Flagstaff Planning Commission votes 4-3 to recommend complete data center ban despite legal risks

imity to but it was it was you know a a couple neighborhoods down. It wasn't exactly adjacent. It was it was an interesting um yes there is absolutely an offset to air cooling is not a perfect is not a perfect answer. Okay. Um, I know we talk a lot about or you reference a lot about, oh, this is this is a permitted use at the moment, you know, and we get into a gray area of removing it or putting too many u guard rails on something.

I mean, does this extensive CUP process um, from what I found that also could be potentially challenged? Um, I mean, yes, we could we could be challenged by saying we prohibit them. This CUP process could be challenged as above and beyond um what can be asked for in a permitted use. I'm not sure I understand the question. Challenged in terms of an appeal.

What I researched was, you know, can somebody legally challenge a permitted land use when um if they don't agree with the conditional use permit? And yes, it can be legally challenged um if the conditions imposed. Um so if a if a conditional use permit is approved, right? So it's it's a public hearing process just like we're here today. So if a conditional use permit is presented to you and you make a decision, anybody from the public can come and appeal that decision. Is that what you mean? No.

Um that the that a developer that wants to build a data center could say your cup process and these extra require requirements are too honor ownorous and we don't agree with it. We're going to challenge we're going to challenge it and they would probably submit a challenge under Prop 207 because those standards currently don't exist in our zoning code.

and we would be put in the place of reviewing that claim and then if that claim is viable we would either wave the claim or we would go to court and if the court did not find in our favor then we would have to compensate the property owner for the loss of value. Correct. Um, I guess and my point is is that we're in a position where we could be challenged by banning them outright or putting it or putting the C. And where do we want to where do we want to go to battle potentially?

So, so I'm I'm just So, let me give you why I'm making the recommendation that I am. So even though the the all of the public feedback has been no data center and I appreciate that and I don't want it to seem that I'm not listening to the public in terms of staff's recommendation. The reason why I'm making the recommendation that I am is is that we talked about before getting preempted by the state.

Um because that's also one of the other places that we could run into is we run into a place where we're preempted by the state and we have to permit data centers. So if that is the case and enough cities have adopted regulations, sometimes they actually look at what our codes are and what we've adopted and put and impose those things into those state statutes. For example, the ADU statute which required ADUs to be provided and all municipalities.

A good component of that was based off of our zoning code because we had a stipulation that um that regulated short-term rentals and that provision got us through in that state statute. We were able to keep it and others were able to apply that to accessory dwelling units throughout the state. So there is a benefit, right? At least if you go with that proposal one, you are putting out there that like these are the things we're looking for.

And the hope is that a developer, even if they would choose to file Prop 207. So again, the only folks that are going to be able to file Prop 207 are those that currently own property today. Um, and they have a three-year time frame to do that. So yes, we have to evaluate the risk. Um, I think that's all I have for now. I might have something as you circle back around. Thanks. Thank you. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Luki. Thank you for that really wonderful report.

Um, my question is about the difference of potable and recycled water. Do we currently have contracts or uses like let's say golf courses where we only permit recycled water? So we do currently have a provision in our city code that and it goes back to 80s 90s 90s 80s n late 80s 90s. So that provision we do have a provision in code. We have had one longstanding um and it talks about the use of reclaimed water for golf courses. So that's the large water land use.

And then our zoning code sort of mimicked um the concern over golf courses and made golf courses a land use that requires a conditional use permit because they used to be a permitted use under the zoning code previously. So that's where you can see codes balance one another. Um when we're writing the zoning code if we were to put in reclaimed like to say reclaimed water I mean we could put in you know the use of reclaimed water.

it it needs to go in the the city's um other standards of the other city codes that regulate water and water use is where the appropriate location would be if somebody were to want to use reclaimed water. We don't really have a great supply of reclaimed water. Um so it would be unlikely that any data center would be able to come in and use reclaimed water. So the goal wasn't to write a code that was so restrictive that it also basically bans data uses or data centers.

I mean then if if that's the ultimate goal then just go with proposal number two. Otherwise if you want it it it's a half dozen of one the other kind of situation that we're in. It's not an easy situation no matter which way you look at it. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Shei. Yes. I just I just wanted to follow up on Commissioner Norton's points. Um there is a bunch of lawsuits going on right now at the city of Phoenix and some of the other cities.

the developers, there's several of them, and they are suing under Prop 207 for um compensation because the cities went in and put regulations on these data centers. So, at this point, you may or may not get away from that, but by being proactive right now, unless you some of these developers are saying, "Hey, we bought these lands. We were ready to do it." And you're kind of pulling the rug out from under us. So, we don't have any current pending ones. So, I don't know.

From my perspective and experience, conditional use permits are a tool that's been around for, I don't know, 40, 50 years. And they're in place because they regulate um uses that don't quite fit within specific zoning categories and they have to have um certain requirements like stables, like cell towers. and anytime there's something new that comes in, they have kind of their own set.

So, those have been held up for years and maybe they're challenged, but at least there's a strong basis under a conditional use permit um for those uses to be regulated because they're new and they're different and they may cause problems um between zoning districts. So with what's going on um I think by being proactive and doing this now versus being in the situation that some of these cities are now in the valley where these people were going ahead they may have bought properties.

