[0:23] Good evening. I would like to call to order the September 9th, 2026 Planning

[0:28] Commission. Roll call, please. Leslie. >> Thank you, Commissioner Saka. Uh,

[0:33] Commissioner Lowe, >> present. Commissioner Gillow,

[0:37] » here. Commissioner Davis >> here.

[0:40] » Commissioner Jackson >> here.

[0:43] » Uh online. Commissioner Thraw Nash absent. Um

[0:50] we're missing Commissioner uh Jones Gallardo absent and

[0:55] Commissioner Saka >> here.

[0:57] » Okay. We have a quorum present. So we'll proceed with our agenda items. The

[1:03] planning commission emphasizes addressing issues in a respectful and

[1:07] timely manner. We ask all parties to hearings and administrative matters

[1:11] during our meetings to assist us by participating in respectful and direct

[1:16] testimony and comments. Uh there have been several disruptions during meetings

[1:22] lately and I want to begin by setting the expectation for everyone.

[1:26] We will not tolerate disruptions that preclude the commission from being able

[1:31] to conduct its business and hear from community. Those who cause disruptions

[1:37] will be asked to watch the meeting from the conference room across the hall or

[1:43] leave the building. This is deemed a first general warning for all attendees.

[1:48] Any person who disrupts this meeting will be provided with one individualized

[1:53] warning. Any further disruptions will result in that individual being asked to

[1:59] watch the meeting from the conference room or being removed from the building

[2:02] altogether. To keep the space welcoming, inclusive,

[2:07] and accessible for everyone and to avoid disruptions, we ask that all comments be

[2:13] shared respectfully. for virtual testimony during the

[2:18] communication and non-aggenda items. Virtual testimony will only be taken by

[2:22] those who've pre-registered prior to 3 p.m. and testimony will be heard in the

[2:27] following order. Those who are in person, then those online who have

[2:32] pre-registered.

[2:35] All right, we'll move on to communications and non-aggenda items.

[2:40] First on the agenda is communication and non-aggenda items.

[2:45] If there is anyone in the audience and you wish to comment on a non-aggenda

[2:49] item, now is the time to do so. Please fill out the green card for public

[2:54] comment and hand it to our administrative team. When you're called

[2:58] on, please use the microphone at the public comment table.

[3:03] The microphone is live when the green light is on and you will have three

[3:07] minutes to provide your comment. If you feel you have to publicly express

[3:13] your support for a comment or viewpoint, we ask that you use a quiet and

[3:17] non-disruptive method such as snapping your fingers, a thumbs up, or jazz

[3:23] hands. Clapping, calling out, or making any verbal outbursts interferes with

[3:28] people's ability to hear clearly and these disruptions will not be tolerated.

[3:34] Again, to keep this space welcoming, inclusive, and accessible for everyone

[3:38] to avoid disruption, we ask that all comments be shared respectfully.

[3:46] Do we have anyone in the audience here to provide a communication or a

[3:50] non-aggenda item? All right, we have no one in person this

[3:56] evening. We will now see if there's anyone online pre-registered to provide

[4:00] comment. Bella, is there anyone online pre-registered to comment on a

[4:04] non-aggenda item? >> We do not have anyone pre-registered to

[4:08] comment this evening. >> Thank you so much. We have no one

[4:12] pre-registered to comment this evening.

[4:17] We'll move on to the next item on the agenda, approvable minutes. Approval of

[4:21] minutes, we have none. Consent agenda, we have none. And public hearing, we do

[4:27] not have one this evening. I'll move on to unfinished business. Our community

[4:32] development code amendment 004-26 data and energy storage. The applicant

[4:39] is the city of Hillsboro. Legal is non-applicable and the request is that

[4:44] this item was continued from the August 26, 2026 planning commission. We're here

[4:51] to consider making a recommendation to city council on a community development

[4:55] code amendment addressing data storage and energy storage use definitions and

[5:00] allowances. Order number 8502 is available.

[5:06] Does staff have any updates or additional information that you would

[5:09] like to submit? >> I do not other than the um revised or

[5:15] supplemental staff report that was published this afternoon.

[5:18] » Thank you so much, Rachel. Uh, we're ready for the staff report, please.

[5:50] Good evening, commissioners. Uh, this is Rachel Marble, code and policy project

[5:54] manager in community development. Um, this is a continuation of the community

[6:00] development code amendment for data and energy storage that we heard on August

[6:04] 26th. I want to give you um an update um verbal update. I I summarized in a staff

[6:11] report, but just cover what was revised since um we last met. Um just a reminder

[6:17] of um the items that there was cons consensus on as far as revisions that

[6:23] were requested by the commission um to come back to you all. Um those were

[6:29] further refining and clarifying the definitions, further limiting the size

[6:34] of data centers that are allowed as an accessory use. um bringing options for

[6:40] the a buffer or distancing requirements to schools and then uh considering a

[6:47] type three review for data centers and energy storage and generation as both a

[6:51] primary and accessory use. Um I did want to cover this uh a map

[6:58] correction. Um there this was summarized in this afternoon staff report as well.

[7:03] But um there was a mapping error on the previous mapping that was used for um

[7:09] both the presentation and then also for the public notice which was sent out for

[7:13] the community development code amendment. The properties that are shown

[7:17] on this map that are highlighted in purple um are zoned IP Industrial Park,

[7:23] but they have an overlay on them, the special industrial district. Um and

[7:28] because of that overlay in the mapping system, those properties were not um

[7:32] pulled as a part of the properties that received the public notice. Um so uh

[7:38] that that was noticed yesterday um during some preparation of an separate

[7:44] map. Um and as soon as we noticed that um prepared a correction, a revised

[7:49] notice that was sent out today to those property owners. Um there

[7:56] um were 19 property owners that um received the

[8:04] notice or will receive the notice today that was sent out today. Um it covered

[8:09] more properties than that, but there were some duplicates. So those property

[8:12] owners um had a property elsewhere that already was covered by the notice, and

[8:16] we don't typically send out duplicates um anyways, so they were already

[8:20] covered. Um that notice did clarify that the public hearing was already already

[8:26] occurred. Um but did provide information about the city council um first reading

[8:32] on October 6th extending the opportunity to them to com provide written comment

[8:38] prior to the decision or to um come in person to the October 6th uh city

[8:44] council meeting.

[8:48] Okay. Okay. So the first um item on um direction from you all that I will cover

[8:53] is the proposed buffers or distance requirements from schools. Um this map

[9:00] shows both the uh an option of a 500 foot buffer and an option of a thousand

[9:05] foot buffer from schools. Um the schools um the database for schools that was

[9:11] used to create this map was the same database that we use for our uh

[9:18] marijuana facilities in the city which also have buffer requirements. Um so

[9:24] those are public and private schools that serve um K through 12 and are

[9:28] certified um through the department of education. And this does include schools

[9:33] that are outside city limits but have overlap um with within the buffer where

[9:38] the buffer would overlap within the city. Um and um I'll zoom in a little

[9:44] bit because at that at that scale uh it is difficult to see. I'll point out that

[9:49] the the m large majority of our North Hillsboro industrial area does not have

[9:53] schools. um the area south of 26 um you know the large majority of it does not

[10:00] have any schools that that would um have a buffer requirement that would overlap

[10:04] it but there are um schools in the in north of Highway 26 that would overlap

[10:09] it. So I zoomed in a little bit so you could see a little at a a closer up

[10:13] scale what that would look like. Um, I wanted to clarify, um, just for

[10:19] your reference, um, it was in the written comment that, um, that the 500

[10:24] foot buffer wouldn't extend very far beyond an arterial roadway, uh,

[10:29] rightway. And I just wanted to for reference for what that distance would

[10:33] look like. Um, a fiveway in arterial uses 104t of rightway. So, a 500 foot

[10:39] buffer would be, you know, approximately five times the width of that street.

[10:42] would it would extend across a public rideway. Even our a five lane interior

[10:47] which is quite wide um and most uh most of these roads for

[10:52] example are not five lanes. Um so it would extend um beyond the rightway

[10:58] across the street and would impact um obviously developable properties but

[11:02] that's what these two buffers looks like. Um,

[11:07] and in consideration of the 500 and,000 ft, um, something to consider, um, I

[11:14] know you all you all asked for options to bring back. So, I, you know, brought

[11:18] these options back. I did want to um just

[11:23] um remind you all and point out again that the buffer distancing requirements

[11:28] were originally a part of the phase 2 code amendments as far as what was

[11:32] recommended. Uh and the the plan that was put together by staff and and um

[11:37] consensus was given by council. Um and part of the reason for that is that you

[11:42] know we intend to create these buffering requirements based on data based on

[11:48] facts. Um and we don't have necessarily factual support for why we would choose

[11:53] a buffer um at this distance at either of these distances at this time. Um

[11:59] we're hoping to gain information from the environmental analysis um on things

[12:04] such as noise, vibration um that that could very well inform meaningfully

[12:10] inform a buffer um you know from whether that's schools or natural areas, things

[12:16] like that. Um so just um you know the options were brought back but just to

[12:21] kind of level set and remind you all that that that is why it was a part of

[12:25] the phase 2 code amendments originally. May um may I ask a question and it's

[12:31] okay if we need a little bit more time which on the map on the previous slide

[12:36] which one is identifying the high school where there was the proposed data center

[12:42] to be built and if we don't know it now it's okay. Yeah, I can. It's actually on

[12:45] this zoomed in. It's the larger um area there in the kind of middle to the

[12:52] middle right of the screen. That's Liberty High School. Okay.

[12:55] » Um and it it's shown as both the main school property here and then two of the

[13:00] continuing education programs, CTE programs. Um one of which is across the

[13:06] street. So you can see that kind of like triangular wedge-shaped property. um is

[13:10] actually the bus transportation facility, but they do hold um CTE

[13:14] classes there. So, it's it's showing all of those properties combined. Um the

[13:20] proposed data center that did submit an application is on the south side of

[13:24] Wagon Way. Um so, south of this and uh both of

[13:29] those buffers at both 500 and 1,000 ft would um impact that property.

[13:37] » Thank you.

[13:42] like somebody got

[13:47] was chewing on the mic, but that's okay. Just

[13:53] so Wagon Way North is that's I IP. So the school was built in IP.

[14:01] » The school's actually zoned IG, Industrial General. Um but the

[14:06] surrounding properties are zoned IP industrial park.

[14:10] » Okay. And then south is where the other um proposed data center which has

[14:18] already been submitted as in for review. >> Correct. It was submitted uh prior to

[14:23] the moratorium being put in place. >> Okay. Thank you.

[14:30] One question. Can we clarify on this map where the proposed data center?

