Flagstaff P&Z Settles on Planned Community Rezoning for Data Centers and Resource-Intensive Industrial Uses

Thank you. I will call to order the um Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, October 14th, 2026. And um notice of the option to recess into executive session pursuant to ARS 38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the Commission and to the general public that at this meeting the Commission may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open for public for the public.

And that would be for legal advice and discussion with the Commission's attorney on any item listed on this agenda pursuant to ARS 38-431.03A3. And we'll go into roll call. Carolyn Uh here. Joshua Mayor Here. Christine Shehi CJ Lukee Present. Mary Norton Present. Rebecca Copa Present. Thank you. Now it's an open call to the public and at this time any member of the public may address the Commission on any subject within our jurisdiction that is not scheduled um today before the Commission.

Due to open meeting laws, the Commission cannot discuss or act on items presented during this portion of the agenda. To address the Commission on an item that is on the agenda, please wait for the chair, me, to call for public comment at the time the item is heard. Is there anyone who would like to make a comment at this point? Hearing and seeing none, I will go on to approval of the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting from September 23rd, 2026.

Is there a motion to accept the minutes as written? So moved. Is there a second? Second. So it was um moved by Commissioner Norton and seconded by Commissioner Lukey. Um All those in favor of approving the minutes, say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. We'll move into general business and I already see Tiffany has made her way to the podium. Um for discussion regarding the resource intensive industrial land use, previously called data centers, zoning requirements and zoning code regulations.

Thank you so much. Um I feel like the Energizer Bunny. We're just going to we're going to keep shifting this one around, see where we get to. So um Last night, just so you know, we did do this work session with council. It was just a timing thing that council's work sessions are Tuesday, where P&Z is Wednesday, but I do want to do a bit more work with you all on the what would be included in this particular text amendment and if we're hitting the mark.

Um but I still want to get your answers on these questions as well and talk about where where we're headed and the why we headed here. So you definitely remember that earlier this year we looked at a specific text amendment for data centers um and that we basically ended up uh with a recommendation for a full ban. Um council had a much larger presentation put on by other city staff in regards to data centers.

Um, staff asked for some additional time to come back um, and prepare something different. So, that was I think the early part of May when we asked for that additional time and since then, um, we've done a lot of work. So, what have we done? We met with the city of Phoenix. Um, Phoenix has been inundated with data centers and other heavy industrial users.

Uh, we met with their attorneys and have learned from the pitfalls from their development of So, they have something similar where data centers fell under a telecom hotel land use, which was generally allowed wherever an office use was allowed, which made um, data centers pretty much allowed throughout their community without very specific standards. They went through a text amendment process and in some ways we're sort of mimicking their process.

So, we're we're taking their lead in creating a paper about the life, health, safety issues. This is really important because with prop 207, um, one of the things that prop 207, um, can withstand are claims that as long as the code is intended to address truly life, health, safety issues. Um, so that's one of the protection realms where we have some flaws in our current code. That's why you're seeing that paper in there specifically about life, health, safety standards.

Of the bulleted list of potential code items, we've also tried to provide you that life, health, safety rationale as well. So um you're aware of that um, sort of history and the time frame. We also were able to meet with APS, work with water services. I will also let you know that the water services group is um working on a high volume water user ordinance, which will apply to many land uses within the city. It is meant to work in conjunction with this.

They They both are using different sort of tipping points, and I'll talk about that. But um they are different, but they will work in conjunction with one another. One won't overrule the other. Okay? Um so staff is recommending that we take a broader approach. Right now, our industrial zones have land uses that are much They're very broad, and they encompass a lot of different industrial uses.

And that is because it's so difficult I mean it is just difficult to anticipate how one industrial use um might be one thing, and but they generally fit under a category of like heavy general industrial, that kind of thing. So we tend to broadly group a series of uses because it's too hard to specifically identify each and every land use um that we want to be able to accommodate.

In this case, we're keeping with that sort of theme, uh and we're coming up with the resource-intensive industrial use. So here is the definition. So one of the concerns before about the data definition data center definition that we had was that it it was just too broad. Um that it didn't build in a lot of separation between local server rooms in um in buildings or offices as opposed to, you know, a hyperscale. So there really wasn't that differential built in.

And we all know that all land uses have impacts, but the larger a land use gets, the the more impact it has generally. And so understanding the comments and concerns are really on what [clears throat] the highest level of resource-intensive industrial uses could be, we've tried to come up with some triggers. So we did meet with APS. APS is trigger it for high loads is at that 1 MW. At 1 MW you do enter basically a waiting list for service.

They are not immediately able to serve projects even at that 1 MW level. 1 MW is fairly low. So I don't know if you watched any of the work session that was that went to council on data centers as a as a whole, but you know, of the hyperscale data centers you're looking at more like 50 MW and beyond. Some projects out there you'll hear just huge, anomalous. I mean, we've all heard about some of those projects that go way above 50, but you know, we're again setting the bar at 1 MW.

