[0:05] All right, good evening everyone. Thank
you so much for being here. We really
[0:09] appreciate you spending some of your
evening and your time to engage on this
[0:15] important community topic.
My name is Corin Manning. I'm the
[0:19] director of the department of planning
and development services for the city of
[0:23] Tucson. And I want to introduce some of
the team who will be here tonight to
[0:27] present on this topic. Um, we have
Carver Stru, principal planner with
[0:32] planning and development services,
Nicholas Martell, our long-range
[0:36] planning section manager, Dan Bersik,
planning administrator, as well as
[0:40] Tonnie Robertson, our facilitator for
this evening, here to support the
[0:45] conversation and dialogue. Uh, so
tonight's meeting is about regulations
[0:51] for largecale data centers. Um, this is
a really important topic that's
[0:56] generated a lot of community
conversation. So, we're really here to
[1:00] share information and have an
opportunity for feedback and discussion
[1:03] tonight. Um, so data centers are a
rapidly evolving technology. They're
[1:08] really new emerging use and our
responsibility as a city is to make sure
[1:13] that our land use regulations keep pace
with emerging trends in a way that
[1:18] reflects our community's values and
priorities. So that's really what we're
[1:22] trying to do with these proposed
regulations.
[1:32] Okay. So how tonight will go, what we
are here to do. We're going to explain a
[1:37] little bit of background um why we're
here, how we got here in terms of
[1:42] developing these regulations, talk a
little bit about some existing city
[1:45] policy
um and existing regulations.
[1:49] um talk about the process so far to
develop regulations for large scale data
[1:54] centers um including our technical
advisory committee and then share an
[1:58] overview of the proposed regulations for
large scale data centers um and have
[2:03] opportunity for feedback along the way.
So tonight's meeting is really about
[2:07] sharing some information about what's
proposed and then most importantly
[2:13] hearing from all of you. So there's
going to be opportunity for feedback
[2:16] throughout the presentation and then at
the end we do want to have time for
[2:21] questions and answers. So we do ask that
during the presentation um we limit
[2:27] questions and comments to just
clarifying questions um so that at the
[2:32] end we can have some dialogue and Q&A
about this topic.
[2:37] Um and there's also going to be there's
um comment cards and other ways to get
[2:42] input as well. Um, we have already
gotten a lot of input and feedback on
[2:47] this topic. Um, and we've started
developing a Q&A FAQ uh, form that some
[2:53] of you may have gotten when you came in.
So, we've really tried to take a lot of
[2:57] the key questions and comments that
we're getting and start responding to
[3:01] those and we will be building out that
FAQ as we go through this process and
[3:05] get additional questions and comments.
So all of your feedback is being
[3:09] reviewed by staff and uh responded to
and integrated into the process.
[3:16] So how we got here? Um we are here based
on direction from our mayor council to
[3:22] establish guardrails for our community
related to large scale data centers.
[3:27] Following the consideration of the
project blue proposal, mayor and council
[3:32] gave us direction to establish guard
rails for our community to develop a
[3:38] regulatory framework for the for the use
uh of large scale data centers to
[3:45] protect Tucson and our resources and to
develop standards for this new use as
[3:51] well as a review process.
So throughout the discussion of project
[3:55] bloom, we heard a range of questions and
concerns about large scale data centers.
[4:00] We heard from residents about issues
such as water, energy use, noise, visual
[4:05] impacts, whole range of community
concerns and issues um which are very
[4:11] important topics and a conversation that
really affects our whole community and
[4:15] quality of life. That's why we're here
today to engage in this dialogue and
[4:19] have more conversation about the impact
of this use and how we can ensure that
[4:23] we have appropriate regulations in place
to regulate um this emerging use. As we
[4:30] were going through the project blue
discussion, we found that our zoning
[4:33] code does not currently have data
centers as a clearly defined land use.
[4:38] So we don't have regulations for this
type of use. This creates a lack of
[4:43] clarity for our community, creates
uncertainty for neighborhoods, for our
[4:47] policy makers, um, and for potential
applicants. So, what we're trying to do
[4:52] now is take a more proactive approach to
develop these regulations and guard
[4:56] rails. Um, so rather than reacting to a
specific proposal, we're here trying to
[5:03] establish clear and enforceable
guidelines um, in advance of future
[5:08] proposals. So what we're trying to do is
create clear standards that protect our
[5:13] neighborhoods, our natural resources,
and provide predictability so that if a
[5:19] data center facility is proposed, we
have an appropriate set of land use
[5:23] regulations and standards to evaluate a
proposed development.
[5:29] Based on the direction from mayor
council, we have done a quite a bit of
[5:33] research into data center regulations in
other communities as well as the impact
[5:37] of data centers in other communities and
we established a technical advisory
[5:41] committee to help inform the proposed
standards that we're creating. We also
[5:46] developed a large quantity water users
ordinance in the city. That was actually
[5:50] something that was in progress um prior
to the project blue discussion and that
[5:54] has been adopted by the city um and is
being refined now based on public input.
[6:00] That ordinance is meant to work in
parallel with these proposed zoning
[6:04] regulations for large scale data centers
and we'll share a bit more about that a
[6:08] little later on. So again, tonight's
meeting is not to discuss a specific
[6:11] proposal. The discussion tonight is
about setting guard rails and
[6:16] establishing standards for our community
so that if a proposal comes forward, we
[6:20] have conditions and a process in place
to evaluate any proposals.
[6:26] So, I want to talk a little bit more
about zoning regulations because zoning,
[6:31] which is what we're here to talk about
tonight, is just one piece of a larger
[6:35] picture in terms of regulations that
affect large scale data centers. So
[6:40] there's other local regulations that
could shape where and how large scale
[6:44] data centers are developed. That
includes things like the large quantity
[6:48] water user ordinance that I mentioned as
well as economic development policies
[6:53] and other city policies. Um there's also
federal and state regulations that come
[6:58] into play such as state economic
incentives and the Arizona Pooperation
[7:03] Commission's regulation of our
utilities. So tonight's discussion is
[7:08] really focused on zoning and land use
regulations.