[14:35] » Where am I looking? >> Great. And so that Oh, sorry. Um that

[14:41] arrow or the mouse pointer is is on Liberty High School. Okay.

[14:44] » Or it was >> it's gone. Okay.

[14:47] » Um the approximate I mean this is not showing tax law locations, but the

[14:51] approximate um tax plot where the data center is proposed is approximately

[14:56] where my mouse is now hovering. >> Thank you for that. Sure.

[15:04] » Okay. Next, I'll talk about um the the size limitations for data centers as an

[15:09] accessory use. Um so the revisions in this staff report and in the code

[15:15] amendment um added a consideration for gross floor area in addition to the

[15:21] gross acreage requirement which was also uh lowered slightly. So the text now

[15:28] reads 25% of the gross acreage of the site or 30% of the gross floor area

[15:34] whichever is less. Um it also includes a clarification on the measurement of how

[15:39] we would u measure if you were um if you were defaulting to gross acreage rather

[15:44] than gross floor area and clarifies that that would be converted to floor area

[15:49] before the percentage was taken. um so that it's not building footprint but

[15:56] total floor area of the the data center accessory use. I wanted to provide um

[16:01] two other examples of um jurisdictions across the country that I was able to

[16:06] find that have accessory use limitations for data centers specifically. Um I was

[16:11] only able to find these two specifically and they both um were based on floor

[16:15] area. Um and they were both capped at 25% of the gross floor area. Um I'll

[16:20] give some examples. Uh, I wanted to give some examples to for your reference of

[16:24] what um of actual sites in Hillsboro um and what um that have data center uses

[16:32] on them and what those floor areas look like. Um so this building is Microsoft

[16:39] um it uh this is showing the only the first floor of that building. It's

[16:43] actually a three-story building. Um, this building is in the Amberllin area

[16:49] and it has a total gross floor area of 82,000 square feet. Um, their data

[16:53] center use is about 2% of the floor area. Um, and this this example is

[17:00] really more of the scale of a server room and not a data center because they

[17:04] don't have um kind of accessory equipment that's needed. The the cooling

[17:09] for the facility is just based on the um building itself. So like standard air

[17:14] conditioning. So at this scale, it's not really um a data center use. It's more

[17:19] of a server room use. The second example I have is the OSU

[17:24] West campus. I didn't highlight where on this uh campus the data center is

[17:28] because I um had a hard time uh finding that location. Dan is pointing it out

[17:33] that it's >> the dome here at the top. So we'll go

[17:37] with that. Um, so the total gross floor area of this site is around 126,000

[17:43] square feet and their current data center floor area is 21,000 square ft.

[17:47] So it's about 17% of the floor area. Um, and this um this floor area um was um

[17:55] really only looking at buildings on the site. Um there's a lot of different

[18:00] reporting in this case file because they they have some non-traditional buildings

[18:05] and structures on the site. Um but of the actual buildings on the site with a

[18:10] a floor area um it's about 17%.

[18:16] Uh and that is sorry a dedicated data center facility.

[18:22] The third example I have is uh is Verizon. This is the MEC building on

[18:27] Evergreen Road. It's a telecommunications facility. Um they

[18:31] expanded the build building a few years ago um for a data center, an accessory

[18:36] data center. Um and this data center um uses about 29% of the floor area of that

[18:42] building. Um the data center this this uh you know facility is um mostly switch

[18:49] gear um which enables telecommunications um and the data center uses accessory to

[18:56] that. Um so that's just three different examples of three varying sizes. Um you

[19:02] know I wanted to show uh you know different sizes of the facilities.

[19:06] They're obviously not all using um you know what is proposed to be allowed

[19:11] which is 30% but we do certainly have uses which are vital you know uses

[19:16] telecommunications facilities in the city that are using um you know 29%. So,

[19:22] um almost the full capacity of what what the current proposal is for their

[19:25] accessory use.

[19:30] Any questions about that piece?

[19:35] Okay, we'll circle back to questions at the end too.

[19:40] Um the third piece I wanted to talk about um was the energy storage and

[19:44] generation. Um this these changes were not a part of uh necessarily of the

[19:50] revisions the planning commission asked for at the last meeting. Um however

[19:55] during that meeting there was some testimony that referenced a land use

[19:59] board of appeals decision that happened the same day as our previous hearing and

[20:04] I let you all know that I would I would look at that and make sure that our code

[20:07] amendment was consistent with that. Um based on um that um and some kind of

[20:13] further research and feedback um I made some revisions to our energy the energy

[20:19] storage and generation code um to hopefully kind of broaden them and

[20:24] futureproof our code um so that it's not too narrow and too specific against you

[20:30] know uses that we're only seeing today. um you know essentially don't want to be

[20:34] in the same um same position in a few years that we're in right now with best

[20:39] facilities not being in the code. Um so the um previous original code text only

[20:46] reference battery energy storage systems and it's now been revised to broaden

[20:50] that to all energy storage systems. And that does also align the definition with

[20:56] the international fire code which uses just energy storage systems um in their

[21:01] definitions. Battery energy storage systems are an

[21:05] example of an energy storage system. Um and that's how it's classified in the

[21:09] fire code. Um and then the primary use for that um would be 12 acres of energy

[21:16] storage system. that that acreage limitation did not change, but again um

[21:20] it was broadened to represent energy storage systems in general, not just

[21:24] battery energy storage systems.

[21:29] And then um there also were some changes to um the uh accessory use of energy

[21:37] storage and generation proposal. Um, this version removed the limitation that

[21:43] was previously six capped at six acres, 30% of the site or six acres. Um, and it

[21:49] was previously limited to solar energy um, solar energy systems.

[21:54] And instead it applied that limitation to renewable energy generation in

[21:59] general. um and that was to better align the use category and the definitions

[22:05] with the Oregon Department of Energy and to um more broadly define that so that

[22:11] um in the event that there are other types of energy generation that come

[22:15] into play in the future that we've covered them in the code. Um so this and

[22:21] this was um again the 30% of gross acreage was not refined. It was left the

[22:27] same but that six acre cap was removed. The exemptions also did not change.

[22:33] Um, part of the reason for the removal of that 6acre cap is just that um, you

[22:39] know, staff felt that it didn't really align with the intention of the of our

[22:44] amendment in this area, which was to um, limit it as a primary use to reserve and

[22:53] preserve industrial land, employment land for that use. um and to instead

[22:58] encourage collocation of those facilities. Um so those facilities being

[23:03] an accessory use on a site um where they could be appropriately located um where

[23:08] there's land that's um you know available um accessory to another use

[23:13] whether that's an industrial use or a utility use. um but to really encourage

[23:18] collocation and that limitation to being that low with a six acreage cap didn't

[23:25] really account for larger sites. Um obviously 30% of you know if it's a

[23:30] 6acre cap 30% is around 18 19 acres total. So, it really was limiting for

[23:36] larger sites that have energy storage and generation on site.

[23:45] » Ask a quick question about that. Um, is there any I don't think I saw

[23:51] anything that like states like is there like a certain

[23:55] distance for a collocation where it has to be from the main location or is that

[24:01] something that's I I just don't remember seeing that in the post. So I don't it

[24:06] might be there and I might have overlooked it.

[24:10] So for this accessory use it would have to be on site as a primary use the same

[24:15] site >> for the collocation sites.

[24:19] » Yes. >> Okay.

[24:21] » For for accessory use. Um the collocation.

[24:25] » Yeah. The sorry the the sorry to interrupt. The collocation piece here is

[24:29] is referencing collocation with utility facilities. Um, so there's an exemption

[24:34] in there that that doesn't limit acreage for collocation with other utility

[24:39] facilities. So, for example, if um PGE was citing battery energy or energy

[24:45] storage systems um in a um power line corridor um a transmission corridor,

[24:53] something like that, we wouldn't apply this acreage total. Um the reason for

[24:58] that is that's an appropriate collocation of that type of facility.

[25:01] It's it's land that um cannot really otherwise be used because of the

[25:06] transmission facility. Um so it's not um using uh employment land for that

[25:12] collocation use. So in those circumstances it would be colllocated

[25:16] with a utility facility and that's um that's the utility facility there is um

[25:22] is broad and is pointing to our utility facility use category which includes

[25:26] other things besides uh power as a utility. It includes other types of

[25:31] utility facilities um like uh water um systems and storm and sanitary systems.

[25:38] So it's really meant to um encourage collocation with those with with broadly

[25:45] with utility facilities in general. >> Okay. Thank you for clearing that up for

[25:50] me. >> Can I have a clarification of CF?

[25:56] » Yes. Sorry I shortened that. Um but yes um in the code that is spelled out. So

[26:01] um we also put an exemption in there for um sites that are using the climate

[26:08] friendly and equitable communities. Um so not using that uh climate friendly

[26:12] and equitable communities introduced requirements in the code for um parking

[26:17] lot design and one of the options for the climate actions in those um to

[26:22] mitigate to help mitigate for parking lots is to provide solar um generation

[26:27] on site. So, where an applicant is electing to use that as a um a

[26:33] mitigation measure for climate friendly and equitable communities, uh we didn't

[26:38] want to have that cap on there because it is um a requirement from the state to

[26:43] meet those CFAC or climate friendly and equitable communities requirements. So,

[26:49] um we didn't want to remove that as an option and not have applicants be able

[26:53] to meet their parking lot design standards.

[27:01] I I just kind of have a clarifying question. Um

[27:05] and and maybe you explain this and I just didn't catch it. What objective

[27:09] threshold would cause uh the best or s whatever we're going with now to be

[27:15] considered a primary use rather than an accessory use?

[27:19] » So if it was the if it was a standalone use on a site, if there was no other use

[27:22] proposed. So we have um currently one standalone best facility in the city um

[27:29] where it was proposed and there's nothing else on the site. It's just a

[27:32] best facility. So it's a primary use of a site. Um if it was being colllocated,

[27:36] it was accessory to another primary use of a site. That's where the the

[27:40] limitation would come into play. The different difference of limitation I

[27:44] should say. >> Okay. So if there's any other um

[27:47] industry industry on that land then the that would then become an accessory use

[27:52] no matter how large or small it is. >> Correct. It would Yeah. If it wasn't a

[27:56] primary use of a site. Yeah. >> Okay. Is there possibility that we need

[28:00] to define that threshold a little bit more in case that could be used as a

[28:04] loophole in the future? Um I mean it's not the the loophole I guess this in

[28:11] this case or as described is going kind of the opposite direction because we are

[28:17] putting a hard cap of 12 acres on a on energy storage systems as a primary use.