For water use, it these these numbers, this 2,000 gallons per acre per day, this is what's in our engineering standards today. So if you come in and you are proposing an industrial land use and you have a water sewer impact analysis done, these are the numbers you're going to use. So if you're going So that's what we would That's what we are saying we generally expect an industrial development is going to use. So recently I think you had a rezoning maybe it included a batch plant.

It had a water sewer impact analysis. It used these numbers. So if you're going above and beyond these numbers, then that's going to also be the trigger point. The only time I've ever worked on a project that's gone beyond some of the numbers in the engineering standards was um the hospital, um which was sort of a different and unique use. No matter what, we are reliant on the applicant to come forward and identify what their water usage is. Um same thing for the wastewater discharge.

This is what again we would evaluate and this is what we would consider to be the norm for industrial uses. There was an evaluation done looking at existing industrial uses in town. Um so would consider what we already have in town sort of within the norm. Um so if you can think of what those industrial uses are, um there were maybe one or two that might exceed this current allowance.

But anything that's anything that's currently out there, they would um they would continue to exist as the industrial use that they are, but anything new coming in hitting over these thresholds um would fall under this particular land use. Additionally, the definition includes um land uses that typically rely on specialized infrastructure. They operate continuously 24 hours a day. They create significant sustained pressures on the electrical, water, wastewater, and communication networks.

And activities in this category are defined by one or more of the following: intensive resource consumption, elevated carbon or heat emissions, specialized water or sewer needs, heightened emergency response or security requirements. So this is something I didn't have in the original text amendment and the fire department was very helpful in helping prepare um the information in that health life safety document.

And we've added in some parameters for how we might manage a heightened need for emergency response based on all of the communication or based on everything that's also already occurring in our community and conversations around emergency services. Again, hazardous material storage and or nuisance noise impacts.

So, that a lot of this is just based on that sheer feedback of the primary concerns we heard when we held um previous work sessions and public hearing on this item as well as um additional infor- when additional information was presented to council. Mhm. Yes, Commissioner Thornton. Just wanted to clarify before we move on. When you're talking water here with regard to this as well as the ordinance that water services is working on, is the assumption that that is potable water?

That doesn't take into account reclaimed water usage to the or- or anything. Um so, both or so, the hi- the um the ordinance that water services is working on will absolutely include reclaimed. This is usually mostly focused on potable water, but um we could include reclaimed numbers. I just don't easily have that number for me. It's if you're using more than this number regardless of whether it's potable or reclaimed, you're going to trigger the this line of use. Thank you.

And the same I believe works for the high-volume water user ordinance as well. So, I still have I had I'm sorry. I did write this presentation just for planning and zoning commission, but I saw that my presentation was still up from last night, so I just pulled this one up. So, apologies that it says council.

But, does the planning and zoning commission generally agree with taking this broader approach rather than singularly focusing on data center cuz again, there are a slew of industrial uses out there that are coming online. Um our economic vitality team shared, you know, when companies reach out and are looking for sites or spaces, there are all kinds of industrial uses beyond um data centers that have this high level of resource demand. Um yes. Commissioner Lukey. What did the council say?

I'm just wondering if they've already weighed in on a lot of these things. Is it worth our time to go through and go against that? Um well, I would love your feedback. Uh generally what we got was yes, taking the broader approach. But if you have concerns with that and you would rather see something that's more specific, we can have that conversation with council. Excuse me. Commissioner Norton.

Um yeah, I actually did watch it last night as a sneak peek uh for today and um I think and it's so I'm going to try to piggyback on to some of their comments um because I think that's what you're looking for is a holistic direction. Although I will say, you know, when it came to this commission, obviously we were leaning heavily we wished there we could ban them. And you know, I think that's that's still my wish.

However, um you know, especially because I mean, states cities, towns throughout the country are trying to put the brakes on any data centers coming to their community and I and I still don't think they're compatible within our city limits and in with our regional plat plan. And so I there's a discomfort that I'm having that we're making any kind of pathway for them. However, I I understand that within our political and legislative system within our state, this is kind of the workaround.

And I may be the in the long way around the road, you know, we get to where we have the utmost control that we could possibly have on whether we approve them or not. So, um that's where I struggle and I'm trying to like, okay, this you know, the the greater good is at the end here. And um so, I gosh, I wish we didn't have to go this broad approach, but I do appreciate that there are many other uses that could come down the line.

Industrial usage that somebody's going to ask for that we need to have room for in our code. So, I can appreciate that broader um foresight to tackle that as they come along. Um so, with hesitancy, I'm I'm I do agree that this is probably the road we have to go.

I I would have been interested in knowing like, you know, from a legal standpoint or whatever you you did get, you know, in maybe individual discussions with council members or even legal, was the moratorium and the ban just really off the table completely? Could you give a little bit of a background on that? No, I I I never got that direction. I never got that far with council in discussing or or even contemplating the ban. Um I, you know, I worked with legal.