So it's definitely real and that's more of probably the council's decision as a calculated business risk what they're going to do with this. So that's my two cents. Commissioner Copa. Yeah, thank you. Um, first and foremost, I think you guys have done an excellent job to address the sustainability concerns. Almost everything that I would have um asked has been addressed. Um, I did have one follow-up question.

Um, historically there has been concerns brought to zoning um hearings regarding fire and uh local emergency services. uh data centers bring very unique specialized fire risk specifically training equipment um for pre-action um type um systems. Uh has there been consideration to place anything and is this the right place to um put codes around um Oh, looks like you're going there. Codes around uh the fire risk and response. Oh, we didn't have anything specific to fire use.

Um, so there are general findings for a conditional use permit and public safety is part of those findings. So, we do need to evaluate our services when evaluating a land use. Um, in terms of we, you know, we our fire department is a regular reviewer of all of our development applications and we work through that process. We don't really have uh fire impact analyses or a way to usually exact for fire services since fire services are broad-based.

Um developments pay what's called a development impact fee for fire services. So that's should I mean and this industrial use would pay if depending on how large it was would pay on a square foot basis for um receiving those services. But we would work with the fire department directly to understand what may need to happen um to mitigate and they would need to comply with our fire code. Um one one follow-up question. I'm sorry.

Are there any current uh zoning requests um that is driving this um change to the code data center? Are there any requests that are current that is driving this? No, this is not there's no applications. What's driving this is we were asked where would we allow data centers because there's a larger statewide conversation going on and then we realized oh our code is a little bit more permissible than maybe we wanted it to be. So that's where we are. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions from commissioners? Commissioner Norton. Yeah, I had I found two other things in my notes. Um, with regard to the decommissioning and um can you kind of clarify how that would actually work? It says if they've ceased operations for a continuous period of 12 months, they're considered abandoned, but within 90 days at the end of operations, they have to submit a decommissioning plan. Wouldn't they if if they're not doing business, they're probably bankrupt or left.

Um, does this hold any water that we wouldn't be stuck with the clean up cleanup efforts? And it could always happen. It could absolutely always happen. I mean, you seen And then my other question, um, any I brought this up in our work session.

Um was there any internal discussion um about you know adding a requirement that this isn't just a P&Z decision that I know like the public and council can take it up within 10 days but this is a hot topic and you know there's a city council in Oklahoma that's there's a petition to get them all recalled because they approved a data center.

I mean, this is I still stand by the opinion that this is above our free pay grade as a volunteer advisory commission to grant a CUP, an such an extensive CUP on something as um variable, everchanging, important, impactful, etc. I just wondered if there if that's even a requirement that could be added. Is it is that the final decision? We only make a recommendation that the final decision has to go to council.

I mean, does that I think council gets to make that decision with every conditional use permit that's already issued. Okay. I I'm I'm still not quite comfortable that it leaves it that loose opening. Um but I and I I mean I understand you want to council to take on that. You do want to force the council to take make the decision. So it they I mean if it is as big of a community issue as you're saying it is, the likelihood that it would remain unappealed is very low to minimal.

Um I think the last one was a cell tower that city council appealed. So, you know, I've I've I've rarely seen city council be interested in the very minor conditional use permits that that go through without any consideration. But of all of the emails that you're getting, city council is getting all of those emails as well. They're going through this conversation as well. And again, they'll make the final decision at the end of the day on the data center.

But I just want to stress like data centers aren't the only case that you will hear through a conditional use permit process. That could be extremely hard, right? It's never easy for staff either. Um, you know, we we get up, we make recommendations, we enjoy the fruits of the labor of of those recommendations we make as well. We we definitely understand and you know, you're not I mean, I guess technically we're paid. Um, I like to joke that we're eat No, I'm just kidding.

But, um, vanilla cherry vanilla ice cream is always waiting for us at the end of the day. Um, yeah, it there there are hard cases and I have sat in here in commission meetings that have gone on for hours and hours and hours. Wasn't about a data center, it was about student housing. So, you know, it you never know what the topic or the issue of dour is going to be. Thank you. I have a question on finding number two and that was how did you find that it was not detrimental to public health? Sure.

So if with proposal number one the requirements to mitigate those particular issues as is highlighted in the regional plan is how we get to that finding of not being detrimental. So there was no other study done about the noise level, the vibration level and how that might so affect public health.

So there's a difference between determining if the code itself is detrimental as opposed to if the land use itself is detrimental, which is also one of the findings that you look at in a conditional use permit. So if somebody were to come in with a data center and they are at 60 dBA, so at their property line they're as loud at the as this conversation, then you have that ability to determine um that like 60, you know, are they at 62? They can't meet it.

You can't meet we can't you're not going to meet the requirements of this land use. So the issue is is that do land uses do all land uses never ha potentially have some kind of impact overall the issue is is how can we mitigate or address what those impacts are. So if the code you feel is not addressing a specific impact within the parameter of the laws that are out there in the world um then that's when you would disagree with staff's findings.

staff did the best we could to bring you a proposal that would come in with in consideration of those findings. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from commissioners? Commissioner Maher. Um on the topic of decommissioning, are there other land uses that require uh decommissioning within 12 months? Nothing in the Nothing in our zoning code, but I have dealt with other zoning codes that have those provisions. Not within hours. Not within ours.