[28:23] Um and the again the purpose of that is is to um acknowledge that we have

[28:28] limited industrial and employment land that we would like to preserve for a

[28:33] variety of other uses. um when it's being uh colllocated and

[28:38] it's an accessory use to an industry, we're acknowledging that we um are in

[28:43] favor of that collocation. Um and you know, we uh we have um both statewide

[28:50] and local climate um goals that we are aiming to meet. And so we're not we're

[28:56] not trying to prohibit that use or overly be overly restrictive. We're just

[29:00] trying to encourage that it be accessory and colllocated and be in an appropriate

[29:05] location. Um so again that's um if you you know there would be

[29:12] a scenario in which you were using it as an accessory use if you had a large site

[29:16] that you would you could have more than 12 acres which is more than a primary

[29:20] use. But the point there is that that would be a large site where they have

[29:25] land that they would like to use for energy generation, but it's not the

[29:29] primary use on the site. They have a, you know, an industrial use, a

[29:33] manufacturing use, an office use, something else on site, and it's being

[29:39] colllocated accessory to that other use. So, um, yes, it's not a hard there's not

[29:45] the hard cap has been removed to acknowledge that that we want to

[29:48] encourage it to be an accessory use. Um, because again, we want to encourage

[29:53] these facilities to be appropriately cited within the city. We're not trying

[29:57] to prohibit them entirely. Um, but um, yes, there could be a scenario in which

[30:03] it an accessory use if it's a large site could be larger than the allowable

[30:07] primary use. Maybe I I I just haven't seen all the

[30:12] code, but is there any definition in there to clarify um grid serving versus

[30:18] non-grid serving in that regard then? So, what if somebody had a huge plot of

[30:23] land and they decided to just build a small building on it for their primary

[30:27] use and then they were capping out that 30 percentile of that gross acreage um

[30:33] for for something that's not even grid serving.

[30:36] » Yeah. I mean there's not there was originally when

[30:40] many weeks ago when the original code was drafted that there was some language

[30:44] in there about um the connection and it being grid serving versus non-grid

[30:49] serving um kind of back of meter front of meter type language. um our utility

[30:54] partner have made some recommendations against including that language because

[30:58] really at any size uh a best facility could be grid serving um that we have

[31:04] small best facilities in Hillsboro that are utilized by the larger grid um

[31:10] during um during situations where they're not able to provide adequate

[31:15] power. I mean the entire yeah the point of the best facility is that that power

[31:19] is stored uh it's generated whenever there's an access of power and then used

[31:24] when there's not enough to or dealing with transmission issues. So um

[31:31] there wasn't really a size at which the our utility partner said you know this

[31:36] is grid serving this is not grid serving um because even small facilities can be

[31:40] grid serving in times of need by PGE.

[31:47] Um Dan is attempting to speak but is unable.

[31:49] » Energy storage solution.

[31:56] » Good evening commission. Thank you. power is important in this community.

[32:00] Um, one additional piece I just wanted to add to what Rachel shared and to the

[32:04] commissioner's question is when we start to get into situations where energy

[32:09] storage or generation is going back into the grid beyond just that single user

[32:13] that it's accessory to site, we get into regulated utility space which is outside

[32:20] of the city's land use perview and control as well. And so that typically

[32:24] gets regulated by the Oregon Public Utilities Commission and other

[32:27] requirements there. So the one additional piece I just wanted to add is

[32:30] Rachel's speaking to our local code, how we're trying to define these things from

[32:33] a land use regulation standpoint, but I'm definitely sensing that part of the

[32:37] question is well what happens if they start to like serve as a standalone more

[32:41] utilitarian function. The approach that staff is is

[32:45] recommending here is some of that would be appropriately directed by local land

[32:49] use code. there is a separate set of regulations that would also dictate and

[32:53] determine some of that based on state level power regulations as well. So I

[32:57] just wanted to flag that as well and that's different than if I'm a single

[33:00] entity and I put a battery pack in my house that's supporting my house versus

[33:04] I'm going to put a battery pack in my house that is now benefiting the entire

[33:07] rate payers of of the utility. Those get handled differently as well just as an

[33:11] example. So adding that into the response for the commission's

[33:14] consideration. >> Appreciate that. Thank you.

[33:25] Okay. Um so moving back to revisions at the planning commission's request. The

[33:30] type three review being required was requested um by you all to come back as

[33:36] a code revision. Um the revised code does um include this. So it includes two

[33:43] different um types of reviews. uh the first being for data centers which would

[33:47] be a type three development review and then for energy storage and generation a

[33:52] type three conditional use uh review. Both of those applications um in the

[33:57] summary of procedures um both of those applications would be reviewed by the

[34:01] planning and zoning hearings board and would be appealable locally to city

[34:05] council.

[34:10] question uh

[34:18] planning and zoning board versus the planning commission. What's the subtlety

[34:21] there that I'm missing? >> The planning and zoning hearings board

[34:26] um you know when you look at the charter for the boards and commissions both of

[34:31] both the planning commission and the planning and zoning hearings board

[34:33] review qualified judicial decisions um review land use decisions. So there's

[34:37] not necessarily a distinction there. However, the type of applications that

[34:41] typically go to the planning and zoning hearings board are typically

[34:44] applications that are more um technical in nature or have um have considerations

[34:50] or impacts that that need to be considered during the discretionary

[34:55] process. Um so some examples of of things that would go would be um

[35:01] conditional use applications that of like cell towers for example. Um there's

[35:06] often there's pieces of that that they need to show that they're um mitigating

[35:11] impacts of those um facilities, whether that's things like traffic. Assembly

[35:17] facilities are another example of things that typically go to the planning and

[35:20] zoning hearings board. Um in some cases they come to the planning commission

[35:24] when they're um combined with a a review that requires adjustments, major

[35:30] adjustments. We've seen some of those recently. Um but the kind of standalone

[35:35] application without requesting adjustments, those typically go to the

[35:38] planning and zoning hearings board. Um the process is exactly the same. The

[35:44] quasi judicial land use um requirements for both of those hearings boards are

[35:49] the same. Um the noticing requirements are the same and kind of the procedural

[35:54] steps during the quasi judicial hearing um are the same. um that the planning

[36:00] and zoning hearings board is also chaired by a hearings officer who is a

[36:04] land use attorney um and also other um board members um that are appointed just

[36:11] like the planning commission. Um so typically applications that have a more

[36:16] technical review and applications that have um acknowledged impacts um have

[36:22] have gone to the planning and zoning hearings board.

[36:28] clarification. How often do they meet? >> The planning and zoning hearings board

[36:32] has the same um cadence as the planning commission. It's twice a month. Okay.

[36:36] » Um those meetings because they have historically had less applications than

[36:41] the planning commission often end up getting cancelled, but they have the

[36:44] same regularly scheduled uh cadence as planning commission.

[36:48] » And so there's still a public hearing option.

[36:50] » Correct. Yeah, it's still a public hearing. Um public comment is public

[36:54] testimony is taken the same way. Um, you know, all of the same proceedings um and

[36:59] requirements, the same quasi judicial land use requirements that apply here

[37:04] also apply at the planning and zoning hearings board.

[37:08] » Do we need to give them a gift? >> One additional piece I'll just add is

[37:11] it's been asserted um that part of the request from the public is to make it a

[37:17] type three at risk of rubber stamping or just administrative processing. While I

[37:22] think that that can be dispate debated and disputed, not going to do that at

[37:25] this time this evening. The other unique piece about the planning and zoning

[37:29] hearings board of the decision maker is the hearings officer typically drafts

[37:32] that decision and findings ultimately rendering that decision. So that further

[37:36] puts the decision creation in the hands of of an additional third party not in

[37:42] that of staff.

[37:52] Okay. Um

[37:57] um so then lastly, um this this was not a consensus item, but was brought up

[38:02] during planning commission discussion previously, so I wanted to just touch on

[38:06] it lightly. There was a question about water usage and regulating water usage

[38:10] um and kind of the idea or introduction of water usage limitations. Um, and I

[38:16] just wanted to bring that back to you all after some reflection um, and

[38:21] consideration that just to let you all know that our city charter does

[38:25] explicitly give authority over the operation of the city water system to

[38:30] the utilities commission. Um, so uh, consideration of like li hard limits on

[38:37] water usage or things like that would um would be the responsibility of the

[38:42] utilities commission not the planning commission. Um there may be some

[38:46] additional um more like on-site design requirements that we could consider

[38:52] during phase two such as requiring a closed loop water system on site. Um and

[38:56] those are the the on-site types of things that we would we would discuss

[39:00] during phase two. Again informed by that environmental analysis that's occurring

[39:06] uh and you know informed by the recommendations that come out of that

[39:09] process.

[39:14] Okay, lastly, just an update on the schedule. Just to let you all know that

[39:18] um the schedule for city council has just changed slightly. The first reading

[39:24] will now be October 6th, and the second reading will be October 20th. Um it was

[39:28] originally scheduled for September 15th, which is next Tuesday. Um it is just

[39:33] cutting it too close and narrow um with preparation of the staff report for city

[39:39] council. So, um that was a slight change in the schedule. It'll just be delayed

[39:43] to essentially one city council meeting um as far as the first and second

[39:48] reading at city council. And with that, I am happy to answer any

[39:53] questions you have.

[40:02] Commissioner Gillow, uh we received uh from you and the staff a

[40:07] packet here uh at the commission and uh it's not necessarily clear to me that

[40:18] I'll just say your your cover memo uh

[40:24] was there specifically to address or just to further refine the staff's

[40:29] position versus the attachments uh of comments

[40:35] uh from v various entities. So I'm I want to get some clarification if that's

[40:40] possible. >> Um yeah, were there specific were are

[40:45] you asking if there are specific comments that were raised in the written

[40:49] testimony that we addressed or need to address?

[40:52] » Yes. Um I think that the points that were raised that are kind of new points

[41:00] and questions were um addressed in the either the revisions or the um or the uh

[41:08] additional staff report this afternoon. Um maybe in going through

[41:15] um there was one additional piece I was going to touch on during energy storage

[41:19] and generation that I will touch on now. Um there was some written comment um

[41:24] that recommended that there be a motion to explicitly

[41:30] um prohibit nuclear energy generation in the code. And just to provide

[41:35] clarification to you all on that um that was not included in the revisions um

[41:40] because nuclear energy generation is prohibited outright in the state of

[41:44] Oregon entirely. Um so that's not a consideration we felt we needed to

[41:48] regulate locally. Um other than that um you know there was various various

[41:53] testimony that was attached um and both for and against kind of different pieces

[41:59] of the code amendment. Um I feel like the some of the overall sentiments were

[42:04] that um you know industry is not necessarily

[42:09] um industry and um kind of advocacy agencies weren't necessarily against the

[42:15] amendments entirely but wanted to kind of advise caution to the commission to

[42:20] not be too not be not unreasonably restrict these uses um on and that

[42:26] included testimony on both data centers and energy the energy storage and

[42:30] generation side. Um I felt like uh some of the concerns

[42:36] particularly about energy storage and generation were addressed in the re

[42:40] revised code that was published. Um so I didn't provide kind of any further

[42:43] clarification on that but just uh to reinforce that um that some of those

[42:49] reasonings that were pointed out for energy storage and generation and its

[42:53] positive impacts to the energy grid for example um those were um agreed agre

[43:00] agreements by staff and those were things that were considered when the der

[43:04] revised draft was published. Um so that's again kind of furthering you know

[43:09] why some of those limitations were rolled back in the revised code

[43:13] language. So back to the one comment so that it's

[43:18] clear. Um we've heard about well I won't say we I have heard about this comment

[43:26] of small packaged modular reactors.