It was not It's not pro It was not determined that it was prohibited to enact a ban. The concern has always been that if the state preempts, which there were a number of bills about data centers this last time around. There are still economic development benefits out there that the state is still pushing towards this level of development.

The concern is that if they do preempt us and we cannot ban them, that then we are back to the same place that we were, still needing to come up with parameters and requirements. And that we will find ourselves in a much better situation if we already have code developed. Um often times what I've seen happen when the state does come in and sort of mandate certain code changes is that if you already have things in place that you can sometimes keep those. Um and I've seen that happen recently.

I saw it happen with development impact fees and how they're measured out. And so if you've already done something, um provisions are often made in legislation to allow what is already worked in some communities to continue.

So I think that's part of the concern is is that if there is a state-level preemption that mandates that we do this, that we will find ourselves we could find ourselves in a little bit of a pickle and regrouping trying to come back with something to regulate these after the fact.

So my my short answer would be my views would have aligned with Councilmember Aslan last night, you know, that I this is an uncomfortable pathway that to know that we're even potentially allowing consideration of a data center. Um but I also can appreciate the other Council members who were like, "Okay, this broader, safer, and more conservative type of an approach to get ahead of some situations is is needed." So that's where I'm at.

Can you tell me again, because last time we looked at a map and we saw where when we discussed it last time data centers could go. Are those still the only places with this new Well, let me get to the next part cuz that's going to start to answer your questions. So, I want to do these high-level, but then I also want to spend the time going through the code pieces with you, um which I did not do with council last night.

So, that's a bigger part of what this work session is is going through the bulleted code provisions with you. I What is not included or what is not drafted at this point is sort of the where this land use goes or how it is allowed. So, let me walk you through, but overall I'm getting a we don't love it, but we could potentially live with this if this was the direction we went. Are there any other commissioners that would like to speak? Yes. Yeah, this is Commissioner Commissioner uh Copa.

I I just wanted to comment that um I'm actually supportive of this. The resource-intensive industrial land use applies obviously more than data centers as we saw in the valley with the semiconductor plants and other things that would tremendously impact our resources. So, um I for one am supportive of taking a broader look to protect Flagstaff for all of the resource-intensive land uses. Commissioner is Commissioner Oh, sorry. Did you have something that more to add to that? No, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Copa. Commissioner Lukey? I think I'm also in agreement for what you've said. Um I've kind of come to the point that I think it's better to do it gradually. So, I guess we can start here, see how this works out, and then we can always go to banning them all together at some point. And if the community has a vote and decides that's what they want, which will probably you don't know what would happen down the road, but I think this is a good step.

Commissioner Mar Mayor, do you have any comment at this point? Uh just that I uh agree with what's already been said. I think this is a more pragmatic approach. Um and it still gives us some latitude as to what ultimately um is approved. So, I'm I'm with the uh general consensus of the uh commission. So, Tiffany, I think that gives you an answer thus far, but we still like to hear your presentation. All right.

So, the next one is as So, we have a land use that we're going to add to the zoning code. The question becomes where do we want to allow this land use, and how do we want to allow this land use? So, you already know the secret, Mary, cuz you watch I'm just kidding.

So, I'm going to go through the three options provided to council, and that is should we allow by right um in any or all of the existing industrial zones, of which we have Well, there's five really research and development, light industrial, light industrial open, heavy industrial, and heavy industrial open. So, those are the industrial zones.

Previously, we were looking at this only in the heavy and heavy industrial open, but the pros of course, when anything is permitted outright, is that it's predictable and straightforward for applicants. It minimizes delays. It It economic development by reducing entitlement barriers and it just aligns with traditional expectations. Uh the cons are it is a reduced ability to ensure site-specific mitigation of high impact uses.

The public may perceive this as too permissive given high resource demands. Limits council's ability to review and condition projects on a case-by-case basis. Same with planning and zoning commission. And then high impact facilities may locate near sensitive areas without additional scrutiny. So the next option is similar to what we had proposed for data center, which would be a conditional use permit. I just included all of the industrial zones.

Um but allows for case-by-case review and tailored mitigation measures, greater control over siting, design, and operational impacts. Provides transparency through public hearings. Balances flexibility for industry with community protections. Um CUPs are only reviewed by the planning and zoning commission unless appealed.

And I know that that was one of the concerns before is that these being very high volume community impact that you felt uncomfortable with the decision lying with the planning and zoning commission. Conditional use permits are not as discretionary as a rezoning. And then the findings for a CUP are less stringent and do not include conformance to the regional plan or include the the community benefits um finding.

So the last option is to only allow this land use as part of the planned community zone, which means it's currently not permitted anywhere. Um it wouldn't be allowed it wouldn't be listed in any land use table. It would be found in our specific T U sections. Um and it would state that you could only achieve this land use by going through the the process. So it would have to be part of a um planned community master plan.

And if there was already something that was already zoned planned community, and they did not include a resource intensive industrial use, the only way they could go back and add that is if they rezoned the property again and came in and amended. Because every land use within a PC zone has to be documented as part of their master plan. In the rezoning process. So, the rezoning does provide the maximum amount of control over location, design, and performance standards.