The last one I dealt with was in regards to a wind farm. So for the topic that we're discussing now, this is already above and beyond what other potential land uses would require. Yes. And not just for decommissioning, but for several of the other elements. Okay. Any other questions or concerns from commissioners? Then we'll open it up. Uh yes. I do see a hand raised. I think it's Lee. I'm sorry. Our water services director is online and he has his hand raised.

He might want to correct something I said. Okay. If you would like to speak, go ahead. Thank you. It's from a little while ago, but I just wanted to make a small clarification that um we don't mandate that golf courses use reclaimed water. We just say they can't use portable water. Yeah, they can't use potable water. It's not that they have to use I said it opposite that it's not they have to use reclaimed. They can't use potable. Does that mean they could go get bottled water?

And I'm just joking. So, I mean the issue becomes really complex because folks can you could potentially drill a well in the city. A property owner could go in and drill a well and tap in and if they don't take care of that water technically it could be qual qualified as non-pottable. It's not the solution for this particular situation. Oh, thank you. Okay, one more time. Any other concerns or questions from commissioners? Then we'll open it up to the general public.

And um if you'd like to speak, if you could fill out the speaker form in the back of the room, I have a number of these. And the first I have is, and excuse me for the pronunciation, but it's Kavon Koshore. And if you would state your name and if you're a resident of the city. And just a reminder, you have three minutes. Yeah. Can you hear me? Okay. Uh my name is Kavon Kasraor. Um I live in Flagstaff. Um and this is in fact my first time speaking at a town hall.

Um because I'm that terrified of um uh the and concerned about the impact that this would have on our community. Um I'm concerned with the data centers being allowed in Flagstaff even under proposal one. Um though I understand there is concern of lawsuits. Um many of my concerns were addressed already earlier in the meeting. So I thank you for the details. um you know water, noise, pollution and power. Um I think there are many mitigating efforts in proposal one that are reasonable.

Um but I am still concerned with the aggregate impact um if data centers were to operate in the very limited space that we have under those conditions in the proposal. Uh I know this is not within the full scope of just this meeting but I would urge us to all look into the impact that um you know this could have and uh how it would be measured and monitored uh for the impact on uh residents and the land here. Um I fear the zoning codes are not enough.

Um the concern of the air temperature for air cooling is a perfect example of that. I don't want to see Flagstaff repeat the same mistakes that other communities have. Um, we should be uh wise in using our limited resources for housing, uh, local businesses and community services that directly support our residents, not for potentially high impact, lowbenefit industrial use. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, next up is River Rea. Thank you. It's pronounced Ramulia. The G is silent. One moment. Sorry.

My name is River. Thank you for allowing me to speak here today. I'm here wearing black as a surviving externality of the tech industry's greed. The ways I was mobilized as a child and as an adult by global tech companies would make most people lose their minds. I'm lucky to be alive and I don't care what promises tech companies make to city government or to the people of Flagstaff to allow the continued use and exploitation of the land here.

Regardless of the application, recent events and history have demonstrated these technologies capacity to create war, harm children, sow distrust and illusion, and to maintain and support systems of power root rooted in human bias. I do not care if they are already allowed in Flagstaff. you should be working to forbid them. Easing the construction of more data data centers is analogous to allowing a eugenicis drug lord set up shop in your backyard with a key to your house.

You would never accept that request and we would definitely shouldn't facilitate the construction of more data centers. There are plenty of recent examples of careless applications of computing power. For example, both Google and Meta, companies that thrive on ever more resource inensive data centers to ensure their profit margins, has just recently been found guilty of intentionally causing irreparable harm to children.

They targeted children with AI trained algorithms, poisoned them, and threw them away on the altar of profit, money, and the expansion of cryptocurrencies. We can also see how AI trained large language models have demonstrated bias and evil, even encouraging some users, including teens, to commit suicide. In many cases, it is successful.

Recent market activity also suggests that militaries all over the world have a devouring interest in AI technology to fuel drone warfare and random global wars on, for example, girls schools. We must resist. If the foundation of data centers current applications among the most powerful institutions in the world yields results like these, why should we expect additional data centers to be mobilized for anything different?

Who is getting paid to allow them anywhere near this city, its precious water and sacred lands that do not belong to us and never will? Whose cryptocurrency wallet is getting bigger with the passage of these zoning requests? whose wararmongering lizard brains are new data centers being built to serve. We are paving the way for a tech dystopian future.

We must think far beyond the profit margins of this month or next year and imagine what people 1,000 years from now will think of our choice to waste our water and poison the land both near and far from us. I imagine they will wonder how we could consider the promotion of even more industrial slavery and global inequality instead of conserving and cherishing what we already have and ensuring its existence in perpetuity.

Voting for data centers, regardless of their intended applications, is a vote to sate the endless thirst of machines that care nothing at all about human health and well-being. In a warming world, we should ensure our humans resource security before offering our minds, our our water resources to intelligent machines that deprive us of our autonomy. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Briana A. Costa. If you'll please state your name and if you're a resident of the city. Can you hear me?

My name is uh Brianna A. Costa and I am a Flagstaff resident. Um and I want to emphasize the importance of performance-based standards in the proposed zoning amendment. Uh data centers operate as high load 247 demand centers often in the range of tens to hundreds of megawatts. So this type of load profile has significant implications for grid capacity, infrastructure investment, and long-term rate structures.