[7:13] Zoning is a uh zoning is a set of
regulations that focus on where
[7:20] development can occur, where different
uses can be located, how those uses are
[7:25] built, what specific conditions apply to
different types of land uses. um that
[7:30] could be conditions, development
standards like buffers, setbacks,
[7:33] screening, height limits, c certain
standards like that that can be applied
[7:38] to specific types of uses.
Um so zoning does not regulate water
[7:45] use, energy portfolios or energy
infrastructure decisions. um those are
[7:52] valid and important topics of
discussion, but those rest with other
[7:57] review bodies and other entities that
have purview in those areas. So
[8:01] tonight's discussion is really going to
focus on what is within the city's
[8:05] control and what is before us at this
time, which is zoning or land use
[8:09] regulations to provide appropriate
standards and regulations for large
[8:13] scale data centers in Tucson.
So let's get into that conversation. I
[8:20] want to thank you again for being here
tonight, for being part of this
[8:23] important conversation. And I'm going to
ask Tonnie to walk us through the
[8:29] process and ground rules for tonight.
[8:34] Good evening. Good to see you all. Uh my
name is Tony Robertson with Southwest
[8:39] Decision Resources and I just have two
slides. [snorts]
[8:44] Meeting format. I think we've seen
several of you were in the last meeting
[8:49] or two. So, good to see you again. Um,
so your feedback is going to be
[8:55] collected in writing in these meetings
via online survey which you'll be seeing
[9:02] a QR code and you can use your phone to
get access to that website. Um, the
[9:08] paper form, the green form on the
clipboard is the same questions. So
[9:13] either option works and you can take uh
provide your comments during the meeting
[9:18] or after the meeting. I believe it'll be
open through this month through the end
[9:22] of March. Um and then the sticky notes
on the posters in the lobby. All of that
[9:27] feedback is being compiled and the city
team is reading through everything very
[9:31] carefully. They did create the FAQ
document that was in the registration
[9:36] table like Corin mentioned and they'll
be adding more questions as they go. Um
[9:43] again, all written feedback will be made
publicly available and shared with both
[9:47] the planning commission and mayor and
council. Uh conversation and additional
[9:52] written feedback are encouraged with
city staff before and after the
[9:56] presentation
um we will have a like the last inerson
[10:01] meeting at Pua High School will have a
Q&A session here in the main in this
[10:06] room. Um, we're going to be asking that
people keep their comments to under a
[10:11] minute so that more people can have a
chance to speak. We had a number of
[10:14] people that wanted to be able to ask a
question or make a comment last time.
[10:19] Um,
this the website has all of the links,
[10:22] all of the information and uh we ask
that everybody respect each other's time
[10:27] and refrain from disruption.
[10:32] And again, so in this room is the
presentation.
[10:36] Um, we have different presenters from
the city that are going to be walking
[10:40] you through the different components of
the proposed zoning code and giving you
[10:45] a chance as you go to make comments in
the uh online survey or the written
[10:51] survey. Um feedback again can be
submitted in both both of those formats
[10:58] in and then the the uh the Q&A
afterwards in the lobby is the dialogue
[11:03] opportunity directly with city staff.
You're not restricted to any particular
[11:07] amount of time. There's posters that
have all the same information that's
[11:10] going to be in the presentation. Again,
this is about this proposed zoning uh
[11:16] code, but you a lot of you have feedback
beyond that and we're gathering all
[11:21] feedback. So, I will turn it over to
Parker.
[11:40] » All right. Good evening. Uh my name is
Carver Stru. I'm a principal planner
[11:44] here with the City of Tucson Department
of Planning and Development Services and
[11:48] I'm going to talk a bit about the
proposal that that we are here to
[11:52] discuss tonight. Um as was mentioned
earlier, this relates specifically to
[11:57] zoning and regulating largecale data
centers. One of the first things that
[12:02] you want to do if you are going to
regulate a land use is to define what it
[12:07] is that you're regulating. And so what
we've put forward Oh, I'm sorry. Let me
[12:12] back up. Um going going a little ahead
of myself. Uh I want to start talking
[12:17] first about what is a large-scale data
center. So what is it that we're talking
[12:21] about before we start discussing
regulating it? So a large scale data
[12:25] center is a warehouse filled with
thousands of computers working 24/7 to
[12:30] store, process, and deliver digital
services and data. uh data centers house
[12:36] computer equipment, networking
equipment, storage devices. These are
[12:40] the items that power all of the digital
infrastructure that we use.
[12:47] Most data centers have a number of
different key components. Um these
[12:50] include server racks uh that house and
organize servers, networking equipment
[12:56] uh which moves the data or processes the
data, storage systems to store data, uh
[13:01] power infrastructure which obviously
powers the equipment and cooling systems
[13:06] to remove the heat that is created by a
data center.
[13:13] So really when we're asked to regulate
data centers, the the purpose there is
[13:18] to set clear rules and standards for
their location and design. The intent of
[13:24] this is to protect senate sensitive
areas. Address impacts such as noise,
[13:29] scale, and other impacts early on in the
process. Develop a process that ensures
[13:34] public input as data center proposals
are developed. and be proactive in terms
[13:40] of what standards should be in place
versus uh reacting to a specific
[13:46] proposal as it comes forward.
So the city currently has very limited
[13:55] standards related to how we regulate
data centers. Traditionally as data
[14:01] centers were being developed is they
were small relatively small they were
[14:05] viewed as storage uses um these were you
know it made sense you're looking at it
[14:11] kind of like as a warehouse but for data
and so they were regulated as such.
[14:17] However, as we saw new large scale and
hypers scale data centers emerge as a
[14:23] land use that has never existed before,
we started to look at it differently.
[14:28] And the city zoning administrator
determined that a large-scale data
[14:32] center would be classified under the
city's zoning code as a utility
[14:38] generating system use. As such, it could
only be reviewed as a planned area
[14:44] development or a planned community
development.
[14:48] Um, so this is really just defining what
it would be as a stop gap measure and
[14:54] deciding what process could be used to
review a proposal for a data center.