It's the strongest tool for balancing community impacts and economic opportunity. It provides transparency through public hearings, and the findings require conformance with the regional plan and an analysis of community benefit.

So, that's one of the arguments of some of these uses is that, you know, they they are very high demand, but they bring very little back to the community in terms of benefits, or the benefits may be short-lived in terms of upfront like general construction tax or ongoing property tax, but they're not necessarily large employment facilities. Some are, some aren't. And so, all of those things could be considered as part of a rezoning process.

Additionally, I want to highlight just because you're rezoning to the PC zone, if the intention is to add in uses and that are industrial in nature, you still have to have a regional land use category that supports that industrial use.

So, we do have that crosswalk table, and it looks as if the PC zone is really available in every single land use category, but it's only if the land uses um proposed are meeting the the guidelines or the guide guideline framework of each of those land use categories. So, for example, if you came in with this rezoning, um the suburban category is not going to support the basis for rezoning for resource intensive industrial. So, that's another guardrail in terms of the rezoning.

So, when you look at the regional plan land use maps, there is another level of layer of of control in there and um it it doesn't mean that somebody can't always apply for um a regional plan map amendment. They can, of course, do that, but they might need to. So, again, this would be limiting to where regional plan would designate for those industrial uses. The cons are that rezoning process is lengthy and resource intensive for both applicants and staff.

Um it could discourage investment due to entitlement uncertainty and may increase pressure on council to negotiate complex development agreements, which they're pretty good at. Um so, I will tell you council council was more supportive of this option once they understood that that gave them the highest level of control.

Um so, rezonings are there is much more flexibility in recommending for you all for recommending approval or denial and for council in approving or denying a rezoning case and it guarantees that something of this level already goes to that council. It would require more public hearings. Any comments or questions from commissioners? Commissioner Copa, do you have a comment? Okay. Um Commissioner Norton? Um yes.

Um I do I do agree with where council ended up on this because I wouldn't want this to be by right. I wouldn't want this to be a conditional use permit because of what we discussed previously. I think putting it in the the PC zone where we don't have any PC zones right now is probably our safest bet and requiring a rezone um, is yes, gives us the gives everyone the most control.

Um, my question and this kind of gets into some of the specifics of what the PZ zone meant and then also how you're changing your proposing the change of how rezones are done and what they require which I don't think is completely got to council yet. So, I don't know that they could have even had that discussion or concern. Um, but as you explained when we talked about PZ zones and that's sort of a a large swath of of a rezone.

So, somebody came in and did that and and wanted a a parcel in there to be the resource intensive industrial area but didn't say they were going to build a data center. You know, they just knew that it was going to they were going to reserve that for some kind of industry. Um, where would be the protection in that Let me Let me show you. We'll get to these bullet points in the code. So, the way if we go this route, which I think you're all probably going to lean toward, I'm guessing.

We're talking the third one. Yep. Um, then there will be requirements for a series of things to be provided in the planned community master plan specific to this land use. Okay, so if they just said they're going to leave a parcel as resource intensive and that's their intention. Um these other menu items, so to speak, for lack of a better word, is going to be our protection with regard to a data center. Um so there was that and then we didn't really talk about like when you rezone a PC zone.

Um is that going to apply to the same changes that you're proposing to your rezone where there wouldn't be a concept map there attached to the entitlement, there wouldn't be um a site plan when a PC zone is rezoned and the land uses are named, what does the map look like? Or I mean what how does that differ from just a a single parcel rezoning? Is there more? No. So it's it's very much the same of what we're proposing for the regular rezoning.

Um when I did go to council on the PC zone, I did um have an example. So if you want, I can provide I can show you what that looks like. But um the there are some very specific development parameters that have to be met for the RII land use for the resource intensive land use that they would have to provide with enough enough information in that master plan to show those features. Even if it wasn't the exact footprint of whatever the building was.

And whether or not it ends up being a data center or a chip manufacturing plant, they still have to provide this high-level they'll need to provide enough high-level information that it would be really end up having to be much more specific to exactly what it is that they're going to build um for this particular land use. And we'll we'll go through those points really quickly. Um but is everybody generally okay with going the rezoning route?

Uh I'm okay with it as long as it would be for the planned community zone. I don't know about others. A shake of your head. Yeah, I'm supportive. Josh? Yes, also supportive. Okay, and CJ and Mary, shake of your head. Uh CJ? So, I guess because the planned community zone, I keep thinking of like the ones that are potentially out there. And right, don't we have some that are kind of potentially coming through the pipeline eventually? No.

So, we don't have anything that's currently submitted for the planned community zone. I don't think that text amendment even goes into effect for a couple more Maybe Maybe we're already there. I don't know. Time is fleeting. But it doesn't matter because if they did not include that land use, and if that wasn't going through the process, so even if that zone exists somewhere, it doesn't automatically allow this land use.

