[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