[15:00] Under the current code, it's very clear
that we really don't have any existing
[15:05] standards to regulate their development
or place guard rails on their
[15:09] development. As such, it's really at
this point in time under the code
[15:14] largely up to a specific applicant to
propose how they would like to develop a
[15:19] data center. Uh so with additional
standards as we're going to be
[15:23] discussing tonight uh mayor and council
can provide limitations or guard rails
[15:29] on how data centers would be developed
which could reflect values of Tucson.
[15:35] So this next slide really just shows
what is currently in place under the red
[15:41] box which is essentially just a process
for reviewing a data center proposal and
[15:47] then proposed standards that we are
putting forward in this proposed zoning
[15:54] amendment and seeking your feedback on
related to any number of things. you
[16:00] know, defining a data center,
establishing where and how they would be
[16:03] allowed. Um, being establishing a clear
and transparent public review process
[16:09] for specific data center proposals,
requiring that a data center demonstrate
[16:14] access to water and power and disclose
the energy mix in such a proposal. Um,
[16:22] prohibit the use of portable water for
cooling if not subject to the large
[16:27] water user ordinance. requiring
additional setbacks which would relate
[16:31] to noise impacts or other impacts on the
community setting clear noise
[16:36] limitations any number of different
items and we'll be going through these
[16:40] in in subsequent slides but I really
just want to make the point that this
[16:44] demonstrates where we are looking at
establishing regulations for where none
[16:49] currently exist other than that simple
process.
[16:54] So as we talk about zoning, uh any
authority to regulate land through
[17:00] zoning by a city or town in Arizona is
given to them by the state. State law
[17:05] decides what can be regulated through
zoning and is very specific that that
[17:10] the cities or towns can regulate land
use, building size, shape, height,
[17:15] materials and purpose, site dimensions,
setbacks, lot coverage, what percentage
[17:21] of the lot would be covered by a
structure and the location and use of
[17:25] buildings. However, we are limited
through zoning on what can be regulated
[17:31] related to water and energy use. Uh,
however, there are other provisions as
[17:36] as Corin had mentioned, zoning is simply
one component of the entire process to
[17:42] regulate data centers. Um, and as
mentioned earlier, uh, it's critical to
[17:47] define a data center when you are
looking to regulate it. Additionally,
[17:52] due to the processes in place as well as
the process being proposed, any data
[17:57] center proposal would need to comply
with plan Tucson 2025, our new general
[18:04] plan.
[18:07] So the process for reviewing and
considering and developing reviewing and
[18:14] considering a ordinance for uh zoning
regulations for large-scale data centers
[18:20] is is outlined here. Um it begins with
mayor and council direction where Marin
[18:26] council requested that city staff
develop this code proposal. Uh we then
[18:32] formed a technical advisory committee
which is an advisory committee made up
[18:37] of volunteer subject matter experts
across a broad array of areas related to
[18:42] data centers who provided information
and best practices on regulating data
[18:48] centers. From there we moved into our
community meetings. This is the fourth
[18:54] of four community meetings that we have
scheduled. two in person and two virtual
[18:59] to receive community feedback on the
proposal. Now, for those of you who have
[19:04] been to the previous meetings, the the
rest of this is a little bit different.
[19:08] Um, we've received some guidance that
mayor and council would like us to uh go
[19:14] before them in April for a study session
to brief and council on what we have
[19:19] heard in these community meetings and
receive feedback. And so, that is the
[19:23] next step in the process that that will
be forthcoming. that is not a vote on
[19:27] anything. That is simply a study session
to brief them. Um, as we go through that
[19:33] process, we'll continue to gather
community feedback. The survey will
[19:37] remain open and then based on feedback
we received. Uh the next steps in the
[19:42] process are a planning commission study
session at a time yet to be determined,
[19:47] a planning commission public hearing
where the public will be invited to
[19:52] speak specifically on this proposal yet
to be determined and then mayor and
[19:56] council consideration. So more to come
on that and certainly as we have more
[20:00] information on the specifics, we will be
updating our web page on that.
[20:06] So, as we're considering developing
these regulations, we are really looking
[20:11] at guidance from other plans and
policies that are currently in effect
[20:16] within the city. These are plans and
policies which have either been ratified
[20:20] by the voters in the case of plan Tucson
or adopted by mayor and council as
[20:25] official policy. These include, as I
mentioned, plan Tucson, uh the Tucson
[20:30] resilient together, which is our climate
action plan, the city's comprehensive
[20:34] economic development strategy, the one
water 2100 master plan, the large
[20:40] quantity water user ordinance, building
codes, as well as other provisions
[20:45] within within the unified development
code, which is our zoning code. uh
[20:50] things related to items such as
rainwater harvesting or um other
[20:54] development standards that would be
applicable for a structure like a data
[20:59] center just like they apply already to
any other structure uh within the city.
[21:05] So the one item that I mentioned there
is the large quantity water users
[21:08] ordinance and we've got Scott Shadweller
here who is going to speak a little bit
[21:14] about that from Tucson water.
>> All right. Thanks Carver. Good evening
[21:19] everybody. As Cover mentioned, my name
is Scott Schwab. I'm deputy director at
[21:22] Tucson Water. Uh, similar to this
ordinance, um, we developed a large body
[21:27] water user ordinance. Um, last year, uh,
it was put in place because we didn't
[21:31] have any guardrails up. We didn't have
any, um, guidance on thresholds for
[21:36] water use. So, when a new developer, a
new development, um, came to Tucson
[21:40] looking for water, looking to develop,
um, we worked out the engineering piece,
[21:44] we worked out the hydraulics and
whatever infrastructure was required. um
[21:48] you know we move forward with that if uh
if applicable. So the large quality of
[21:53] water users ordinance was approved by
mayor and council in August of 25. Uh it
[21:58] is in place today. Um it really sets the
guardrails for um establishing what uh
[22:04] you know defining what a large water
quantity user is. And that threshold was
[22:09] set at 10,000 ccf or that was the
equivalent of about 7.4 7.5 million
[22:16] gallons per month. That's an annual
average. Uh so they could use a little
[22:20] bit more one month or a little bit less
one a month, you know, taking into
[22:23] account for weather, things like that.