It has to be specific to their rezoning request, and they would have to provide all of the required information to have this land use. Okay, thank you. Okay. Yeah, then I'm for it. Okay. So, the last question is about the development standards, which I'm going to pull up and we're going to go through. But it's whether you want the them the language to be more absolute, or whether you would want to see more flexibility built in. And I just [clears throat] wrote an example here, right?

So, um council last night, this is where it sort of got a little wishy-washy, but essentially I came back with absolute was where they'd want to start because um you you we can always walk backwards. It's better to start with the absolute. Um you know, one council member had mentioned um maybe building in flexibility on the things that were less um community sensitive in terms of particular but didn't give any specific examples.

So, you know, I'll take a look at that code but the leaning was to lean toward more towards absolutes, the shalls, the musts. And for me that would be my preference as well and I don't know about other commission members. Yeah, shake of your head. I agree it's always easier to loosen or make an exception or whatever than try to tighten it up later. Yeah. Out of curiosity, um the absolutes really um Sorry. I feel as if the absolutes can actually put us in um more challenging situations.

The reason I say that is uh this absolute for instance, using air-cooled heat rejection systems, this is effectively being done in very high intensive industrial or high resource-intensive um developments right now. They've actually progressed to using only air-cooled. So, this would be very easy for um for a an industrial use to come in and meet that immediately. Um and so I I I just wonder if there's some flexibility in in the way that we write this so that allows us to I I I don't know.

I I'd have to leave it to you um in the planning and zoning but or in the I'm sorry, in the in the the code writing but is there a way we can write it so that we have some flexibility in the way that they that we they're going to be able to meet it. Let me put it that way. They're going to be able to meet it with advancements in energy efficiency designs right now, they're going to be able to meet these requirements. So, how do we write it so that we can still say no?

So, I think what this is saying I mean that absolute example is is that it has to be air-cooled. The flexible example opens up the potential of water-based heat rejection um if you can show that your with a with a caveat if you can show that your that's with the one that builds the flexibility. But, I agree with you. It is the technology is there to allow air-cooled.

So, was just trying to ascertain and use this as an example to see how hard of a a line we wanted to draw and on some of these and make sure that we're comfortable with that. So, let me ask this question. So, today we're just having discussion. Mhm. And then you'll come back later for us to make a recommendation to city council. Is that correct? Yes. So, at this point we have one example, but there could be more examples down the road here about to run through that bulleted list Okay.

of of what's in the code so you can see but I just use one example. Right. So, that we would have more information before we would make a recommendation. Yep. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Norton. Um and I know you kind of used this example with council last night. It's like it's either water or electricity. Right.

So, when you're saying that it has to be air-cooled and yes, they're getting more efficient and even on the water side, I mean they're starting to use things that maybe aren't even water. Um and I think we'd always want to be flexible enough to invite whatever the most energy efficient technology that comes down the line is.

Um but on the air-cooled like if we stick stuck with the absolute Um does that trigger you you know that 1 megawatt I mean does that start to trigger and their energy usage that would red flag that I mean It could potentially increase the energy usage. I mean what when you go to air cooled it certainly requires more energy but Let me skip ahead.

So hold on to this one and let's just start going through the points cuz I think you really have to see everything in combination and how everything works together in order to make the that's not the right one. This is the right one. Okay. So I got a lot of stuff in here. Can you please make that a little bit I will do. Thank you. I apologize. I've got a lot of stuff like busy work going on in here. So in terms of those justifications but a lot of Yeah.

A lot of these so this is this is the standard is right here. And I'll just bold it. So the development sites shall be designed in conformance with our site planning design standards.

So industrial uses don't typically need to meet our site planning design standards but this is you know how you locate the building on the site where parking areas are it has to do with screening and storage and retaining walls and all kinds of those things things that would be important because the the likelihood is is that we're dealing with something that's big overall in square footage and so we'd want to make sure that all of those parameters are met.

That the buildings be designed to reduce the perceived mass. So this again is bringing in our architectural design standards which do not typically apply to industrial uses but they would here based on the idea that these would be very intensive uses. Mechanical electrical and cooling equipment has to be fully enclosed or screened from views from rights-of-way and adjacent properties. It's pretty standard for almost most land uses.

Outdoor storage of equipment or materials is permitted except during construction. A minimum 150-ft setback from a property line abutting a residential use or residential zoning district. This is what makes our zoning code so complicated because we allow residential uses in our commercial zone and vice versa.

So, I wanted to make clear that it wasn't just the residential zoning districts, but if you had a vacant residential zoning district, um you would still meet that setback, but if there's an existing residential use there, you would also meet the setback. Perimeter fencing, if provided, shall be um decorative and integrated with site landscaping. So, this is one of those ones that's more um flexible, right? So, it doesn't say perimeter fencing is required, but it absolutely could be.