I would strongly recommend that any data center development be subject to a conditional use permit process rather than allowed by right to ensure that site specific grid and resource impacts are fully evaluated. Additionally, I encourage the city to adopt measurable efficiency standards.

Um, so power and water usage effectiveness with enforcable thresholds in a climate like Flagstaff, slow water or air cooled systems are not only preferred but often economically viable over the facility life cycle. So without clear standards, there is a risk that infrastructure costs and resource strain are externalized to the community uh particularly through increased grid demand and long-term utility investments.

Flagstaff has an opportunity to set a precedent by requiring that high demand infrastructure aligns with both the environmental constraints and life cycle effic efficiency metrics. Thank you. Thank you. I have two more cards. So, I just want to remind you if you'd like to make a public comment to fill out the card in the back of the room. Next up is Michelle James. Hello commission. My name is Michelle James. I'm the executive director of Friends of Flagstaff's Future.

I want to commend city staff for identifying the um that Flagstaff doesn't right right now doesn't have the regulatory framework to address land use by data centers. um we agree that this must this hole must be patched or there needs to be a ban or a moratorum um as soon as possible. So you guys have talked a lot already um today tonight about um energy use and water use.

I'm really happy to see that the the water use has been um um minimized significantly and I'm I'm very pleased with that change. I think the whole organization is very pleased with that change. Um, I am concerned about the idea of um, saying that that the power will be renewable to the greatest extent possible. I'm a little concerned about what that means and how that might be interpreted in the future.

If there's any way to get more specificity into the um into the proposed language, that might be a good thing for other people to consider. I know that it goes to the um you know goes to the people who are giving us the energy but we could put some more explanation and description into that in some form whether it's in the code or some other place but probably in the code um that that is my concern with the greatest extent possible.

Um I still think that I guess I believe that Flagstaff needs to get used to the idea of data centers a bit more um before they're allowed even with a conditional use permit. Um there are a lot of concerns that are more socialbased like um what is the what is the grid capacity? Um what will the by having a data center will the increase in um rates uh through the electricity electrical company be a factor?

These are things that you hear about you read about happening in other cities and I think the um I think a lot of people are going to be concerned about that beyond just the natural resources and energy um impact. So that's something for you guys to consider. Thanks. Thank you. And finally, I have Kira Russo. So, Kira has checked that she is speaking on behalf of a group of 10 or more. And what group is that? Oh, actually, they're not all here today, but it's the Friends of the Riyota Flag.

Friends of Rio de Flag, does she in order to have the extended time frame? They need to all be present. Oh, and I don't need extended time frame. That's fine. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Um here I'm going to go ahead and set my timer. Um so, uh once again, thank you for your service. I'm Kyra Russo and I am a citizen of Flagstaff. Uh I am the currently the president of the friends of the Riyota flag uh board and uh we have about 350 members.

Uh we are here to represent uh the uh proposal 2 and uh and in favor of proposal two that there be a ban on data centers. Uh you might know that west of the 100th meridian we define our region as arid. you know, we live in a high desert. We do not despite all the beautiful landscape that we get to see every day, we live in a high desert.

And um you know, the idea that we're we are uh ecologically sound is a really important concept not only to friends of the Riyota flag, but also to members of this community. Um, in terms of community values, this is a a primary focus of my personal research and community values and building those into policy creates trust in government. You know, this is the way that we uh we protect the values of our community and we and we stand up for those.

Uh you might know also that there is currently a proposal nationally to uh create a moratorum on AI data centers until we find out the risks to communities. Uh find out what the chemical risks are, what the water risks are, uh again temperature, sound, all of these things. Uh and so uh you know in that in that uh vein we would ask that we take the uh greatest precautions possible with our community.

You know as of yet we don't know and to move forward with any proposal that allows for heavy industry in any way shape or form to affect our community members uh seems irresponsible to us. Uh so um I'll leave it there for that and uh I guess I would I would say uh maybe reiterate that maybe the perfect solution is uh to ban data centers in the city of Flagstaff. Thank you. All right, we have concluded our public comment session.

Um commissioners, Commissioner Maher, I have a couple questions for staff in the back of the room. if you can come forward. Economic development, it so I don't have economic vital. I've got water services. I've got it. I've got sustainability online. Jeff, sorry, I didn't think Eevee was here. Uh the first question that I have is for uh it actually um I'm and it's related to some of the uh community concerns regarding um application of data centers.

Um can you for the benefit of the public can you um relay some um some potential benefits of a data center outside of the realm of AI specifically? Sure. Yeah, thanks for the question. I'm uh CJ Perry. I'm the CIO for the city of Flagstaff. So um data centers have um kind of a variety of use cases. Um for instance uh as was mentioned earlier we have some servers actually here in um city hall.

We have servers um in various facilities uh both within the city and you know uh private sector um and in variety throughout. One of the advantages of a smaller data center facility is actually to colllocate a lot of those uh servers into one uh facility. It actually provides significant energy benefits. We're cooling our room. We actually have two different rooms that we've uh expend quite a bit of of money in energy cooling hospital.

you know, all these other um agencies uh cool their own rooms, build out the infrastructure for that cooling to colllocate those within a single slightly larger facility, not at the scale of kind of some of the stuff that you see in the Phoenix area um does, you know, have significant benefits to all of those agencies and and kind of uh reduces um some of the costs on every individual agency.