Um just to put that into context, our
[22:28] average residential user uses about 8
CCF. Um so this is the equivalent of
[22:33] about 1,200 single family homes or so.
We do not have any portable customers on
[22:38] our system right now that use 10,000 ccf
or more. We do have some on the reclam
[22:42] system, but those are mostly tied to
large uses such as golf courses or
[22:48] whatnot. Um, so this ordinance applies
to any large water user. In fact, this
[22:53] ordinance does not specifically call out
data centers. It does not mention them
[22:57] um by name at all. It is any large water
user that comes. So, any potential
[23:02] manufacturer um any other type of user
that would use this much water. It
[23:06] applies to any new development uh that
comes in. So from the ground up uh it
[23:10] would also apply to anybody who wants to
upgrade their facility. Uh for example,
[23:14] if they want to expand services and go
from uh you know a certain meter size up
[23:19] to above 10,000 ccf, they would have to
comply with this ordinance as well. Um
[23:25] what is required by this policy? Uh any
large water users would have to submit a
[23:29] sustainable uh water service application
which includes a conservation plan uh to
[23:34] Tucson Water for review. Uh this
includes things like defining how
[23:38] they're going to use the water, what
they're going to use, what their
[23:40] conservation policies are. Um is it
being done in the most efficient way? Uh
[23:46] if deemed complete by Tucson Water, it
will be put before mayor and council for
[23:50] their ultimate approval. Um where it
will be presented. So that ultimately
[23:54] this is each large water unit does need
to be approved by mayor and council. Uh
[23:59] similar to this ordinance as well, we
did have a technical advisory committee
[24:04] uh that finished up just recently. We
have stakeholders from the community
[24:07] from the economic development uh side,
the environmental uh stakeholder groups.
[24:13] Um they all provided comments that
information was presented to mayor and
[24:17] council uh last month uh for their
review. So that is that's information
[24:21] that they are uh looking over right now.
And if they do deem uh you know any
[24:26] updates or any modifications of the
policy necessary, that's something I'll
[24:30] come back for in future months.
That'll turn back over.
[24:43] » Thank you, Scott.
[24:48] So Scott mentioned a technical advisory
committee for the large quantity water
[24:52] users ordinance. Uh I want to clarify
that there was also a technical advisory
[24:56] committee formed for the data cent's
zoning code amendment. They are two
[25:02] different bodies. So just just to
clarify that they're comprised of of two
[25:06] different groups of people. However, the
technical advisory committee for data
[25:10] centers uh was established based on
direction that we received from mayor
[25:15] and council. Uh its purpose was to share
knowledge and expertise and discuss key
[25:20] issues related to land use environmental
concerns, resource consumptions,
[25:25] particularly water and power as well as
infrastructure needs for data centers.
[25:30] The committee was formed to uh help us
all learn about and provide input or on
[25:35] best practices, new technologies
and approaches that were undertaken in
[25:40] other cities or jurisdictions. Uh the
TAC was asked to advise on options to
[25:46] regulate large-scale data centers and
recommend topics and standards for the
[25:51] proposed zoning amendment. I want to be
clear that the TAC is not a
[25:55] decision-making body. They were simply
advisory that were providing input into
[26:00] the proposed standards. Uh there there
was a desire for consensus, but it
[26:06] wasn't always achieved. And so it we
aren't necessarily saying that every TAC
[26:11] member agreed with everything that um
came out of the recommendations but they
[26:16] did provide advisory input.
So the TAC uh includes 13 members from
[26:23] various groups. Uh they range from
watershed management to TE. So really we
[26:28] tried to get as many different groups as
we could involved in the committee to
[26:32] provide their input. Um, additionally,
we have uh had support from city staff
[26:39] across multiple different departments.
Uh, they were not members of the TAC,
[26:43] but they did provide input uh related to
uh sustainability, energy use, uh, water
[26:48] resources, economic development, um,
just across multiple areas to ensure
[26:53] that multiple different viewpoints were
considered when when developing uh, some
[26:58] of the proposed components. Um and again
these these the members of the TAC
[27:03] included environmental resources, power
supply, energy equity, people also
[27:08] involved in data consent data center
construction as well as people involved
[27:13] in the operation of data centers locally
within Tucson.
[27:20] Uh we also looked at uh what the TAC
thought was important at the very
[27:25] beginning of the process. uh we surveyed
TAC members on what components were of
[27:30] greatest concern to them individually.
Uh the feedback we received um was that
[27:36] water and energy consumption were of
greatest concern which is something we
[27:41] certainly are aware of. Um air quality
concerns also came ranked fairly high as
[27:47] did noise concerns and that was also
really closely related to setback from
[27:53] adjoining land uses. uh so that and
location so that they could be in areas
[27:59] that that were not already heavily
developed. Uh concerns were also
[28:03] expressed about heat impacts uh
provision of wildlife amenities,
[28:08] generator operation which certainly also
relates back to noise and air quality
[28:13] glare design aesthetic screening
vibration which also relates to noise
[28:18] and design features. Uh this is not
ultimately the category of items that a
[28:24] category list of items that we came up
with but during the process of kind of
[28:28] establishing where the concerns were it
was a useful exercise of the TAC. Uh all
[28:34] tech materials related to the meetings
including meeting notes and presentation
[28:39] slides are available on the city's
website uh which we will have a QR code
[28:44] for later in the presentation uh if you
would like to review those.
[28:50] So now we're going to shift gears a
little bit and talk about the actual
[28:53] zoning proposal that that we would like
to get your feedback on this evening.
[29:00] So when we developed these proposed
standards for large scale data centers
[29:06] uh we we essentially divided them into
five specific categories which we're
[29:10] going to talk about individually and
then poll feedback on. These include the
[29:15] definition, review process and location
proposal for large-scale data centers,
[29:21] energy and water use and sourcing to the
extent that we can regulate it through
[29:26] zoning setbacks, environmental
compatibility, landscaping and parking
[29:32] standards and noise and generator use.
