner Dracula you you uh eliminated the opportunity for me to give uh commissioner velto a second and that rarely happens I'll get you next time good luck with your fence project all right um closing the public hearings for development items we're going to go to recommendation to city council for appointment to the Chucky Meadows Regional Planning Commission thank you madam chair uh for the record Mike Ry planning manager as you know uh commissioner Harris resigned um he moved to Chicago and he was one of our serving Regional planning commissioner so we need to make an appointment to replace him on the regional Planning Commission so this board will vote to make a recommendation to the city council and then the city council will confirm the recommendation commissioner dulich I would nominate commissioner vill NOA she's interest I haven't talked to anybody about this so um reading this for a time I don't know if you wanted to do it or not sorry I actually was not paying attention what are we talking about right now okay let's vote just a nomination throw it out there for discussion okay uh for for what for the this would would be an appointment for for you to serve on the regional Planning Commission oh uh do we have any other interested folks here I think I think commissioner um doar would be a great addition I'll also say that commissioner Basera has been our alternate for the past year oh has been serving I was going to say cuz Manny would be really good too I I'm I'm I'm clearly this is new all new for me and I'm doing the best that I can and I would not have a problem serving if that works for folks FKS if there's somebody better who wants to step up I'm okay with that as well I don't think better is the choice all the choices are good here fair enough okay does anybody have a particular draw here I I think wants go ahead I was saying who would like to be I thought you said you want it no who who would like to be velta will be coming off in I'm already on it so okay I I would I would be happy to serve who would okay well we would need a second I can oh I already made that not okay we need a second I'll second that commissioner is that what I'm hearing on my first okay I'll okay we have a motion in a second all in favor hi congratulations thank you there's one less night of your month available all right ah speaking of now we can move on to uh trucky Meadows Regional planning lead gon report I I do not have any information okay I'll give the update uh Yours Truly got appointed to the chair um and because commissioner Armstrong was the chair and this year is being served by the City of Reno um we have that going on we had a presentation about data centers from uh director Jeremy Smith and we heard a nice update about the regional Trails plan um which I believe is going to and come to the City of Reno for a presentation as well I think yep that seems like that wraps that up so moving to staff announcements I've got kind of a quick laundry list of of updates I'll start with Council updates at their last meeting on the 22nd of January um the council upheld your recommendation for approval for the Carville master plan Amendment and Zoning M zoning map Amendment for the Reno Housing Authority um as you are all aware there were three appeals on the council agenda that night um the council upheld the planning commission's approval of the web Data Center and denied this appeal from the Sarah club uh they overturned the PC denial of the sth street tenative map and approved the applicants appeal and then for the plumish Redevelopment I think a lot of you know is the Lakeridge project that item was continued to allow the applicant more time to address Council and um neighbor concern so that will be coming back at a future date um that has it's going to it's undetermined when but we anticipate that will likely come back in March to the council um let's see the Western Road zoning map amendment that you approved at your last meeting will go will be on the council agenda for next week for their consideration um along with as we discussed earlier the data center possible text amendments will be presented on the 26 agenda that Council um at the next meeting they will also be appointing a new Planning Commission member to fill commissioner Armstrong's seat so that at our next meeting we will have a new commissioner so um as far as outside presentations and happenings uh Regional planning will be at our next meeting to uh provide um update on the regional plan updates on various Regional discussions including schools and data centers will be part of their presentation um Mr Howard with the TR meals Trails Association was here tonight he had to leave but he is planning to come we're going to get him on a future agenda as well to give an update on the Regional Trail plan um and the regional presentation I think is going to focus on not just City of Reno but all jurisdictions and what's being done collectively to address those issues um I sent an email to the commissioner earlier um this afternoon at the request of commissioner ryer we had reached out to NV Energy to ask them if they were willing to come and make a presentation on data centers and how they plan for their priorities and and in service um unfortunately MV energy has declined to to come back to the board and make a presentation so at this point um that's kind of where we stand with that and that's that's all I have well I'll be following up with them um's the next meeting for us sorry interrupt our next meeting is two weeks from today thank you the yeah the 19th I believe it is yep very good do we have any suggestions for future agenda items sounds like we do not closing um that item let's go to public comment I don't see anyone in Chambers do we have anyone online uh we do not have anyone on Zoom with their hand raised all right closing public comment moving to adjournment so moved thank you everyone