[43:32] And what you just told me is that they're not allowed in the state of

[43:35] Oregon. Or if they are to be allowed, then it would not be just the city of

[43:42] Hillsboro require what require some other type of regulatory

[43:48] review or >> right I mean those would be regulated as

[43:50] energy facilities per the um Oregon Department of Energy. Um there's a

[43:56] prohibition statewide on nuclear generation that requires um that

[44:04] disposal and decommissioning of those facilities be addressed prior to being

[44:08] allowed in the state. So, if that were to be a consideration, that's something

[44:12] we would be would have plenty of heads up on and something that we could

[44:17] incorporate into the code if needed, but it's not something that's that's that

[44:21] needs to be addressed at this time because there's a statewide prohibition

[44:24] on it. >> Okay. Um, my next area is,

[44:29] and I'm not sure if this is a question of how many angels can dance on a on a

[44:34] pin, but there seems to be some philosophical agreement about we're

[44:40] using gross acreage and whether or not we should be using net developable

[44:44] acreage. So, I'd like to hear some of the staff's comments about that.

[44:48] Normally we don't take into consideration

[44:53] uh acquish that's not developable but for

[44:57] the purposes of the draft that we have we are considering that area so what

[45:03] where is the staff's position on that should we should it be further refined

[45:08] should we leave it at gross or this is not something at this point

[45:14] that's worth worrying I hate to say that worth worrying about at this point

[45:18] perhaps in phase two. It's kind of an open question and a

[45:23] comment Rachel and be >> sure and yeah so um I mean there is

[45:28] growth just mentioned in both the data center accessory use and the energy

[45:32] storage and generation accessory use piece. Um, I will say that for the

[45:37] majority of circumstances on the data center side of it, um, when I looked at

[45:43] sites in Hillsboro, um, the majority of them are going to

[45:47] end up being limited by gross floor area because that number is typically lower

[45:51] than the gross acreage side. Where that flips is when we have small sites with

[45:57] really high gross floor area buildings. Um, I think the one example I gave in

[46:03] the staff report was Hillsboro Medical Center. That's an urban site and it's

[46:08] very compact, but it's a six-story building, so it's a lot of square

[46:11] footage. Um, so their their acreage actually is, if they were to use that

[46:17] limitation, it actually limits it more than the floor area limitation. Um, and

[46:23] that's really the scenario in which it's going to default to acreage.

[46:28] Nine times out of 10, it's going to default to the square footage because

[46:32] the square footage the square footage of the of the or the floor area of the

[46:37] buildings is going to result in a lower number. Um, so the reason the acreage

[46:43] was left in for the data center piece of it was exactly for the scenario I just

[46:47] described where you have a very compact site but a high um floor area building

[46:53] on site. Um but but for the most part um in most scenarios the numbers when I run

[47:00] the calculations of existing you know buildings in Hillsboro and what what

[47:04] would likely be constructed it's going to most likely fall to the gross floor

[47:09] area of the building because that's going to result in a smaller number and

[47:12] the code clarifies whichever is less. So um it it defaults to whatever number

[47:18] would get you less. The reason gross acreage is um helpful in some scenarios

[47:26] is that um we have a definition for um net acreage in the code and it includes

[47:35] a lot of elements besides um wetlands or natural resources or flood plane even.

[47:42] um things like fire access easements are included in net acreage and some of

[47:47] those things um aren't determined kind of at the beginning of the development

[47:50] process but during the development process. So it's easier to look at a

[47:54] site and understand what that percentage acreage looks like when you're basing it

[47:59] on gross acreage. And again, most of the time that number is going to be larger

[48:05] than the floor area number. Um so it's going to end up defaulting to the floor

[48:09] area number for the and the intention is not to say that um we're using gross

[48:16] acreage because we're considering that other undevelopable area an area that

[48:22] could be developed by these uses. Um it's to look at the site holistically

[48:27] and to say here's how much acreage you have on a site. If you're if you're

[48:31] maxing it out, here's what that would look like. um it's easier to get to that

[48:35] number at the beginning of a development process and understand what's possible

[48:39] for a site with gross acreage than it is with net acreage. Um there's also things

[48:43] that come up during the development process like right-of-way dedication and

[48:47] those are netted out again of acreage. So that number would kind of be a moving

[48:51] target during the development process. >> Okay.

[48:57] The only other question I have, I don't really have a question, but for the

[49:00] planning commissioners, having read the staff's comments and seen the graphic on

[49:06] the 500 ft versus the,000 ft, u my reaction is since we don't have

[49:16] potentially everything that we would like to have in front of us,

[49:20] phase two, if you will, um, at least I'll speak for myself, my

[49:26] inclin explanation is to go with the 500 ft issue leaving open the possibility

[49:32] that when phase two information comes back

[49:37] I kind of reserve the right to advocate for 1,000 ft but I think at this point

[49:42] we have very little and I think at least from my perspective 500 ft

[49:50] sounds would appear to be reasonable um if you look at the map and where

[49:55] additional debt data centers can't happen versus where schools are.

[50:02] There doesn't appear to be a lot to argue over and I certainly would respect

[50:08] commissioners if they disagree with me, but

[50:11] it's kind of hard to argue over nothing.

[50:20] Oh, Vice President, thank you. Uh, hi Rachel. Uh for the

[50:26] record, Commissioner Justin Low just wanted to note uh apologies. I was

[50:30] unable to attend uh the first uh meeting on this uh code amendment, but I was

[50:37] able to get up to speed with the materials uh ahead of this meeting and

[50:41] I'm prepared for the conversation and I have had no exparte contacts or bias on

[50:47] this topic um and no more information than I think the rest of you all coming

[50:52] into this meeting. uh and the folks who have participated in the public

[50:56] hearings. Um I have one comment on what Commissioner

[51:02] Gillow mentioned. I know that this is for phase two, so I apologize, but I

[51:10] I guess I'm inclined to respectfully have a different opinion um on the 500

[51:18] versus,000 ft. uh you know I'm I think I might air towards starting at 1,000 and

[51:26] then once having more information reserving the ability to I guess scale

[51:32] that back if appropriate and needed. the the reason why I'm inclined on airing

[51:39] for a larger buffer is just if I'm remembering correctly from what Rachel

[51:44] pointed out uh on the maps earlier when it came to Liberty High School and that

[51:50] one proposed data center that was going to be just south of it based on where

[51:55] the uh mouse pointer landed it seemed like it actually fit within the 500 ft

[52:02] buffer unless I have that incorrect Correct. No.

[52:10] » Um, sorry, I can pull it back up, but um, no, that property would be impacted

[52:14] by both the 500 and,000 foot buffers. But just to be clear, that property

[52:19] submitted a land use application prior to the moratorum and it's in review now.

[52:23] So, it would not be subject to the buffers at all.

[52:26] » Okay. Then if that is inappropriate to appine

[52:32] on, then I'd just stand by my first comment of starting big and then waiting

[52:38] for further information. Um, going to the materials that were

[52:44] submitted in uh the packet that was given to us. Uh, this was under the same

[52:51] topic of net developable acreage versus gross acreage. I have one curiosity

[52:58] about one of the solutions that was proposed uh through this public comment

[53:04] and that was regarding

[53:09] not to exceed a maximum ceiling of 30,000 square ft. And maybe I'm getting

[53:16] semantics wrong here and they're talking about a metaphorical ceiling of total uh

[53:23] square feet on a floor. But one of the things that I thought about upon reading

[53:28] this comment is whether we have any sort of cap or limitation on the height of

[53:35] such machinery within a um I guess s now instead of best cuz I

[53:43] can imagine something that takes up uh square footage or acreage what have

[53:50] you and it going wide but being short or something. Maybe trying to skirt the

[53:56] intent of the code that we're developing here by being more narrow and small, but

[54:02] building high and that still being uh you know uh obstructive, intrusive,

[54:10] and potentially a nuisance, but yet somehow landing within the confines of

[54:16] what we're building here. And maybe I'm misunderstanding some of the definitions

[54:21] of how uh gross uh acreage works. >> Sure. So um I I think that the 30,000

[54:30] square foot um suggestion in the um public testimony was referring to the

[54:36] data centers, not the energy storage systems. But um it sounds like your

[54:41] question is is maybe more about the energy storage systems. Um, so I'm not

[54:47] an expert in how they're constructed. Um, I can tell you that all of the

[54:52] current energy storage systems in Hillsboro that have been reviewed or

[54:57] approved um, are single story and open air in the sense

[55:04] that they are not contained within a building. Um,

[55:09] so and they're subject they're subject to the same height limitations as

[55:12] anything in those zones. So um that equipment has the same height

[55:17] restrictions that anything anyone that wanted to construct a building in the

[55:21] same zones would have. Um so there are height restrictions in each of the

[55:25] zones. Um and they are subject to those height restrictions. Um

[55:30] I will say the clarification for the um data center gross uh gross acreage that

[55:40] it's converted to square footage first and then the 30% is applied or 25% is

[55:45] applied. Um that clarification is not put in there for the energy storage

[55:49] systems but could be um if you're wanting to clarify that they get um you

[55:55] know a num amount of acreage that could be expressed as

[56:00] floor area or square footage I guess not floor area because like I said those

[56:04] those typically aren't within buildings um but probably could be um so it would

[56:09] be could be clarified that they be um they be calculated based on square feet.

[56:17] Um, so that you're not saying it's a 30% acreage footprint and they could go up

[56:23] from there, but a 30% acreage square footage cap. I don't know if I explained

[56:28] that well. >> Uh, I'm understanding where you're going

[56:32] with that because then that would look at it three-dimensionally rather than

[56:36] just the floor that it takes up on the ground level.

[56:40] » Sure. Yeah. >> Yeah. I I'll process that. I don't have

[56:44] an opinion on that right now, but I appreciate you offering a solution.