[29:38] So during the these presentation slides,
uh we're asking or providing the
[29:45] opportunity for you to provide feedback
on each of these proposals. Uh this can
[29:50] be done either through a QR code which
will be up on the screen um in just a
[29:55] little bit or the paper sheets that some
of you have as well. If you'd rather
[29:59] provide that information that way, we'll
certainly accept it as well. I want to
[30:04] emphasize that both of those are the
same sets of questions. They will go
[30:09] into the same set of documented
responses that will be posted on the
[30:14] website and also provided to mayor and
counsel and the planning commission as
[30:20] feedback that we've received on this um
on this proposal. Uh there will also be
[30:25] the question and answer comment period
and then additional time in the lobby
[30:29] for uh people to provide further
feedback.
[30:34] So uh the next slide is really for those
of you who want to get into the survey.
[30:41] This is the QR code that links to the
survey. It's a series of questions that
[30:46] we'll go through section by section. Um,
if you don't want to do the survey
[30:51] online, but you want to provide
information, feel free to raise your
[30:54] hand. We've got some people out here who
can provide paper forms as well if you'd
[30:59] rather do that. The first two questions
on the online survey are name and email
[31:04] address. You are welcome to provide that
if you want. We do not require that as a
[31:09] required question. If you don't want to
provide that, we can simply move to the
[31:14] next questions as we get through the
process. But that's what you should be
[31:19] seeing if you're getting online.
Okay. Now, we're going to talk about the
[31:24] definition of a proposed large scale
data center. Uh, as I mentioned earlier,
[31:30] » that slide to accommodate people with
disabilities that may not be quick
[31:34] enough to get QR code.
>> Certainly.
[31:36] » Thank you.
>> And the QR code will also be posted at
[31:39] each set of survey questions. So, if
you're unable to capture it here, we can
[31:43] capture it at each survey question as
well. It's the same QR code.
[31:48] Has everybody had the opportunity to
capture the QR code?
[31:54] Okay.
[31:57] So, the next item is the definition of a
proposed large-scale data center. As I
[32:03] mentioned earlier, defining a
large-scale data center is key to
[32:06] regulating them. Uh currently we looked
at how large the data centers are that
[32:12] we have within the city of Tucson and
saw a natural break at around 30 to
[32:18] 40,000 square ft. And we're looking at
those are the smaller data centers that
[32:24] we've just seen develop throughout time
in the city. And so we wanted to
[32:29] establish standards for the larger scale
ones that we are seeing being proposed
[32:34] elsewhere. And so we established a
proposed 50,000 square foot threshold
[32:40] where a data center above 50,000 square
feet would be classified as a
[32:45] large-scale data center. In the
definition, we also included a general
[32:50] description of equipment and use of the
site. We also included language about
[32:56] ownership and uh it being part of a
facility or multiple facilities um
[33:03] establishing this under contiguous
ownership. So it's to avoid people
[33:07] trying to essentially circumvent the
definition of a large scale data center
[33:11] by building a whole bunch of smaller
data centers in in a line. And so the
[33:16] intent of this again proposed language
is to uh establish something that would
[33:21] allow us to regulate large-scale data
centers as they were developed. And we
[33:26] will have a question on that on the
survey uh once we get through a couple
[33:30] of additional slides.
[33:35] So in addition to the definition, we
would need to figure out where these
[33:40] might be permitted within the city. We
[snorts] looked at our zoning code and
[33:45] determined that our existing I2
industrial zone would be the appropriate
[33:50] zoning district for a large scale data
center. [clears throat] This is really
[33:55] the zoning district that is most intense
and it's intended to be for those land
[34:00] uses that would provide the greatest
impacts uh around the community. As
[34:06] such, these are the areas that are
located, as you can see on the map, in
[34:09] areas with very little development that
are far away from the urbanized areas of
[34:14] the city. So, we are proposing that data
centers be permitted through a specific
[34:20] process called the Marin Council special
exception, and I'll talk a little bit
[34:24] more about that within the I2 zone. So,
this would be something that is not by
[34:29] right, meaning that somebody could not
simply come in and say, I want to build
[34:33] a data center. Here's my build. You have
my permit application. Approve it. It
[34:38] would be a process where there would be
a public hearing before our zoning
[34:43] examiner who is the uh um quasi judicial
reviewer. There would be a neighborhood
[34:48] meeting and there would be consideration
by mayor and council. So there would be
[34:53] steps in the process that would be
public for public input on any proposal
[34:57] for a data center. Um this is
essentially the highest level of review
[35:02] that we have for any land use. It's it's
kind of very similar to a reszoning that
[35:08] would take place within a community. So
in addition to doing a merit council
[35:13] special exception uh within the I2 zone,
we would also consider permitting data
[35:20] centers through a planned area
development or a planned community
[35:23] development which are also very similar
to a resoning where there would be the
[35:29] neighborhood meeting, zoning examiner
review and merit council consideration.
[35:34] um those are very sort of project
specific where there's a little bit more
[35:39] flexibility in the process but also the
opportunity for additional community
[35:43] benefits. But it's really key to note in
in those instances again that there
[35:48] would be a public process and mayor and
council review.
[35:55] As I mentioned earlier, the process
either through a Marin council special
[36:00] exception or a PAD or a PCD, planned
area development or planned community
[36:04] development would require a neighborhood
meeting. A neighborhood meeting is a
[36:09] public meeting where the public is
invited to come to hear about the
[36:15] proposed data center project or whatever
the project is um and ask questions of
[36:22] the developer at that point in time.
Under our current zoning code,
[36:27] neighborhood meetings are required for
any Marin Council special exception, any
[36:32] PAD or any PCD development. It is part
of our process that is baked into all
[36:37] land use change. Under the current code
for any of those, there's a notice
[36:43] requirement of 400 ft from the property
line that property owners be notified of
[36:48] the neighborhood meeting and the
proposed change as well as notification
[36:53] of all neighborhood associations within
one mile.