Um uh additionally you you know you'll hear a little bit more kind of the economic uh benefit perspective of a lot of private sector companies want their um data their servers things like that to be close. There's uh a concept called latency. I'm probably not going to go into the too much of the technical um aspects behind that but it's basically how fast the data can get to and from where you're at to the server that you're going to.

um in certain applications that latency being as small as possible is extremely critical for the business use case. Um you know there's some there's a lot of new and emerging stuff. So I'm I can kind of give some like um examples that are are potential um you know you think of uh in like teleaalth uh things like that or in even in medical like procedures there's a lot more robotics starting to occur in medical procedures.

you'd want that um surgeon to have very low latency because they're, you know, doing uh very very interesting procedures on people. You wouldn't want that uh like the connection to be cut between Flagstaff and and a a data center further away. Again, most of these use cases are not the large AI data centers, the huge massive facilities that we're we're seeing in the Phoenix area.

Um I think we all kind of recognize the um that that you know we are a different community from that perspective but at the smaller scale there are some benefits um uh from that perspective to the community. Um so you bring up the the discussion of scale. Can you I don't know if you're positioned to answer this question necessarily, but um those uh data centers that exist uh down in the valley um could you give them an idea of the square footage or the um land space that they might occupy?

Yeah, and I apologize. I am not an expert on the exact square footage when it comes to some of these larger data centers. So I can kind of visualize them in my mind and I'm sure many of you can. Um, but the analogy that if I could if I could go on a a small tangent, the analogy I like to uh use when I when I talk about this type of topic in particular is you think of it in the case of a freeway.

Um, you know, we have freeways, we have I40, we have I17 that provides a lot of economic benefit to Flagstaff. Freeways are ugly. They have an impact on the environment. There's a lot of negative impacts on the environment. I think we would all agree we don't need a sixlane freeway here in Flagstaff because of the scale. When you look at Phoenix, they need some of those larger freeways due to the the amount of um of people that they have.

I also think that despite the freeways being ugly and all of those things, the benefit they provide to the community, we probably wouldn't want to dig up I40 and I7. I'm sure there's a few some people that would, but you know, as a general concept, you know, right sizing what the the infrastructure needs are for the community is an important aspect of this discussion.

So, I think again at that smaller scale, what that scale is, what the square footage is, I would have to rely on honestly the private sector to kind of dictate where that is.

But I I think when we visualize it, you know, in our minds and what the community looks for kind of, you know, not something at, you know, at the scale that you see when you drive down some of those the the freeways in Phoenix, the the huge facilities, but also not, you know, not necessarily completely eliminating some of a a smaller uh facility that you would kind of see in our community.

some of the, you know, warehouses, uh, size things that you see in our community might be a little more in that kind of appropriate range, uh, from that perspective when you kind of weigh those benefits and and and costs. I appreciate that. Thank you. And I'm just talking from the IT perspective. You got water services people and, uh, you know, uh, energy people that probably know a lot more in relation to the scale and how that affects it from that perspective. Sure, I appreciate that. Yeah.

Um so for economic vitality um so from your uh perspective um would there be any um and I know that um Dave McIntyre provided the the memo uh for the public's review. Could you expand on the potential for economic uh development uh that a data center might um facilitate for Flagstaff in the future? Unfortunately, I haven't had an opportunity to read Mr.

McIntyre's uh memo, but um in in general terms, I mean, data centers do present opportunities for significant revenue generation just in general. Okay. So, I mean, you know, I mean, of course, it varies from from unit to unit um you know, and the scale of the of of of each unit. Sure. I did have the opportunity to read uh Dave McIntyre's memo and was able to talk with him a little bit. So, as while I'm not an economic development expert, I can give a little bit um greater context.

Um what it really does and and again I go back to the freeway um thing is it provides the infrastructure that certain um high-tech companies um biomed companies some of those companies that uh from an economic development perspective we've been trying to attract to Flagstaff. It provides the infrastructure that would attract more of them to Flagstaff. So the actual um impact on our economy had there's a there's a certain level of impact while it's being constructed.

You know you get you know construction work you know things like that. Um but after that the actual economic benefit of the facility itself is minimal. It's the attraction of other businesses um particularly again in that high-tech space um attracting them to Flag Staff. uh that's where you see most of the economic benefit uh going forward. So would you ever see the need for a 100,000 to a million square foot facility in the city of Flagstaff uh at that huge large scale?

I the only thing that I would see where um the desire from the private sector to even bring that here is the fact that it's cooler up here than it is in Phoenix. So, from a cooling perspective, um, but I don't actually think private sector would want something on a massive scale in Flagstaff. I I could be wrong. I I don't work for private sector. So, um, uh, but no, I I wouldn't say that that has a um a specific benefit uh to the community at a at a super large scale.

Again, at that kind of medium to smaller scale, I think there could be some benefits to the community, assuming those other uh concerns, water, energy, are mitigated from that perspective. So, we're very likely talking about a much smaller facility in in very practical, realistic terms. That's what I would envision um from my perspective. Yes.

and water services just popped up to let me know that air cooled facilities are generally going to fall within the range of about 10,000 square feet a max and that's about where facilities start to push towards being water cooled is when they're over that. Well, I I don't know that anybody here is equipped to respond. And I know, but I did hear a couple of concerns about heating the neighborhood.