Uh this was the noise generated on all site operations. This did change from last time around. It's lower than it was before. So, it went from 60 to 55. So, I just got a new dishwasher, Mhm. and it's like at 46 decibels, so it's pretty quiet. Yep. So, okay. So, I'm 50. I don't know how It's 55 during the daytime and 45 at night. Yeah, and I don't know how decibels work in sound, but Mhm. it's pretty low. Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, it's got to be pretty low by the time you get to that property line. Yeah, cuz 45 in my dishwashers at You said 45 during the nighttime? Mhm. And my dishwasher is pretty quiet. Yeah, 55 during the day, 45 at night. Yeah, mine is mine's about the same. It's pretty quiet. Yeah, and how far how far away are we? You have to be 150 ft away from a lot property line abutting uh an adjacent residential use or residential zone.

to me that would say that somebody who's 150 ft away really cannot hear it. Pretty Well, I mean 55 is that is the sound level at the property line. Right. Oh, okay. So, we have the setback requirement, but at the property line the most somebody could hear during the day is 50 dBA and at night would be 45. So, similar to your dishwasher at night. Okay. Thank you. in addition to the dBA we have the dBC, which is the infrasound. So, nobody in Arizona has the infrasound yet.

Yeah, that was your question, right? Yeah, that was going to be my question cuz we did talk about that. And yeah, I thought it was measured differently. I mean it is. Is this low enough on the infrasound? So, when I lowered the dBA I also lowered the infrasound as well. The dBA matches what is in Phoenix's code. So, I had the dBA higher initially, so I lowered it to be similar to the city of Phoenix.

I think my only question would be about the infrasound and I thought there was some other hertz reading and I'd have to go back in my notes from Okay. Yeah. Uh this is about what I could find in terms of that infrasound is that dBC. It's hard to actually relay what it's comparable to because it's something that rather than hearing it's more felt. Yeah. That would be my only and I'll I'll look and I'll email you or Yeah, yeah, yeah. poke around a little bit more about the infrasound.

I did see on your other document it you required a sound study prior to, which I thought that was great you covered that. But, okay. Thank you, Kev. Um on-site power production, including the use of generators, shall be in compliance with all um applicable state and federal regulations. So, a lot of the legislation that's been coming around has been around like micro nuclear reactors and allowing them as power sources for these types of facilities.

Um this is but a lot of times too when when um these types of facilities aren't able to connect to the grid immediately, they'll use interim have been using diesel generators. That is would be prohibited here. So, the use of those as a primary power source would be prohibited. They would only be allowed for emergency operations, testing, and maintenance.

I will tell you that sustainability asked me to add in a number of hours per year that they could also be used for testing and maintenance, and I think we landed at 50 hours per year would be the total. Um any of that testing and maintenance is limited to daytime hours as well. Uh 100% renewable energy for all energy needs shall be used to the greatest extent feasible. So, that's the best I'm going to get that language just because of also state preemptions.

So, I think it does make it really abundantly clear when somebody does come in for a rezoning know that if if you're if you're not looking seriously at these parameters, that that's going to be a hurdle um towards achieving that rezoning. Um and of course, there are other ways to getting it rather than just producing it on site. They can purchase the renewable energy credit certificates as well. Um all new This is something I have added since last time.

All new or relocated electric lines 12 kV or small and smaller, communication cable television and all premises wiring shall be placed underground. Mechanical cooling systems, this is the one you saw. Um and this is the one where I feel like technology is going to evolve and change. And this is the one I have a hard time locking us into because agreed, they are looking at other materials other than water to cool these. So, I I think this is kind of a stay tuned.

If we take this hard line right now, we can always adjust. Um is it worthy Tiffany of considering parameters strict parameters around water utilization versus taking a hard line on using air-cooled heat rejection? I I do love that and once we have the high volume water user ordinance, we may take that approach. But but they're in the process of working on it. We just needed to move a little bit faster. And so we can realign with that high volume water user. Mr. Norton.

And I don't know if we're going to get to that. I can't remember if I read that, but if it was water cooled or other substance cooled, is there provisions that protect our water uh from discharge of let's say they're using a coolant. So, do we have that protection built in? If we end up going that way, it's not a water issue, it's a coolant, but how they discharge it or recycle, you know, cycle. Yes, because we are very concerned of how you discharge into our sewer system.

We actually have a very detailed and comprehensive program for that already. Um so, I did talk with our folks who manage that program and they believe their existing code parameters will work in that situation. And any of these And they those regularly. And then any of these could be um edited uh changed for the future by coming back and Mhm. amending the code. Yes. Code code can always be fixed. happens later, we could amend the code later. Yep.

But understanding where community concern is at this point, I think keeping some hard lines based on what we know right now is probably That's why I said that maybe there's new technology in the future that we want to add that It's why But right now, we don't want to leave it open. It's why I love to leave code open a little bit to allow for new technology, but this is probably one of those places we don't want to do that at this point.

Um Hazardous materials including fuel storage to be limited those necessary for operation and shall be stored and handled in accordance with applicable regulations. Proposed development shall not emit smoke, dust, odors, vibration. This is a pretty common um standard. And then this is that um decommissioning. So, um Commissioner Sheehy had requested this last time around, so it does remain in place, a decommissioning provision.