[56:52] » Commissioner Davis, again, um I wanted to

[56:58] speak about the the buffer zones as well since that was um especially brought up

[57:03] earlier in in the staff portion of it. And and to also touch on uh Commissioner

[57:08] Gillow's comments as well. Um earlier during the presentation um you were

[57:14] speaking about there's not really anything fact-based to base buffer zones

[57:18] off of. So that just raised some questions with me. Um what other types

[57:24] of developments or businesses do we have

[57:28] buffer zones with besides marijuana right now?

[57:33] » Um that's it. um marijuana facilities, both retail and

[57:39] um there's some limitations as well on like production processing facilities.

[57:44] Um but those are the only uses in the code that we have buffers from other

[57:49] types of uses. Um besides there's a couple of places in the code where we

[57:54] have some kind of additional um additional requirements or setbacks for

[57:59] like industrial properties that abut residential. um those are baked into

[58:02] like the base zones themselves um not not use specific.

[58:08] » Okay. Uh do you know what the factbased um criteria are for marijuana buffer

[58:14] zones? >> Um that is a good question and I do not

[58:21] um the thousand foot buffer from schools is for retail marijuana facilities. Um

[58:29] there's there's other buffers um for the processing, but the one from schools

[58:34] specifically is for retail facilities. And my if I had to guess um you know,

[58:39] back in the day when we adopted those, um it was to limit access to underage,

[58:45] you know, potential purchasers at a retail

[58:49] facility to make the make the dispensaries essentially farther away

[58:52] from kids. >> Okay. So, I'm just kind of playing

[58:55] devil's advocate. It's based off of potential,

[58:59] then that wouldn't really be fact-based, correct? That' just be a potential. So,

[59:04] we could kind of say the same thing here with data centers or battery storage or

[59:08] energy storage uh as well. Um, you know, we don't know exactly what all the

[59:13] concerns are yet. And there may be concerns that we don't know about now.

[59:17] even through studies that that could come out 10, 15, 20 years down the road,

[59:22] we find out, hey, these things are emitting some sort of radiation or, you

[59:25] know, something like I'm not saying insinuating that that's the case, but we

[59:29] don't know that now. So, especially with schools where children are, you know,

[59:34] our future, I I tend to air on the side of caution. And so that's where I would

[59:40] kind of stand on that is, you know, I would I would at this point want to

[59:45] extend it a little further out and then if something in the future says, hey, it

[59:49] doesn't need to be that far out, then then maybe we can peel it back then. So

[59:53] that's kind of where I would stand on that.

[59:58] I I would stand on a thousand on that. Yeah.

[1:00:03] » Commissioner Jackson. >> Yeah. Hi, Commissioner Jackson here. Um,

[1:00:08] I second the thousand feet and I agree with Commissioner Davis. Um, because

[1:00:16] to my knowledge, I don't think there's anything fact-based that is required for

[1:00:21] the marijuana use. I think that just happened to be something honestly to

[1:00:25] appease parents not wanting to have that as a potential option. Um,

[1:00:32] and I think that if we're just out of

[1:00:37] precaution, especially in that space, I think it would be a good start like the

[1:00:41] others mentioned, and then when we get more information, we could peel that

[1:00:45] back. But I think at 1,000 ft is a good starter for that. Um, I did have a

[1:00:50] question. one of the one of the um testimony that was submitted mentioned

[1:00:57] um agreement transfers that was added and

[1:01:03] could you let define what that means and how that applies to the code amendment?

[1:01:11] » Sorry, could you repeat the question? Oh yeah, it was one of the um submitted

[1:01:16] testimonies had mentioned um that there were um agreement transfers and that

[1:01:23] they had gone through the transcripts of city council and it had been one of the

[1:01:26] recommendations, but it had been something added to the amendments. So I

[1:01:30] just wanted to get a definition on what that means um what the agreement

[1:01:34] transfers are and what that is and how it applies to the code amendment.

[1:01:40] » Yeah. So, the accessory use um provision that's in there that allows transfer of

[1:01:46] that accessory use um wasn't revised with this um second revision code

[1:01:52] amendment package. Um this is something that was discussed at the city council

[1:01:57] work session on July

[1:02:02] 20th. 21st 20th

[1:02:09] » July 21st. Thanks, Dan. Um, it was discussed in July 21st. Um, to clarify,

[1:02:15] it's something that council asked that staff look into and um, look into

[1:02:21] specifically for phase 2. Um, based on conversations with um, industry

[1:02:27] partners, stakeholders, um, we brought that forward for consideration during

[1:02:32] phase one um, with the acknowledgement that that would be reviewed during this

[1:02:36] public hearing process. Um, so it was discussed and was brought up

[1:02:40] specifically by a city counselor during that July 21st work session. Um, towards

[1:02:46] the end, very end of that work session. So I believe that's like five hour

[1:02:50] recording. So it's it's towards the end of that five hours. Um, but was a

[1:02:55] concept that was brought up by a city councelor.

[1:02:59] » Okay. Thank you. >> And and then sorry just also

[1:03:03] » I'll clarify. >> Oh, go ahead. Um, I just do want to

[1:03:05] clarify one part uh to the previous question around the buffering related to

[1:03:09] the marijuana facilities. I went back and double checked just so we can give

[1:03:11] you fact-based accurate answers to this important deliberation you have in front

[1:03:15] of you. And the thousand foot buffer originated from requirements in state

[1:03:19] law. Uh, and I confirmed the RS section. That's why I was waiting to make sure

[1:03:23] before I corrected our great staff. It's an OS 475C that stipulates that. And so

[1:03:28] when we were going through the local land use policy process, there were

[1:03:32] different buffers that were considered as part of that. Ultimately, the

[1:03:35] thousand foot buffer came into play to comply with the minimum required

[1:03:39] buffering as imposed by state law for those facilities when they were

[1:03:41] legalized in the state level at the time. So I again not trying to persuade

[1:03:45] the the commission one way or another in your deliberations, just bring facts to

[1:03:48] bear uh in terms of some of the questions and the considerations that

[1:03:51] you're sharing. Hope that clarification is helpful.

[1:04:03] to further Commissioner Gillow to further clarify the transfer. Um,

[1:04:09] if property A has some or all

[1:04:16] uh of the ability to transfer to

[1:04:22] parcel B. um can parse B then in their

[1:04:27] calculations exceed their own calculations

[1:04:31] in terms of what their square footage could be for an

[1:04:37] accessorary. Am I making sense there?

[1:04:41] » I Yes. So I think you're asking if that um accessory use square footage would be

[1:04:48] added to the site's own allowable square footage.

[1:04:52] Well, if if parcel A has something that they want to move to parcel B

[1:04:58] and parcel B under its own calculation has a number.

[1:05:06] Can the number that's being transferred from parcel A over to parcel B exceed

[1:05:11] parcel B's calculation? >> So they would be they would be

[1:05:15] calculated separately. So it would be based on the building floor area of each

[1:05:20] of those sites. So if if um you know site A had 100,000 square feet of

[1:05:26] building and site B also had 100 square thousand square feet of building um they

[1:05:31] would each be afforded the 25% right >> um in floor area. So the yeah the

[1:05:37] intention there is you know if there's a site that if if if an industry um or

[1:05:43] company has multiple sites and they want to centralize their data storage at one

[1:05:48] site um that they would be able to do so. So yes, that the site that it's

[1:05:52] being transferred to could end up with um more than its own allowable because

[1:05:58] it's been transferred. Um there's also a clarification too in there just just for

[1:06:03] like further clarification that that would be reviewed through the

[1:06:06] development review process which is a type three review. Um, and so, uh,

[1:06:12] there's also been, uh, a note added as far as approval and compliance with that

[1:06:18] review and that it would be conditioned to show compliance with that, um,

[1:06:23] regularly. I think there's not, um, exact reporting requirements put in

[1:06:27] there, but um, they would have to demonstrate that, um, that that hasn't

[1:06:31] changed during operations of the site. And there depending on what partial A

[1:06:37] and B are, there could be the requirement for separation of accounting

[1:06:40] because the transferred data center capacity must still be for the use and

[1:06:45] support of the transferring entity. And so if it was being transferred to

[1:06:49] another site maybe where there's a generalized collocation data center we

[1:06:53] would have to account for the applicant would have to account for and we would

[1:06:57] have to review as would the planning zoning hearings board in terms of the

[1:07:00] way the code's currently proposed account for those two separate square

[1:07:03] footage blocks.

[1:07:11] Uh thank you all for the research on how there's an Oregon revised statute that

[1:07:17] talks about the thousand foot buffer uh because of for marijuana retail

[1:07:22] facilities and it sounds like maybe we're ahead of that in in our attempt to

[1:07:29] create a buffer zone for data centers. And my question now is when we get the

[1:07:35] environmental analysis, do we have an opportunity to revisit uh this buffer

[1:07:42] zone and and clarify that?

[1:07:47] » Um yes. So any of these um code code provisions and amendments that are being

[1:07:53] put in place now, any of them could be revisited during phase two. um if there

[1:07:58] is information that comes to light through those analyses that warrants a

[1:08:03] second look whether that's you know the buffer requirements or the accessory use

[1:08:08] limitations or really anything that's in this first I mean the code in general is

[1:08:13] a living document and is is made to be updated and revised to be um consistent

[1:08:18] with our goals and policies so it's not static um and so any of this could be

[1:08:24] looked at again during phase two if there's new information that comes to

[1:08:28] Um I think the point um that I would make um you know not again not to be

[1:08:37] attempting to compel you one way or another, but um

[1:08:43] our adoption of a buffer um now should be based on adequate fact an adequate

[1:08:49] factual basis. Um and and if there is not, you know, a finding that

[1:08:55] demonstrates um the need for it now, um you know, it could could put our

[1:09:01] amendment in its entirety at legal risk. Um that is kind of the the the point in

[1:09:06] the staff report today. Um not to say that it's um you know, making it you

[1:09:14] know, not um legitimate or something like that. Um it's just that you know as

[1:09:20] are as are any pieces of this code amendment um you know it anyone has the

[1:09:25] ability to appeal that based on whatever basis they see fit. So um I think the

[1:09:31] the recommendation as originally presented was to have those buffers be

[1:09:36] in phase two so that they were based on an adequate factual basis. Um and you

[1:09:43] know I think the reality too to point out is that we do currently have a

[1:09:47] moratorum in place and that moratorum can and likely will be extended or

[1:09:54] attempted to be extended. So um you know the the the point of breaking it into

[1:10:01] phase one and phase two was that show so we could show progress is being made

[1:10:06] during the moratorum in order to lend factual basis to our moratorium to

[1:10:11] extend it. Um, so the point was not to defer certain things till later because

[1:10:18] they're not important, but because those things would be more appropriate during

[1:10:22] a phase two after we've done an analysis and have, you know, factual basis to

[1:10:27] support those pieces being in the code.