And I imagine that at a 10,000 square foot facility at that scale, the air heating impact would also be much much smaller. I I am not an expert on uh those types of systems, so I apologize. I can't accurately, but I I would go with your assumption on that for sure. And so I don't know if sustainability could comment on ultimate like power draw on on these types of facilities. Jenny, are you able to weigh in? Hi, I'm there. Oh my gosh, I'm like trying to check in and out.

Uh yeah, Commissioner Mayor, can I clarify what is the question? uh was asking about potential um power draw on based on scale of of facility that we're talking about. I don't I don't know if anybody's equipped to answer that qu that question. Yeah, I mean we would expect them to scale, right? I think a 10,000 foot facility again as we've mentioned any US data centers um they have a power draw, right? Um our utility is tasked with uh understanding those demands and serving those demands.

But yeah, I would say we would expect power use to scale. Um, you know, it's not the same as most buildings as we're used to, right? The power per square foot is incredibly high compared to most uses that we see. Um, but yes, if there was a smaller facility, we would expect smaller draw. So, I've done some background on it. Great. Um, so a 100,000 to a million square foot facility is going to draw um it can exceed 100 megawatts, which is insane, right? 80 to 100,000 homes.

Whereas a 5 to 25,000 square foot facility, which I think is where really what we're talking about, is going to be on the scale of one to five megawatts, which is significantly less.

So um you know so I I think that that also reduces the burden you know if we're requiring or suggesting um you know sustainable renewable power then I think that becomes much more tenable and much more realistic also right you know the renewable market uh there's a lot of demands on the renewable market right now um so I and again like I I think APS would be able to speak to that like all of the private companies companies have been throwing around renewable commitments, right?

So, I can't speak to how easy that is to secure that. Um, but yeah, less energy makes a little bit easier if you can buy into a renewable facility somewhere else. Thank you. Of course. Thank you, staff. Thank you. Um, I will have to um go back to public comment because I didn't see the person online and Danielle Davis if um you'll state your name and if you're a city resident uh when you speak and you have three minutes. So, if we can clear the timer. Thank you. Can you hear me? We can now.

Hello. Okay, we can hear you now. Thank you so much. Yes, my name is Daniel Davis. Uh, born and raised here in Flagstaff. um currently in the Cookanino County of Pinedell. So, I'm currently not in city limits, but I do own a business in city limits. Um and uh just wanted to be here to speak in favor of proposal two.

Um and just wanted to express my gratitude to the planning and zoning um commission for finding that there is, you know, a gap in the current code that would potentially allow a data center. Um and also thank you for adding everybody's comments to the agenda. Um I tried to read through most of them and clearly there's a lot of people that are um very activated against this uh or against allowing data centers.

And so I think the confusion for me in the beginning was that um the the changes were essentially to allow data centers. I think that currently um what you guys are proposing is is limiting um the ability for data centers or big data centers to be here um or to to make the code very stringent that if they are here um you know that it is going to be um something that's not going to have a negative impact. Um but I I am still in favor of uh the proposal too.

I'm in favor of a moratorum on data centers. So, I'm going to be very biased to that side, but I did want to just express my uh gratitude for everyone's work on this and um you know, trying to make sure that um our community is safe and um that you guys do improve the lives of all of our citizens.

Um, and I think that one of the things in the code that is currently proposed in proposal one is a little um vague, you know, is uh some of the the areas about um like the um the low frequency sound studies.

And I'd like to I guess see a little bit more in that if you guys do approve um proposal one that you know there's a long-term study on infrasound and um see you know what is the current baseline study for that and then um you know just just as stringent as possible is the um the direction that I'm you know in favor of but um if you guys could all just vote on proposal two that's that's where I'm at. I don't see that this is going to bring any jobs to Flagstaff.

It's just going to suck on the energy, use our resources and all that stuff. So, um, please vote for proposal two. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Luki. So, since we're talking about the revenue part, I have done some research on it and after construction, there are limited employees. the corporation tax is going to the state. The energy revenue is going to a utility that we don't control. So, we really have the property tax. And so, I think it is a question of the cost benefit of all of it.

Um, and so that's all I have to say right now, but when you're ready for a a motion, I'll make one. Thank you. I have a question. So, is it about ice cream? I'm kidding. No, darn it. Just kidding. Sorry. Um, but I I like soft ice cream if that's the concern. Okay. So, my question is in regards to NAU. So, NAU owns a lot of land and that's not under the city code. Is that correct? That's correct.

So if a data center wanted to come in, if we prohibit data centers in the city, they could still come in with a deal with NAU. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. All right. Anybody else? Commissioner Norton. Yeah, I think I wanted maybe some clarification on how we are going to need to handle this since we have a choice.

I mean obviously staff's recommendation is to proceed with prop uh proposal one but we have two proposals do how will we be wording such thing and um I probably I kind of wanted to sort of give my final thoughts and where I'm headed with this and so I don't know how that affects where and how the motion will be made and and how how all need to vote.

Um, as as someone, you know, brought up, you know, just as I was getting ready to come here, I heard the news that two Congress members had introduced uh a moratorum at the federal level until um on the building of data centers until AI AI's safety and uses usage is reviewed and that they put some guard rails on it at that level.