So, let's talk about the additional required analysis because this is changed from last time, so it's that baseline noise study. It's an assessment of current and future energy needs for the site. Um and then identification of the proposed energy sources. So, I think what we're most concerned about here is if you cannot connect to the grid cuz connecting to the grid at over 1 MW, there's a considerable wait time.

If you cannot connect to the grid, it's it's that alternative energy on-site production that I that overall we should probably be the most concerned with. Um in addition, uh sustainability asked that we require a waste heat analysis. And so, I have prepared code language for that as well. Um it's just not in this draft yet because the time frame I just couldn't make it work, but that will be in the draft that you see at your public hearing as well. Commissioner Norton. Just clarification.

So, is that the issue that some communities have where the air temperature is is raised nearby? Okay. Yes. And it looks at how can that heat be reused? Cuz there are there are not not I'm not aware in the United States, but in other countries they are re-utilizing that heat as another alternate or another energy source for other uses. Um also, um so, I wanted to to let you know about the heat waste.

There is an estimate of peak day, average day, and the annual water consumption and waste water discharge of the site, identification of the source of water requested for the proposed development, and then of course the WESA. The high volume water user ordinance has conservation water conservation principles built into it. So, I was not going to duplicate that effort here.

Identification and concentration of constituents in the wastewater stream that may have negative impacts on the publicly owned system. So, they need to pre-identify that, but I will tell you that this is one of the stronger sections of code we have right now, and it has a very good monitoring program. Uh hazard mitigation analysis, which would identify potential hazards associated with the development and evaluate measures to eliminate, reduce, or control those risks.

This may include hazard identification, fire and explosion scenario evaluation, shutdown procedures, assessments of fire protection systems, hazardous materials management, emergency response planning, environmental mitigation, and recommended strategies for enhancing life safety. A fire department impact analysis should evaluate how a proposed development may affect emergency response operations and broader community risk.

This evaluation may consider response time impacts, staffing or deployment changes, specialized equipment needs, training requirements, water supply adequacy, um because we don't just look at water supply adequacy just for what the use is and how much it's using, but also for um fire suppression. Access or operational concerns, the potential for long-duration incidents, mutual aid demands, and any applicable cost recovery or mitigation measures.

So, the these last two have been added since you last seen this. So, we were able to work with the fire department um and I, you know, I really um took a lot of what Phoenix had done in their life health safety analysis as well that accompanied their particular code amendment.

So, that is the bulk of what these development standards are, but the planned community master plan would require that all of this be addressed as part of that, that you would have information so that you can ascertain that all of these items are met. I'll entertain questions, Commissioner Lukey. At the what commission, one of the questions that came up is if somebody bought a piece of land, could they drill on that land and get water? And how much water could they take out?

Has is that going to be addressed eventually or So, I'm not sure that the high volume water user ordinance is addressing that. That's about the water that's currently in our system, but the Arizona Arizona state law does allow for people to drill wells and to use that well, but it doesn't mean that we can't and then as part of the zoning process evaluate that water source as being a viable water source to support rezoning for this land use.

Yeah, I guess I was just concerned when it came up cuz it seemed like a pretty big loophole that you could buy a bunch of land and just start drilling as much water as you wanted. Yes. Commissioner Norton. Um yeah, boy, that you stumped me. I'm kind of a shocked about that one.

Um But you'd also have to So let me just be very clear that there is an art and a science to wells and well drilling and hitting appropriate locations and just because you drill a well does not necessarily mean you'd be able to access I mean they do test wells all of the time to find locations. I think one of the last wells they were so ecstatic, you know, it did it it ended up um delivering better, but it doesn't mean that every piece of land is going to have adequate access to water either.

That would be a pretty substantial risk. Okay, thank you. Um so my question was um and it's just more of a clarification. So any if they do a PC zone and they include a parcel that is going to be this RII any usage whether they change their mind, whether it comes in with the idea that it's going to be a manufacturer or or some other industrial usage and it ends up being a data center instead, everybody has to meet all of this. Mhm.

Well, everybody I mean Everybody any anybody that would want to develop on the the parcel that was identified for RII. And they need to provide this to you as part of the rezoning application. And that's why it would make it very difficult to have all of this work completed and not be able to identify what the true land use is.

And even if somebody came through with the intention to build whatever and they did all this and in the end somebody else came in or they they sold it and they sold that parcel to someone else with this zoning in place, they too have to meet all of this as well. That's correct. Okay. All right, I'm comfortable with that. Okay. Any other questions or comments? I do. Sorry, this Commissioner Kofoed. Yeah, thank you.

Um earlier in the presentation you mentioned that there was nothing more strict that you could apply in this code regarding alternative power generation. Uh is did you say that was a state code or federal requirement that we couldn't change? So there's a state preemption that says we cannot prohibit the use of natural gas. Um I wonder if there is wisdom or a possibility of of tying of really directing this to more towards our conserving our natural resources.