[1:10:37] Thank you, Rachel, for that. I haven't heard anything. It's not that

[1:10:43] I'm not interested in a buffer.

[1:10:48] I haven't heard anything tonight and I haven't heard anything in the previous

[1:10:51] meetings that's factual. I've heard testimony that is subjective

[1:11:00] but not objective and somebody on the planning commission

[1:11:05] or the staff can certainly clarify me. So, in the absence of that, I'm not

[1:11:09] going to support a code change here that has any buffers at this

[1:11:14] point. We got to have something if something on the planning commission can

[1:11:19] correct me. If the staff can correct me that I failed to read page 18 to 50 or

[1:11:25] something in the public testimony, I've heard a lot of subjective. I haven't

[1:11:29] heard anything objective and that that makes it difficult for me

[1:11:33] to support at this time. It may be different when we get back to phase two.

[1:11:41] So, somebody please correct me. Where are we on an objective

[1:11:47] fact here to throw in a buffer?

[1:11:56] Commissioner Davis. Um, so ju just to question that a little

[1:12:00] bit, are you aware of any case law where a

[1:12:05] code or or a law has been just completely thrown out because one aspect

[1:12:10] was challenged?

[1:12:15] » I mean, I don't have any specific examples of that. No. Um that guidance

[1:12:20] came from our city attorney that our code amendment should be should be based

[1:12:24] on an adequate factual basis. Um which I believe came from rulings in the past

[1:12:30] from Luba on text amendments. Um but I don't have any specific examples to give

[1:12:34] you of previous code amendments in other jurisdictions um that were appealed on

[1:12:41] that basis alone. >> Okay.

[1:12:47] I want to clarify what I heard from Commissioner Low uh when we were talking

[1:12:52] about we're here at the 25% of gross acreage versus 30% of gross floor area

[1:12:59] whichever is less. And I'm understanding that every time that we're seeing the

[1:13:03] revision of these definitions that there's a collaboration with industry

[1:13:09] and knowledgeable individuals to ensure that we're not getting so

[1:13:16] uh restrictive that the industry itself is unable to perform their ideal

[1:13:22] function. And so when I want to provide a little bit of clarity here on the

[1:13:28] research that was done which is why we got to the 25 30% and if you could

[1:13:33] provide us any context into why there was not a decision to provide that

[1:13:39] height requirement if there's anything from industry or research

[1:13:45] » the height requirement for energy storage facilities. I believe it was see

[1:13:51] I thought we got to data centers. >> So

[1:13:54] » was it data centers? >> Yeah. So in the original code um

[1:13:57] proposal there was not language that clarified that and it was based on gross

[1:14:02] acreage alone. So, um, the the point was raised that because it was based on

[1:14:08] gross acreage alone and would really be looking at a building footprint that

[1:14:13] someone could construct um, you know, a 25 or 30% gross acreage building and it

[1:14:19] could be four or five stories tall um, and thus be exceeding the allowable

[1:14:24] amount if you're looking at footprint alone versus acreage. So that's where

[1:14:29] the clarification was put in there um for data centers specifically for the

[1:14:34] accessory use that acreage if if using that versus floor area acreage would be

[1:14:39] first converted to square footage and that amount uh which is 25% in the

[1:14:44] current proposal would be taken based off of that square footage and it would

[1:14:48] be that square footage that's allowed not as a footprint but as a building

[1:14:53] total. Um the building height is again just the same limitations that anything

[1:14:58] that's being constructed in the zone would have um at this at this time. Um

[1:15:03] building heights for data centers were something that were um put in the kind

[1:15:09] of considerations and directions for phase 2. So this is something that we

[1:15:12] would look we will be looking at as far as like site design and site

[1:15:15] construction. Um but right now there's no additional height limitations. It's

[1:15:19] just based on the zone allowance. Um but the that kind of clarification that was

[1:15:25] put in there to convert acreage to square footage first before before

[1:15:30] calculating was aiming to get it I think what the concern was that if it was a

[1:15:36] building footprint that that could be you know a multiplestory building and

[1:15:40] thus be exceeding the actual allowance um if it was square footage not acreage.

[1:15:46] Um that clarification was put in there for data centers, but it wasn't put in

[1:15:49] there for best facil or for energy storage facilities um because those are

[1:15:53] typically outdoors and one story. Um but could could be if that was a concern of

[1:15:59] the planning commission. >> Commissioner Low, is that in alignment

[1:16:03] with your your ask? >> Yeah. Uh thank you Rachel for the

[1:16:09] clarification um uh to uh Vice President Saka's inquiry. um I was inquiring about

[1:16:17] energy storage uh systems and actually the more that I've like had some time to

[1:16:24] sit with that um I think that there is actually

[1:16:29] some overlap between avoiding being restrictive of industry and also

[1:16:36] meeting community feedback where I imagine like in an ideal world folks

[1:16:45] aren't pushing all the way up to we don't want folks to push up to the 25 or

[1:16:50] 30% uh cap that we set like that's the maximum that we're feeling comfortable

[1:16:55] with and say

[1:17:00] if we forego a you know square acreage calculation that would essentially

[1:17:08] create a height cap to some certain degree that could force folks to build

[1:17:13] out wider and take up more square footage rather than being able to be

[1:17:18] efficient with space. And I think if the the value and the goal is to limit um

[1:17:25] footprint, if we're thinking about like how pavement for example is

[1:17:30] one-dimensional and takes up space and is permanent, um I think allowing for

[1:17:35] the flexibility that city staff have built in uh makes sense and meets the

[1:17:40] goals of community feedback and industry.

[1:17:46] » Thank you, Commissioner Lo. Thank you, Rachel.

[1:17:53] All right. Does the commission have any additional questions for staff?

[1:17:58] » I'd like to make a few more comments. Um I'm sorry I'm going to keep playing

[1:18:02] devil's advocate here. Um this obviously since this is something that is um

[1:18:10] related to city development code here um you know just a quick search there's

[1:18:16] been several studies about the reason why buffer zones around schools are

[1:18:21] important that are verifiable through universities and other institutions.

[1:18:27] Um, can we not use that information for ours until our own studies are done?

[1:18:35] » Yeah, I mean that's certainly a recommendation you all could make to

[1:18:39] base the finding um for that buffer on on those studies rather than local

[1:18:46] studies. Commissioner Davis, just a point of

[1:18:49] order too I'd like to raise is that if the commissioners are bringing in

[1:18:52] additional research and information um even during the course of this public

[1:18:55] meeting whether it's of your own searching or being provided by others

[1:18:58] that needs to be disclosed and shared into the record. Um but to that end that

[1:19:03] Rachel and staff's answer still holds which we can take that under

[1:19:06] consideration. You can include that as part of your recommendation to city

[1:19:09] council. I just want to make sure that if there's new facts or information that

[1:19:13] are being referenced or considered by some or all of the commissioners that

[1:19:17] has to be made both available to staff for consideration but also to the public

[1:19:20] as well. So, please send that along if you would.

[1:19:22] » Yeah, I'm happy to share that. >> Thanks.

[1:19:25] » Thank you for that clarification about us doing the best that we can to level

[1:19:31] set using all the information that we all have in order to make this decision.

[1:19:35] So, thank you for that clarity even for myself.

[1:19:39] Does the commission have any additional questions for staff?

[1:19:43] » I just uh have another comment. We're going to go back to buffer zones. I know

[1:19:47] commission I think commissioner Davis and I are just going to keep hammering

[1:19:50] at that, but um I just I understand the concern from the

[1:19:56] legal standpoint. Um, I just think that again in this time frame that we have

[1:20:05] with upcoming studies, I don't I I I'm not seeing quite the harm and the

[1:20:12] likelihood that that's going to get challenged in this time frame we have.

[1:20:17] Um, where we're setting this buffer. Um, because I guess the way

[1:20:23] I look at it, especially being a mom who has kids, I'm again my kids go to

[1:20:28] Liberty. I wasn't happy to hear about a data center going in so close to them.

[1:20:34] Um, having gone and been around the data centers and seeing how loud they are,

[1:20:39] how um, distracting and frankly annoying that is, um, I don't see the harm in at

[1:20:47] this point putting a buffer for the time being.

[1:20:52] um based on honestly just that sound alone.

[1:20:58] I think that's I think anyone who's visited that those areas

[1:21:03] I think that is a factual thing that we do know that it's a loud droning sound.

[1:21:08] That is something that um you know we kids have enough

[1:21:13] distractions with school and have a hard enough time staying focused. Um, I don't

[1:21:18] think adding additional um sound

[1:21:25] um sound to the noise they already have to deal

[1:21:29] with at their school. Especially someone um being a mom of a special needs kid

[1:21:33] who really struggled to stay focused at school. I just think there's

[1:21:38] I think there's it's a safer bet to go with the barrier

[1:21:44] for our kids when we have all these unknowns

[1:21:50] than it is to not put that in there. And again, once we have those that data come

[1:21:55] back on that second piece, we'll be able to scale back if needed to or maybe

[1:22:00] we'll find out that that thousand feet is exactly what we needed. We don't

[1:22:05] know. But um I just don't think that I don't think you we should be taking

[1:22:12] chances in our code when it comes to protecting our most vulnerable

[1:22:17] populations ever. And I think that's something that's not worth the risk um

[1:22:21] in the meantime. And I don't think that um we're at a high risk of having that

[1:22:30] appealed in the meantime given that we're there are upcoming

[1:22:37] um changes that are likely to happen based on um based on the studies that

[1:22:41] are coming. Um but then I also had a question too regarding phase two. Is

[1:22:46] there um any information that we would be getting pri or we could get prior to

[1:22:53] what studies are being done and kind of that process of the different studies

[1:22:59] because that was something I would be interested in learning more about.

[1:23:04] » Commissioner Jackson, for the record, Dan Diaz, thanks for for the question.

[1:23:08] I'll do my best to answer that the last part there. Um, I'll leave it to the

[1:23:12] commission to continue to deliberate and provide final direction to staff on

[1:23:15] where you would like to land with the buffer piece. Um, with the two studies,

[1:23:18] you may recall from the work session we presented to you that there will be two

[1:23:22] studies uh that the city has issued requests for proposals for those are now

[1:23:26] been published um due to close uh near the end of this month with contract

[1:23:31] selection and the work getting underway in the coming months or to be completed

[1:23:34] in the coming months. the two scopes of that work. Generally speaking, I won't

[1:23:38] go into all the detail again like we did in the work session unless the

[1:23:41] commission has questions which we're happy to then go into those level of

[1:23:44] additional detail with our time this evening. The first is to assess the

[1:23:48] physical and environmental impacts and characteristics of data centers. Uh in

[1:23:52] summary, that will look at things like water usage, air emissions, noise

[1:23:57] impacts, um

[1:24:00] uh sewer and water discharge requirements. Uh and as Rachel noted

[1:24:05] earlier in the meeting, some of the other physical built characteristics of

[1:24:07] that. Um yeah, thank you Rachel. Uh energy use and energy efficiency systems

[1:24:13] will also be included in that. So that that's the first scope around really the

[1:24:16] environmental and physical aspects of that. Um and we'll build upon some of

[1:24:21] the existing data that we talked about during the public hearing at your last

[1:24:24] meeting that we do have that we've tried to use to inform much of this policy

[1:24:28] piece. And then also to definitely address some areas that we have very

[1:24:31] limited information like the subaudible noise is something uh that has come to

[1:24:35] light that we don't have a lot of existing really any existing local data

[1:24:38] on and so it'll build out some of those areas of very limited to no knowledge.