[36:58] We are looking at propo or we are
proposing extending that notification
[37:03] area due to the impacts of large-scale
data centers as well as their potential
[37:09] location in largely rural areas. We're
looking at extending that from 400 ft to
[37:14] half a mile and also requiring
notification of all neighborhood
[37:19] associations
within 2 miles. And so it's really
[37:23] seeking to have a broader notice area
for the proposal than we would have for
[37:28] for any other type of land use change
within the city
[37:33] » and the lovely property owners.
>> That is correct under the current code.
[37:37] But if there's feedback on that, that is
certainly feedback that that we would uh
[37:41] like to receive from you as well.
>> You mean renters don't get notified
[37:45] under the current code?
>> They do not. That is correct.
[37:48] » So they would not be notified under this
code. the the property owner would be
[37:53] notified and the neighborhood
associations would be notified and they
[37:56] would have the opportunity to notify
their tenants or not. But that is how
[38:01] the code is currently structured.
>> What about the schools?
[38:04] » Schools are property within the
notification area and they would be
[38:07] notified.
[38:16] So the next slide before we get to the
survey is the proposed procedure for
[38:21] data center review. This is something
I've already talked about, but I just
[38:25] want to lay it out in a uh diagram
because I know it's it's a complex
[38:30] process and there are a lot of steps and
steps sound similar. So I can certainly
[38:34] appreciate um trying to to really wrap
your head around what all those steps
[38:40] are. But the first one is the
neighborhood meeting and that is the
[38:43] public meeting where the developer of
the proposal would meet with the public
[38:48] to provide property owners and
neighborhood associations and anyone
[38:52] else who comes to the meeting with
feedback on the proposal. Uh from there
[38:58] an applicant would uh meet with city
staff and then submit an application.
[39:05] Um there would be again public notice of
a zoning examiner public hearing that is
[39:10] fully public notice and a public hearing
would occur with our zoning examiner who
[39:16] is a again a quasi judicial person who
reviews zoning cases and then makes
[39:21] recommendations to mayor and counsel.
Zoning examiner would make that
[39:25] recommendation and then mayor and
counsel would consider the proposal.
[39:30] Mayor and council could approve, deny,
or modify a proposal based on feedback
[39:36] received.
>> Is any of this required to be bilingual
[39:40] or interpreted through ASL?
>> Certainly any ADA compliance would would
[39:45] be met and um certainly bilingual
translation is available just like it is
[39:50] through all other city processes.
>> Is the neighborhood meeting required to
[39:55] be in person? in the neighborhood
meeting for project blue with just two
[39:58] people from the county, one person from
the state, and a lawyer for project blue
[40:02] because that's the only people who are
living anywhere near the area.
[40:07] » I really don't know about the
neighborhood meeting that took place for
[40:10] project blue because it was in the
county and so it was not a city process
[40:15] that was followed. But that really
speaks to our intention to expand the
[40:20] notice area in the proposal for exactly
that reason because if there's nobody
[40:24] that lives within the area, we want to
notice a larger area to ensure that.
[40:33] Okay. Um so the next slide is back to
the survey. If you'd like to provide
[40:41] feedback on the next section of
questions, these relate specifically to
[40:47] the definition of large scale data
centers and our notice requirements. And
[40:52] I can come back to the definition slide
for a minute or so if people would like
[40:58] to review that again and provide any
feedback whether you believe this
[41:03] definition um essentially goes far
enough or needs to go further. And if
[41:08] you have any written feedback on this
definition, uh that will certainly help
[41:12] us to receive that as well.
[41:32] » Oh, certainly. Yeah. Hold on. Here we
go.
[41:39] Have you considered expanding the
notification
[41:43] range because the sound profile of data
centers is so much different and and
[41:48] propagates so much farther especially in
this particular climate to capture more
[41:53] people that are affected.
>> I think that's certainly something that
[41:56] we consider and I would encourage you to
place that in the comments as well if if
[42:00] you believe that that is important.
[42:04] Back to your definition of large scale,
have you considered putting an upper
[42:09] limit
to this definition? So then you know we
[42:14] don't have a medium acre
data center. I
[42:19] » think that's something again please
provide feedback on that that will be
[42:22] very helpful for us to receive as well.
[42:32] Okay.
[42:36] » So, the next question really goes back
to the the process for allowed zones and
[42:43] also the review process. Uh, so we
certainly ask for feedback on the review
[42:48] process of the proposal of notifying to
half an half a mile property owners as
[42:53] well as two miles to neighborhood
associations. Do you feel that's
[42:58] adequate? If you have any other feedback
to provide um please write it in the
[43:02] survey or on the sheet um so that we can
document that as well.
[43:18] » Certainly
>> go back to the one where it says 50,000
[43:22] square feet. So if they build something
49,000 square feet, they don't have to
[43:28] go through this process.
>> That would be correct. It wouldn't meet
[43:31] the definition of a large scale data
center, but that's part of the reason
[43:35] why we are looking at 50,000 square feet
and we weren't looking at 100,000 square
[43:40] feet or something like that because
[43:44] » we we certainly looked at that as well
and and there there are challenges from
[43:48] a zoning standpoint of regulating that,
but please provide that feedback as
[43:52] well. Oh, we will
>> again and again and again.
[43:59] » Are answers to the survey going to be
made public?
[44:01] » Yes, they will all be posted online on
the PDSD website, provided to mayor and
[44:06] council and provided to the planning
commission.
[44:11] » So, the input that we provide, questions
and clarification that are requested, we
[44:18] indicated that a committee or a group
are going to compile it to the convey it
[44:24] to the mayor. Is there going to be any
representation from someone outside of
[44:32] the city um group included in conveying
that? Because there could be a conflict
[44:39] of interest. Um we don't really have
representation as to how the data is
[44:44] manipulated or conveyed.
So actual verbatim comments for
[44:50] everything that we received will be
conveyed. We may provide an overview of
[44:55] the number of comments received or even
categories but the actual if you will
[45:00] metadata of every single specific
comment that we receive whether it's
[45:05] through the survey through comments in
the registration through post-it notes
[45:09] that were posted out in the lobby
through chat comments that we've
[45:13] received from the online meetings. Um,
it's any other comments that we receive,
[45:18] emails, those will all be provided to
mayor and council in a single document
[45:23] as well as the planning commission.