And how I feel is that you know we don't really know what and what will continue to transpire with the data centers and it seems to change daily sometimes hourly um with the news of issues that are faced by other communities um newly discovered effects such as the rising air temperatures that were u shared like a week or two ago um in Phoenix um um and um changing technologies and how they're built, their size requirements um emerging possibilities for managing the energy, the water, the noise, the heat exchange and cooling.

Um I'm glad to I am glad to see that there's at least at the moment um you know we're saying not to use water cooling that that kind of checks one box, but there's still other concerns. Um it seems that other countries in my research seem to be so much further ahead of building uh more sustainable um data centers, but not in our current political environment. and uh deregula deregula deregulation uh we're just not there.

So, it's really difficult, I feel, to outline what requirements we should and could have when there's so many variables that we just don't know. And despite what we don't know in those areas, as well as, you know, Arizona's water allocation and availability and APS issues and such, what we do know is that the city has prioritized carbon neutrality, climate emergency, housing shortage, emphasizing, density, and residential areas within our city limits, and a regional plan that guides all of that.

And what seems to be an affront to those priorities and is incompatible is data center as a usage in city limits. And since we can't utilize all of the guard rails suggested um some even by the local so I'll call them local experts that contributed and comments and suggestions um were limited by state statutes and such. Um it's really hard to I think get the guard rails that we would want at this time and they're always going to be changing. So um I can can only support number two.

Um I don't feel the findings support number one um in any in any way. Um so I'll be voting only in the direction of what lends support to banning them at this time. Um or you know maybe it'll be discussed further on uh up the ladder of putting a temporary moratorum um and mimicking maybe where the federal government is going or trying to go until we just know more. Um so that's that's my thought and that's where I'm headed.

I think there's definitely some improvements that were made since our work session and I appreciate all the work.

I I don't think the definition of of data center nor the cup process should be tossed aside because we do have those ancillar um usages for other um buildings and you know let's say the trend goes to not so much the large centers but this you know having them just onsite or having them be small um and attached to u a business um because we obviously we want to support our businesses in education here and healthcare and bioscience and all of that.

We want them to have what they need to do their business here and to move toward the future. Um, but I think we, you know, we might need some clarification and maybe um a cup process or guidelines for even what those ancillary usages look like um because we don't know where they're going to go with that either. Um, so those are my thoughts and that's where I'm headed on on my vote. And, um, I think Commissioner Copa has No, I see um our attorney has her hand raised. Okay. Thank you.

Uh, thank you, Commissioner. Yes, it is. Um, Christina Ruba, senior assistant city attorney. I just wanted to clarify real quick the answer on the question about NA. Um, what Tiffany said is correct. NAU would not be subject to our zoning code as long as they were constructing a data center that was for their own government purposes.

However, if they were going to allow a commercial data center, um, which would be a proprietary purpose, not a government purpose on their site, then it would be subject to our code. So, I just wanted to make that clear. Thank you so much. Thank you very much.

I have one more question and that was if um on proposal number one if we could limit the type of data centers and the scale could we put that in the proposal like no bigger than x amount and for these purposes I think as I think you can add stipulations on the size it's hard to it's hard to say without a proposal in front of you.

So, things I've learned uh recently, we changed the code to say that if you were an existing commercial building and you were 5,000 square feet or less and you change the use, you didn't need to repark, right? So, we had an adaptive reuse policy first businesses that all come in 5,500 square ft. Um, so there's never really a great what I learn is setting those limitations, it always will come back to bite you to some degree.

Um, there just comes a point where, you know, data center isn't the the use permit. And so you go through and you run like maybe it's okay if it's only a certain size, but I couldn't tell you what that size is because I don't know what their proposal is going to be. I don't know what their ultimate energy use is going to be. And all of those things we would look at individually with each case.

um the zoning code is not a perfect tool to solve every issue and that there always is this flexibility built in to sort of analyze on a case-byase basis what does this particular development bring um you know I I even heir on the side of regulating so hard as air cooled versus closed loop because technology also changes and codes don't adapt. it takes time to go through the process and codes don't adapt as fast as they need to.

Then we turn around and we do it in an emergency because the the great big thing has been found only we probably maybe we didn't think it all the way through. If if that's a direction you want to go that's fine. I I think the sooner a decision gets made on data center overall the better off we're going to be. If you'd like I can go back and rescale data center but I'd need to pull back.

I'd need to go through and start writing a scaled version of the code and we could come back and propose that and see if at the end of the day did we fully exclude or did we fall into some parameter that we didn't think of. I can't give you that answer at the dis today and it's not something we've currently proposed or considered. Thank you. I I have another question or another. Do you know how large the Flagstaff Mall is? What's the square square footage? Anybody know? I don't off the top.

Or the hospital? I don't, you know, because it's stacked up. I'm just trying to think in my mind what I could probably find the square footage of the existing hospital. Give me two seconds. Okay. Well, I see I just Googled for the mall and it says it's around let's I'll I'll say 375,000 square feet. I mean that sounds approximately true. Yes.

And then while you're googling the other or looking up the other um the largest property is the one that's out by um Smoke Rise and last commission meeting we talked about how um Cinder Mountain is part of that property. So, we really don't know what the square footage is of that property that would be usable. Do we know that? So, if you look at that property, it's then we require the 200 foot setback and then you've got that Cinder Hill. It even reduces it further.