[1:24:42] The second scope of work will be around a economic incentives analysis that'll

[1:24:47] be done more broadly but will have a specific call out in assessment of data

[1:24:51] centers that will look at things such as the uh fiscal impacts of data centers

[1:24:57] and some of the incentives that they have historically utilized or or not. Um

[1:25:02] it'll look at some of the other cross reliance or mutual impacts on industries

[1:25:08] that data center has. We received some of those questions uh including by

[1:25:11] Commissioner Thrral Nash at the public hearing at your last meeting. Uh so

[1:25:14] it'll seek to build upon existing information that we have had and have

[1:25:17] shared uh both in the work sessions in the course of the public hearing. Um and

[1:25:22] also uh just general industry trends to the degree we can kind of forecast that

[1:25:26] of where this may be going. And so those are the two scopes of work. uh the the

[1:25:32] former one, the the environmental and and physical impact uh is really the one

[1:25:36] that we anticipate informing a lot of the development related standards as

[1:25:39] Rachel noted, but just to reiterate why right now we're not proposing things

[1:25:43] like additional shrouding or burming or landscaping. We already have a lot of

[1:25:47] that in our development code as you know that apply to data centers. um things

[1:25:52] like possibly requiring closed loop infrastructure systems uh on site um

[1:25:57] really will be looked to the phase 2 to really be informed by that and and then

[1:26:01] what's the appropriate blend so back to vice president Saka's question earlier

[1:26:05] it might be just the buffer it might be a buffer with you know screening

[1:26:10] requirements or some blend of things and so we would anticipate

[1:26:14] at the phase two and why staff have in the staff report for this evening and in

[1:26:17] the verbal staff report seeking to work with the direction provided by council

[1:26:22] to maintain that phase two really to bring forward a much more robust package

[1:26:26] across a lot of these areas not just one item by one item by one item of how

[1:26:29] they'd work together. So I hope that answers the question in terms of the two

[1:26:32] scopes of work generally what's going to be included in those. If there's any

[1:26:36] further specifics we'd be happy to answer what we can at this point in time

[1:26:39] recognizing some that work is still uh to lie ahead. And definitely to

[1:26:43] Commissioner Davis's point a moment ago, if you have additional information that

[1:26:46] you're going to use for this consideration, send it to us so we can

[1:26:49] consider it. Even after you make this decision, if there's additional things

[1:26:52] you'd like to send us to consider as we go into phase two work, we can also

[1:26:55] account for that at that later point as well.

[1:27:01] » Timing timing of the first

[1:27:05] » the timing of the both scopes, we anticipate them running pretty much in

[1:27:10] parallel and concurrently. uh we are waiting to see what the responses come

[1:27:13] back with to deliver all the things we're asking for. Um but we have

[1:27:17] initially set a timeline of about 3 months from the start of the work. So

[1:27:21] really starting towards the end of this month or early October uh running 3

[1:27:25] months till we get probably initial full package of deliverables. That is subject

[1:27:30] to change based on what the responses show and and making sure we can do a

[1:27:35] thorough job and get the types of analysis and facts we need in. But

[1:27:38] that's the initial timeline. Commissioner Gillow that we're operating

[1:27:41] under. >> So

[1:27:44] January would not be an unreasonable expectations.

[1:27:47] » That's an initial target that we're trying to work towards right now.

[1:27:50] » Thank you.

[1:27:57] » I have a question. Is it possible that the information that Commissioner Davis

[1:28:02] is referencing, if we took a little break, would we be able to print that?

[1:28:07] uh so that we as a commission would have that

[1:28:12] information to support us in in the deliberation. Is that possible at all?

[1:28:23] » You want that? >> Uh we can absolutely try to run hard

[1:28:27] copies or distribute that out especially to the commission um for those that are

[1:28:31] attending online and the public too. We'll probably have a little bit

[1:28:34] logistical challenge to get that available to everybody right this

[1:28:38] second, but we can definitely also update the materials in the packet in

[1:28:40] the record following the meeting and definitely going into the city council's

[1:28:43] consideration with that as well if the commission would like.

[1:28:46] » Commissioner Davis, is that something you'd be interested in?

[1:28:50] » Yeah, I'm going with that. I just shared it with um Dan, Rachel, and and Leslie

[1:28:55] via email. So, it is in a very rough form. Obviously, I just threw it into an

[1:28:59] email and sent it off to you guys, but there are some links in there with

[1:29:02] references. So,

[1:29:06] » uh, with the commission, I know we're I feel like we're closing up our questions

[1:29:10] and we're getting ready for deliberations. Is it okay if we take a

[1:29:13] 10-minut break, uh, in order for us to take care of our needs and perhaps get

[1:29:17] some information? Okay. I would like to propose we're

[1:29:22] going to take a 10m minute break and come back at 7:39. Simply

[1:29:39] thank you so much. Uh we are back and uh the planning commission is ready to

[1:29:45] begin deliberations. Before that I want to clarify with Commissioner Jackson.

[1:29:50] Did you receive the supplemental reading that?

[1:29:56] » Yeah, I'm looking at it now. >> Beautiful. All right. Thank you so much.

[1:30:01] And now for deliberations. I would like to ask for any thoughts,

[1:30:06] comments, or questions on this item.

[1:30:15] » Yeah. So, uh, the the article that I asked the city to hand out to you all,

[1:30:20] um, there's some information in here regarding heat. Obviously, this is just

[1:30:23] one of many articles that, um, I sent off to the city, but I I did ask them to

[1:30:28] highlight this one because it does have some specific study data in it. Um, I'll

[1:30:33] read an excerpt from the article here. Um, believe it starts on page two of the

[1:30:40] printed copy down toward the bottom. I'm not going to read the whole thing, but

[1:30:44] I'm going to um jump into some of the the core details here. Um it's it

[1:30:50] basically it's discussing how data centers using electricity generate heat

[1:30:55] and when they generate heat, they typically use water to cool that heat.

[1:31:00] Um but in addition to that uh recent research conducted in Phoenix, Arizona

[1:31:06] estimates that a large data center can emit waste heat comparable to that

[1:31:11] produced by tens or even hundreds of thousands of households. The latest

[1:31:16] science shows that the waste heat can increase surrounding land surface

[1:31:19] temperatures by as much as 16 degrees Fahrenheit and raise air temperatures in

[1:31:24] the nearby neighborhoods by up to 4° F. These effects have been observed as far

[1:31:29] away as half a kilometer or about five city blocks.

[1:31:33] » Commissioner Davis, can you clarify again where in the printed copy you're

[1:31:37] reading from, please?

[1:31:44] » Uh, so it's in the section on the second page. How do data centers actually

[1:31:49] affect urban heat? What does the science show? Um, and I began reading right

[1:31:54] about the break of the page. I think it actually cuts off a little bit here in

[1:31:56] the printed copy. >> Thank you. That's why we couldn't

[1:32:00] necessarily follow along. >> Yeah. So, those that received the

[1:32:04] digital copy uh with a link to the actual article, they'll see that there

[1:32:08] was a little bit more included in there. It looks like the printer cut it off.

[1:32:12] So, uh, but it is some of the the data that I would like to to, um, be included

[1:32:17] in this.

[1:32:23] Vice Pock, if it's also helpful, we'll see if Rachel can share that section on

[1:32:28] the screen for the commissioner's reference. I got appears to be cut off

[1:32:31] by the printer in the web page layout. Give us just a minute.

[1:32:37] » Thank you.

[1:32:44] While we're waiting for that to come up, I

[1:32:50] I'm grateful that we're able to provide some research and that will provide

[1:32:56] context to our request for a buffer. And I also believe that it is very valid

[1:33:03] that community came in with their concerns

[1:33:07] and and that is a data point in itself as well. And although

[1:33:14] what we decide will not impact the data center that's currently being built near

[1:33:20] Liberty High School, I do believe that it is an attempt for us to nurture trust

[1:33:26] with the community to state that we're putting in policy that will ensure that

[1:33:33] that kind of action is limited moving forward.

[1:33:55] Thank you, Vice President. I just wanted to note for folks who maybe didn't have

[1:33:59] a trusty calculator on hand, half a kilometer equates to about 1,600 ft.

[1:34:48] Now that we have this shared information in front of us, how are we feeling about

[1:34:55] the 500 versus the 1,000 ft buffer in in our first uh attempt with this code?

[1:35:06] Uh, Commissioner Davis, I'll start. I I think that um I would still stand by the

[1:35:11] 10,00T buffer.

[1:35:16] Commissioner Low here, knowing that probably

[1:35:22] the the least of this temperature increase is experienced at the half

[1:35:29] kilometer mark, which is about 1,600. And so anything under 1,600 I imagine is

[1:35:36] getting gradually and uh exponentially warmer. Um I would also support the

[1:35:44] 1,000 ft buffer.

[1:35:51] » Commissioner Jackson. >> Uh yeah, I given like this information

[1:35:57] as well. I agree with Commissioner Davis and Commissioner Low and would um

[1:36:03] recommend a buffer based on this information.

[1:36:14] I I would go with the majority here that we've received enough information for us

[1:36:20] to at least request a th00and ft buffer around school zones uh with the

[1:36:26] awareness that as additional environmental analysis information comes

[1:36:30] in that this code could continue to be refined uh incorporating that additional

[1:36:36] data. So as of right now I am very comfortable with requesting the 1000

[1:36:40] foot buffer.