Meaning we're putting specifics in the code um that will still allow them to work around the code. Um I'm really hung up on the air cooled cuz I can tell you a hospital just built all on air cooled. So a huge hospital in the valley and unless built a air cooled system. Um so is there wisdom in us just tying, you know, their electrical use to a tighter energy code um and the same thing for water instead of going specific to the mechanical equipment they can use.

Is there wisdom in us just focusing on what we want to protect and tying them to strict boundaries in terms of protecting those resources? I mean yes as strict of boundaries as we're able to do. So I mean if I could require 100% renewable energy I would which means that that would be 100% electric which is that's where the problem is. Right.

Um and so there is that state preemption in there that won't allow us to require all electric construction even though the we have a we have a carbon neutrality plan, we have all of these things in place and again a lot of those are echoed in the regional plan. So I mean one of the things that Mary has said is that the our regional plan policies don't really jump out.

I'm and I am just thinking about something right now that I'm going to My question would be does Unisource have the same application where if you're going to use a lot of their gas that like the APS has we put one kilowatt is that what we're saying? One megawatt. One megawatt kilowatt. [laughter] We're done. Okay. Um Could they put some type of a a does Unisource have that type of a I don't know. Um I did not meet with Unisource but I can reach out in the interim and see. Yeah.

That might be a good question for them. I I'm assuming that's our only gas source in northern Arizona. Correct. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from commissioners? Do you need any direction from us right now? No, but I want to give you a heads-up of when I'm planning on coming back to you. So, I haven't noticed the public hearings yet. Um but I was hoping to return back to you November 12th. For public hearing? Okay.

But is that the Is that the November 12th is actually a Thursday because November is full of holidays [snorts] on Wednesdays. So, that is what if we're able to obtain a quorum, um then that's when I would like to come back to you. That would still allow me to get in front of this council um that that I'm currently working with. So, with having long-standing history on an ordinance, um but that's the ultimate goal. We'll see We'll see We'll see what happens.

I I did make the point of noticing this and saying that it was previously date related to data centers and trying to attract public attention. I'm trying to be transparent. I'm trying to hide where we're putting data centers. Um so So, would we have would the November 12th be a public hearing or be Okay. So, then we would come back at the next meeting to have Okay. So, it would be is I've mostly gone through the draft.

What you haven't seen is that provision about the heat waste and um the introduction language about the planned community rezoning requirement. So, if we had that hearing on the 12th, P&Z doesn't meet until the 25th, which is the night before Thanksgiving. And I'm assuming that again, that would be our next meeting. Would we put that off until December then? I only have to have one public hearing. This is technically our work session. Okay.

So, we would have the public hearing at the public hearing, we would forward a recommendation. recommendation. Okay. Thank you. And And then we would hit council December 1st and December 8th. So, can I ask commissioners if they could pencil that in right now if the 12th works for commissioners. Commissioners online, does that I know I Yeah, let's That would be great if we could confirm if we'll have close to a quorum on the Does the 12th work for So, the 12th works for me. Wednesday.

Our usual meeting day would be Wednesday at 4:00. This would move it to Thursday at 4:00 because of Veterans Day. Right. Veterans Day is the 11th and so Um Josh and Rebecca, does that work for you? Could you make a a meeting on the 12th? No. No, I'm traveling unfortunately. Uh it would likely work on my end. Likely. likely work. Okay. So, then we would have a quorum. So, just so you know. Okay.

Well, what I want to do before staff leaves is thank Tiffany and the rest of the staff for all the hard work that they put into this. They They hit the door as soon as it's 5:00. [laughter] Is that what it is? It's It's 5:04. They waited 4 minutes. Um I I just want to thank you because I know this was you put a tremendous amount of work into this and time and effort. So, I really want to thank Tiffany and the staff for this.

Um I think you did a really good job at covering concerns from us and probably covering concerns from the city council and covering concerns from the public that you had heard at the last at the public hearing that we held before. So, thank you so much. I know it took a tremendous amount of work and I really appreciate it and the rest of the um commissioners the commissioners as well appreciate. Thanks so much. Um it's been a journey. And but it's fun, right? Like who doesn't love a challenge?

Okay. Based on your discussions like with Phoenix and other how do they I mean is this like man I wish we would have done this or I wish we had the ability to do this or this is the only way to do it. I mean what's the feedback? So, I'm copying Chandler and Marana. So, Chandler and Marana do this they only allow them through a rezoning. And that's where the idea came from. Um and based on your comments of concern on that level of just the CUP not being enough. So, that's where that came from.

Phoenix what I learned a lot from is is how they're dealing with their Prop 207 issues. Um super smart. Very smart people. Um thought it was brilliant and now I feel like I have more tools in my tool bag for the next time something like this happens. Thank you again. Anything else from commissioners on this issue? None? Okay. Thank you again and we'll move on to miscellaneous items to and from commission members. Since we already talked about the 12, I think we're good to go.

So, we are adjourned at 5:06 p.m. Thank you so much. Thank you.