Well, the mall is 415,000 square feet. The hospital consists of multiple buildings is the problem, right? So, we don't know the main hospital here, what the square footage is. I'm just trying to get a in my head what I don't. Okay, Madam Chair. Yes, I just Googled um data center sizes and um they said average centers are typically 100,000 to 143,000 square foot foot buildings, but they can um span millions.

So, um small typical ones are 20,000 to 100,000 square feet hosting roughly 500 to 5,000 servers. Large hypers scales are 100,000 square foot with the largest topping a million square feet. So, it would appear that we're probably in the range of the smaller ones here. I don't even know if we could accommodate one that's 10 million square feet. Well, and that's, you know, my question about the provision of can we limit the size or the scale of that?

Um, I just need to go back and rewrite the code is all. Just a little simple thing. I mean, Commissioner the commission. So the way I understand it, it's sort of the the scale of the facility is really limited by just de facto just by the infrastructure and all of the constraints that we already have and largely by making it uh requiring that it's air cool that also limits the scale even further. That's correct as I understand it. Yes, that's my understanding.

Ex except for I could see a somebody coming in here and removing the cinder mountain altogether. If they bought the land, they could remove it and then they have a larger Yes.

um so many things can happen and you know a lot of money can be spent and again on a conditional use permits are reviewed on a case by case basis and I think that's what's so hard for everybody on this is what they really want is to review a data center and they want all of the facts about the data center this is just the zoning code that's going to get us to a place that if a data center should approach us this is the initial framework in which we're going to run them through that process and then review that application and the commission would have a lot of leeway under the findings to address that situation.

Now, I understand that we've put a lot of discussion on conditional use permits about conditional use permits are technically permitted uses. And a lot of the reason why we had that conversation is because it's really easy to want to deny something because you don't like the land use. And that's not the reason to deny a conditional use permit. The reason to deny a conditional use permit is because it doesn't meet the findings.

So saying you don't like something is different than saying they can't mitigate or they can't meet these specific findings. Commissioner Luki, I think you're making my argument for me. Um, and I think we should just, if you're ready, go ahead and let's see if we got the votes. Commissioner Norton, thank you.

Um, I probably am adding on to I think that was one of my bottom lines even uh two weeks ago is it's still a permitted use and those land use lawyers will push us on that it is a permitted use and you challenge you know the cup process um you know and and oftentimes that's kind of what I've always been a little bit disillusioned by the cup process is when it comes to us we are often reminded you know it is a permitted use and you you know you have to meet the findings and um I you know I don't feel um it's a strong enough process for something that's this impactful to the community.

So that's that's probably where um I'm thinking um when you said your point was supported that's probably the same point that I just made but thank you. Thank you Commissioner Luki if you want to make a motion. Thank you. Um, the planning and zoning commission in accordance with the findings presented in this report make a recommendation to the city council for approval of PZ26 data cent's proposal number two zoning code text amendment. Is there a second to that motion?

I'm seconding that you're you're you're saying you're it's attached to proposal two, correct? Correct. I am seconding. So, we have a motion and a second on approving um proposal two. Is there any discussion? Um, Commissioner uh Weller, can we change the verbiage from by right to conditional use permit in proposal two? So I think in um proposal two it was banning any building but even for the ancillary building to not have that be by right to have that I would highly recommend not doing that.

Um that would mean that the the hospital would need to come in for a cup for their server room.

So even existing well I'm talking about so if they made modifications so if you changed the code you would make those uses legal non-conforming which means they couldn't make any changes or modifications to them and if any new large employer came in like a Gore or a Gore built a new facility they would be limited from adding server rooms so I would highly recommend that you don't go that route um but again and it's limited to 10% of the total floor area and it doesn't allow for detach attached.

So, it has to be part of the principal use. Thoughts? If I'm sorry, what do other commissioners have thoughts about that? I I support where you're going with the idea and because I think that's sort of this evolving situation that we could be dealing with, but I I understand there could be some pretty strong negative ramifications to our existing businesses and their expansion um and a new hospital, you know, going in, etc. I think of things like that.

And so, while I really appreciate the guard rail that that provides of review, you know, I I think I'd have to say not changing it as much as that somewhat pains me. Yep. This is Commissioner Copa. May I speak? May I speak? Yes. Oh, sorry. Um I disagree wholeheartedly with changing the ancillary uh definition as someone noted. Um healthc care centers, hospitals, anything gore, they all must have uh data centers by restricting those to 10%, we keep that in line.

They're also internal to their building. So they're not drawing the significant load that a standard data center would draw. Um, I disagree on changing that and I agree with the city on leaving that language the way it is written. Thank you. Okay, any other discussion? Any comments, concerns, discussion? All right, I think we're ready for the vote. This is um in favor of proposal number two. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. I oppose. Opposed. And um that's three four and three opposed.

Is that right? Uh oh. I was going to abstain. Um I believe if you don't vote that is a positive vote. I'm abstaining. So, I think that that sends it to the city council. Is that right? Sure. So, we're Wait a minute. So, a tie vote is usually the opposite. If you abstain, your vote is considered as a positive. So, that So the vote would be 43 in in favor of proposal number two. Correct. Okay, I'm sticking with my abstension. Um so that motion carries then.

And we don't need to vote on proposal one or do we? Okay. Thank you. So um that takes us to general business which it has none or other business we also have none and miscellaneous items to and from commission members. All right, then we are adjourned at 551. Thank you.