[45:34] People uh have an opportunity to answer
the survey questions specific to this.
[45:39] I do want to say also that the survey
will be left open for some time. So, if
[45:44] you don't get it tonight, you can come
back and provide additional feedback as
[45:47] well.
[45:52] » Yeah. At this point, I'm going to turn
it over to Dan Versk, who's going to
[45:55] talk about energy and water use.
[46:07] » Great. Um, thank you, Carver. Thank you
everyone for joining us today. Really
[46:11] appreciate it. I do want to point out
one quick thing um that might make it a
[46:16] little easier for people who are
following along using the QR codes. So
[46:19] this QR code goes to uh the survey, but
it's the same QR code every single time.
[46:25] So if you keep that page open, you're
able to kind of follow along. So you can
[46:30] potentially if I go to the next slide,
you could put it in your comments as I'm
[46:35] speaking. Um, and it'll keep you keep us
from having to jump back and forth and
[46:39] having to remember kind of what we're
going going over the specifics of it.
[46:44] So, just a little tip. Um, might help
with some of the logistics of the
[46:49] survey. Um, but as well you also have
the opportunity for the the written ones
[46:54] which is exactly the same.
>> Excellent. Great. So, um, wanted to talk
[46:59] a little bit about energy and water. Um
as uh Corin and Carvin Carver had
[47:05] mentioned earlier um these are two items
that um zoning really um is very limited
[47:11] in what um can be regulated through
these which is part of the reason why
[47:16] you know we're looking at things like
the large water uh large quantity water
[47:19] use ordinance and other methods in order
to really try to address these things as
[47:24] we know they are very important to the
community and very important to to the
[47:27] city of Tucson. And so um related to
energy consumption and sourcing um we do
[47:34] have um some regulations and things that
we are proposing related to this. We
[47:40] definitely want to get your feedback on
this. Um, but the idea here is to
[47:44] provide information, public information
that would be part of the application,
[47:49] part of the materials that make its way
through through the review and to mayor
[47:53] and counsel so our mayor and council can
make really the best decision possible
[47:58] and have all the information that they
need in front of them. And so the idea
[48:02] here is that every applicant that if
they were to come in, there are no
[48:07] applicants that have currently come in
that are in um but demonstrate access to
[48:12] adequate energy supply at the time of
the application. And so they have to
[48:16] show that through disclosure um that
they have adequate energy um supply at
[48:22] the time of application. It's not
something to where there is an adequate
[48:26] supply and then all of a sudden
infrastructure has to be created leading
[48:29] to rate increases and things of that
sort. Additionally, um the applicant
[48:34] must disclose proposed amount of energy,
energy mix including renewables and
[48:39] application materials related to this.
So again, you're providing all of that
[48:43] information so you can make that
decision. Um again, mayor and council,
[48:47] this is part of their decision-m
process. Um they don't have to approve
[48:51] this. They can approve this, deny this.
they could uh ask for additional
[48:55] conditions uh related to that based off
that information. So again, putting the
[49:00] information in front of the public and
front in front of our mayor council so
[49:04] they can make that decision. Um related
to kind of water use um we have a little
[49:09] more leeway on this one um as far as
what we can regulate and what we can do.
[49:14] Um but it's just not necessarily within
zoning. Um, so what pretty much anything
[49:22] that any applicant that comes in must
comply with the city's large quantity
[49:25] water user ordinance um if a Tucson
water um customer and Scott had talked a
[49:30] little bit about this earlier, but it
requires a water conservation plan. Um
[49:34] recycling water requirements impossible
um and really require it and requires
[49:38] monitoring and compliance. um if they
don't comply with it, there are um
[49:44] pretty steep penalties
um as far as related to this um and and
[49:50] and for that. Um so if they don't fall
within that however um which would be
[49:56] that 10,000 CFS that's got talked about
um they would be um required or actually
[50:04] we would it'd be required to meet that
the the the standard that is basically
[50:09] prohibiting the use of portable water.
So they wouldn't be able to utilize
[50:12] portable water for data center cooling
um if they weren't subject to the large
[50:17] quantity water use ordinance.
Additionally to this um similar to the
[50:21] energy um they would be required to
demonstrate access to water supply at
[50:26] the time of application as well. So yeah
bringing all that information making
[50:30] sure that all that information makes it
in front of mayor and council so they
[50:33] can make um a decision and understand
kind of what's in front of them. All
[50:37] that information would be public. It
would be submitted at the time of
[50:40] application early on in the process. So
it's available to the public. It's
[50:43] available to the zoning examiners. It's
available to staff. It's available to
[50:46] everyone.
Um, we have a couple questions. I'm
[50:50] going to hold up for a second. Um,
hopefully. Yes.
[50:55] » Will there be a requirement that they
have some percentage of renewables
[51:01] or recycled water usage?
>> Um, so there it's a great comment and a
[51:10] good one to submit and let us know. Um,
as of now in the proposal, there are not
[51:15] a requirement for a percentage of
renewable or or a percentage necessarily
[51:19] of recycled water. Um, they aren't
allowed to use utilize portable water.
[51:23] Um, if they're under that and then that
would be probably part of the water
[51:27] conservation plan if they were to do a
large quantity of water user ordinance,
[51:30] right?
>> Why not?
[51:33] » Um,
>> that is that is why we are in front of
[51:36] you to get feedback related to that. So,
that's that that is helpful. We
[51:39] appreciate it.
Um,
[51:41] » you mentioned state penalties. Could you
elaborate on that? How big of
[51:47] a
second?
[51:50] » Um, related to that, I and and
Scott and Chris.
[51:57] You know what we'll do? We'll look it up
and then when we're doing Q&A, I'll make
[51:59] sure that we respond to that. Um, and
make sure that, you know, it's it's
[52:02] pretty steep and it gets it multiplies
as you have more less and less
[52:08] compliance over time. I can get those
numbers
[52:10] » dollars. How are you going to They just
cut you a check. How you going to How
[52:14] you going to counter that when somebody
has millions of dollars will just be
[52:16] cutting your check? It's already
happening across the country.