[1:36:47] Um sorry just point of clarification because there's two in buffers in the

[1:36:51] code for both one buffer for data centers and one buffer for energy

[1:36:56] storage and generation facilities. So, I just wanted to clarify that you all were

[1:37:00] intending uh your recommendation at this point to apply to both evenly or if

[1:37:05] you'd like to consider them separately. I'm going to advocate that we consider

[1:37:09] them separately only because it seems like we're still getting more additional

[1:37:14] information from industry about what energy storage

[1:37:23] energy storage systems use and the multi-use and the fact that a climate

[1:37:30] friendly equity equitable communities even in that if

[1:37:36] for example a school wants to have parking with

[1:37:40] solar panels and we would consider that in alignment with our climate friendly

[1:37:46] work. we would consider that a public benefit. And so as of right now,

[1:37:51] personally, it seems clearer to identify this buffer zone for data centers, but I

[1:37:57] am open to hearing and receiving additional feedback from the commission.

[1:38:09] I'd like to concur with Vice President Saka. um you know operating with the

[1:38:15] information that we have distributed publicly here and what was discussed in

[1:38:19] the last meeting that I reviewed on video. Um I think this sets my mindset

[1:38:26] in terms of the questions that are still outstanding and the environmental

[1:38:29] analysis that the city is working on to say this for the 10,00 buffer for data

[1:38:35] centers. um and would want further information on uh what the types of

[1:38:44] impacts there are regarding energy storage systems as a whole and knowing

[1:38:49] that that's a diverse uh array of facilities. I think also I'm thinking

[1:38:56] and maybe this is this is not a realistic scenario but I'm wondering in

[1:39:01] a world where I guess this is a question of schools

[1:39:06] and school districts with uh emergency resiliency if there's anything where

[1:39:12] they might be using battery storage on site uh to maybe replace something that

[1:39:17] is uh a carbon emmitting uh generator. So, I I just wanted to flag that in

[1:39:25] terms of I'm not trying to be close-minded here.

[1:39:35] » Commissioner Davis, I I can concur with that as well. Um, you know, that as as

[1:39:41] mentioned, you know, obviously there's still a lot more to learn about the um

[1:39:46] energy storage systems uh as far as their impacts as well. Um and and what I

[1:39:51] was able to just quickly research doesn't directly address those. So um I

[1:39:57] would I would also agree on that.

[1:40:03] » Commissioner David, I mean Commissioner Jackson.

[1:40:07] » Uh yeah, I don't have any information that

[1:40:12] gives me um enough information to say either way on

[1:40:17] that one as well. So, I would be fine with that being discussed in phase two

[1:40:22] when we have more information. Um, that would be fine.

[1:40:34] Rachel, is Commissioner Gerilla, before we go on to stuff,

[1:40:39] Rachel, is that sufficient for the buffer zone just to be for data centers?

[1:40:44] » That's sufficient um for discussion. I I would say when you when if if and when

[1:40:49] someone makes a motion that they should make a motion to that effect to clarify

[1:40:52] that um what is being um approved would be what you all just discussed a

[1:41:00] thousand foot buffer for data centers and the removal of the buffer

[1:41:04] requirements for energy storage generation at this time. Um so just make

[1:41:08] the motion specific when you if and when you decide to make a motion.

[1:41:39] Just to clarify for the language, um are we able to say it's 1,000 foot buffer

[1:41:44] for data centers around schools and removal of buffer zone for energy

[1:41:51] storage system? At this time, we don't need to provide additional information

[1:41:55] like pending phase two or anything like that. Just at this time,

[1:41:59] » no, we're not considering anything for phase two at this point. We've, you

[1:42:02] know, outlined that in the staff report, but yeah, I mean, you would just be

[1:42:05] removing it from the proposed code amendment language.

[1:42:08] » Okay. We have it in the code amendment language now, though, right?

[1:42:12] » Correct. So you would be um yeah you would be making a motion that is

[1:42:17] recommending a thousand foot buffer from data centers and recommending removal of

[1:42:21] the buffer language for energy storage and generation facilities entirely.

[1:42:29] » The entirely is interesting to me. >> You could phrase it differently if you

[1:42:34] wanted. Uh you could just let me give you the exact reference of where that's

[1:42:39] located.

[1:42:45] So it would be removal of the proximity restrictions in section 12.40.155

[1:42:56] C 1 and two

[1:43:02] is where that those sections specifically for energy storage and

[1:43:06] generation are located. So it would be striking those two sections from the

[1:43:11] proposed amendment from this proposed amendment.

[1:43:37] As I'm searching, I'm trying to before we go into removal, the research that

[1:43:43] was done, was the research that was completed recommending buffer zones for

[1:43:49] our energy storage systems or this was something that we as a planning

[1:43:52] commission requested? >> The second um there were no buffers

[1:43:56] originally. You all requested that we come back with options for buffers for

[1:43:59] both uses. this time. >> Thank you. So, this is not something

[1:44:03] industry related. This was our ask and we're just clarifying. Okay. Thank you.

[1:44:16] I guess I'd just like to hear how that lands with you all colleagues. Um

[1:44:22] especially since I heard a little bit of pause from Vice President Saka. I think

[1:44:28] the complete elimination gave me a little pause, too. But that's helpful to

[1:44:32] know from city staff that this was just a

[1:44:38] recommendation request from our body rather than coming from

[1:44:44] industry or research or um advocates. I and if I might elaborate a little bit,

[1:44:53] you know, my for context, my brain constantly lives

[1:44:58] in a world of what happens if Cascadia occurs. Um and so that's kind of where

[1:45:05] my comment came when I was thinking about schools um and what happens to

[1:45:10] schools if there such I know that this is impending when such

[1:45:16] event occurs and how to support folks across the board not just in schools but

[1:45:21] also in all public facilities hospitals etc.

[1:45:26] I'm I'm wondering if there's maybe a a comfort in particular language of use

[1:45:34] related to emergency management at the moment while we wait for phase 2

[1:45:41] research and information. if there's any hesitation

[1:45:47] among you all for complete removal

[1:45:52] just because I saw a pause to my left. I want to comment that my pause was

[1:45:58] clarified by staff that this was a request from the planning commission and

[1:46:04] now that we are deliberating here and none of this information from industry

[1:46:09] or our partners or our community has advocated for this but at this time I

[1:46:14] don't I don't need any any additional clarity that it seems like we are very

[1:46:19] much aligned on the buffer zones for data centers versus energy storage

[1:46:24] systems. So, thank you so much for that opportunity to clarify.

[1:46:27] » Got it. I just wanted to make sure that nothing was going un unsaid.

[1:46:31] » Yeah, >> Commissioner Gill, I guess

[1:46:35] I guess in the absence of any other information that anybody on the

[1:46:40] commission. I think I don't see the need for the buffer at

[1:46:46] this point. we may kind of come back, the commission may

[1:46:51] come back and revisit this in January. Um, so I'm

[1:46:58] I'm comfortable uh going ahead and making a motion that

[1:47:04] we recommend approval of CDCA case file CA4-26

[1:47:11] data and energy storage text changes. um that the staff has

[1:47:19] proposed with the recommendation that we include a th000 ft buffer

[1:47:25] uh from uh for data centers from schools and

[1:47:29] that we eliminate uh the sections in the code that proposed uh buffers

[1:47:39] uh around energy storage and energy facilities.

[1:47:45] Can I make a quick just request? Could we include language in that that it be

[1:47:52] considered for future phase two? So that way it's not just totally being

[1:47:57] eliminated. >> I have no problem if the city wants to

[1:48:00] reconsider anything once the consultant work is done.

[1:48:05] » Likewise. So, Commissioner Davis, do and I want to

[1:48:10] clarify that we're not going to say energy facilities, but just energy

[1:48:14] storage systems. Commissioner Gilla,

[1:48:17] » well, it's energy storage facilities.

[1:48:21] » Okay, >> that's what's in the code right now. So,

[1:48:24] » and okay, just because I felt like there's a difference,

[1:48:28] but I just wanted to clarify that it's energy storage systems and

[1:48:32] » generation facilities. >> Thank you. Generation facilities.

[1:48:36] So the the language on the screen is what would reflect um that what you all

[1:48:41] just discussed um with the specific code reference for that section. Um if

[1:48:51] you want to have get consensus on the recommendation from you all that buffers

[1:48:59] be looked at in phase two. You could include that. It wouldn't be necessarily

[1:49:05] part of the amendment text, but it would be a part of your recommendation, which

[1:49:10] your formal recommendation to city council, which is uh which would go in

[1:49:14] the staff report um to be pointed out to them that there was a recommendation

[1:49:18] that you all made based on this hearing. >> We could also include that in the draft

[1:49:22] findings. And what we would also ask is the clarification from the commission

[1:49:26] that you're justifying that thousand foot buffer based upon the AI search and

[1:49:29] information provided by Commissioner Davis, too. that was shared this

[1:49:33] evening. >> That's what my motion meant.

[1:49:37] » Well, you're asking for clarification. I just provided it.

[1:49:46] » I want to hear from Commissioner Davis. Is there any

[1:49:50] the additional language that you're you're requesting or what you need from

[1:49:54] staff? Yeah, I would like it to at least be in the recommendation that it uh is

[1:50:00] re revisited for phase two um by city council.

[1:50:08] » The motioner agrees. >> Oh, sorry.

[1:50:12] » Sorry. The motioner agrees. >> I mean, at some point we got to have a

[1:50:16] second before we can have too much more discussion. But I say

[1:50:20] » I agree with the inclusion of the um recommendation to revisit

[1:50:27] » after phase two by the city council. Thank you so much, Commissioner Jackson.

[1:50:30] Um if Commissioner Gillow, if you would not mind making that motion again with

[1:50:35] the language that we have on our screen and then I would love for a second.

[1:50:41] » Okay. Um, again, I'm recommending that the planning commission approve CDCA

[1:50:47] 00426 um based on the uh staff report and the

[1:50:55] staff draft of the language with the recommendation

[1:50:59] of the thousand foot buffer requirement be added uh around schools for data

[1:51:06] centers. And that is based

[1:51:11] upon in part the data that we received tonight uh

[1:51:20] in the report the the internet report that we received.

[1:51:24] In addition that we would strike the applicable CDC sections that deal with

[1:51:32] energy storage and energy facilities where we would not require a buffer

[1:51:39] um at this time, but that the planning commission would recommend

[1:51:48] that both of these buffers be revisited

[1:51:53] upon completion of phase two. Um,

[1:51:59] Commissioner Davis, does that get to where you're at?

[1:52:04] » It does, then I second. >> Thank you. I have a motion from

[1:52:08] Commissioner Gillow and a second from Commissioner Davis. All those in favor,

[1:52:13] please say I. >> I.

[1:52:15] » I. >> Any opposed?

[1:52:18] Any abstensions? Motion carries.

[1:52:22] Do any commissioners have any communications or reports for

[1:52:25] discussion? Okay, we have no new business. We do not

[1:52:30] have a staff report and we do not have another work session this evening. If

[1:52:34] there is no further business, the planning commission is adjourned at 8:03

Hillsboro Planning Commission Meeting: September 9, 2026

Transcript