[52:20] » Anyway, so um I'm going to have to move
on, but we will have Hold on one second.
[52:24] I'm going to I will let
>> Chris will come up and talk real quickly
[52:28] about this because he has the details
related to it and then then we'll have
[52:33] to move on.
>> Just to clarify, if they're using more
[52:36] than 7.8 million gallons per month since
they can use more portable water.
[52:41] » Um, it would be a part of their water
conservation plan. In general, they have
[52:46] to offset all of that water use, but
[52:52] » my name is Chris Ary. I work at the
Tucson City Attorney's Office. I'm going
[52:56] to answer the question about water use
penalties in the large quantity water
[53:01] user ordinance that's been adopted by
mayor council. There are of course some
[53:06] u financial penalties that occurred to
folks who violate the slaughter
[53:11] conservation plan that they submit as
part of the large quantity water user
[53:15] ordinance. But at the end stage of that
there is the ability of the city to um
[53:21] enact flow restrictions or to restrict
the water use manually and there's no
[53:26] amount of money that can um stop that.
So I just want to point that out. Um, as
[53:32] far as offsets, again, what we're asking
for in the large quantity water user
[53:37] ordinance is for applicants to
demonstrate the most efficient use of
[53:41] water for the technology that they have
and to also site their uh facilities in
[53:49] areas where there's proximity to
reclaimed water if possible and to use
[53:54] as much reclaimed water as they can. Um,
there are different perspectives about
[53:58] that and we'd love to hear your comments
about whether you think
[54:02] these large facilities should use
portable water or reclaim water or both.
[54:06] » Can you tell us where that valve is? We
won't tell anyone. You told us
[54:09] [laughter]
[54:12] » which I did not understand that
question.
[54:18] » Who gets to decide when the water gets
shut off if a large water user goes too
[54:23] far?
So the the language in the large
[54:27] quantity water user ordinance doesn't
talk about shut offs. It talks about
[54:31] flow restrictions. So they ask a large
quantity water user will be submitting a
[54:36] water use plan and if that plan is not
met then we will meter the usage so that
[54:42] it complies with that plan.
>> Who determines how much reclaimed water
[54:46] they should be using? Who decides what
what's the best? There are a set of
[54:50] recommendations that are made on that in
that respect by the city of Tucson water
[54:55] department director and some of that is
related to proximity to the reclaim
[54:59] system but ultimately it's a mayor
council decision.
[55:07] » Great. Thank you Chris. I appreciate it.
Okay. Um moving on and we will have Q&A
[55:11] at the end. Just want to let everyone
know um where we'll have the opportunity
[55:14] to be able to uh provide comments, ask
questions, etc.
[55:18] Um so talk a little bit about proposed
setbacks and this is something we've
[55:23] gotten a lot of feedback on so far and
we do really appreciate a lot of the
[55:27] feedback um especially related to kind
of noise impacts and things of that
[55:31] sort. So um in the proposal that is in
front of you the one we've that we've
[55:35] that we've put in front of you um we
have a required 400t setback from data
[55:41] center use uh to urban residential areas
and noise sensitive uh areas such as
[55:46] schools. Um and additionally we have uh
a required 200 foot setback um from data
[55:54] center use to commercial or office use
is just understanding that the
[55:58] incompatibility of these of these
facilities um really related to
[56:03] commercial or related to office
especially related to residential um is
[56:06] not there and so this is intended to
make sure that it's set back. We've
[56:10] seen, you know, a lot of situations up
in um the Phoenix area where they didn't
[56:14] have regulations in place um for this
and we have data centers right across
[56:19] the street from a lot of residential
neighborhoods. Um they've measured you
[56:23] know heat impacts and noise impacts and
things of that sort and this is really
[56:26] intended to um to mitigate some of that.
Um we've had we've had several comments
[56:31] related to uh you know whether this is
enough or not. Um we do really
[56:36] appreciate that. It's something we will
be looking at. um as far as looking at
[56:40] potential revisions to um as we move
forward um with this proposal. Um so
[56:45] that that's the current proposal um uh
that we have kind of in front of you um
[56:50] related to proposed setbacks um as well
for this
[56:55] um related to that uh there is a
question in there related to that
[56:58] whether it's um appropriate or not um as
well as you know open-ended question to
[57:04] be able to provide your comments. Huh?
>> Two questions. How come the slide
[57:09] doesn't have the same amount of stuff on
it as the sheet? The sheet has two more
[57:13] items, landscaping.
>> Oh, yeah. We're uh we'll be talking
[57:17] about that in a second.
[57:21] » We're already within the times for
community questions. It's 7:30.
[57:24] » Yeah, we're we we're almost there. Okay,
we'll be there. Okay. No, we
[57:29] » How come the notification thing is is so
large, but that setback is only 400 ft?
[57:35] I mean, that's nothing.
>> Nothing.
[57:37] » That's so tiny. That's not a quarter of
a mile.
[57:40] » Yeah.
[57:44] » Good things to comment on. We will take
your feedback related, but we are
[57:47] looking at it. So, we appreciate it.
[57:56] » I'll let you know. Okay. A couple of
other things that zoning can regulate.
[58:00] Uh, one of them being um noise.
>> What's your name?
[58:04] » Regulation. My name is Nick Martell.
>> Thank you. Um, so our proposal right now
[58:09] is to require a independent noise study
that measures sound levels and tone. Um,
[58:15] that's something that would be in that
5565 decel area when it reaches a
[58:19] property line. So on the outside or the
actual property line between um the
[58:24] proposed data center and any other land
use. Um the other thing would be to set
[58:29] clear noise limits on that property line
like I just said with those decibb um
[58:33] and then require sound walls or roof
screening around generators um and then
[58:39] other loud equipment. So that's just to
kind of uh a to block some of the uh the
[58:44] uh generators and some of those other
visual aspects of it and also to block
[58:48] some sound.
[58:53] Is there any accommodation on that on
the decel level for duration? Because
[58:58] even though it's 50 dB, 50 dB at a
constant 247
[59:04] pace has a different effect than just
checking for a single.
[59:08] » So I believe that would be covered in
the sound study that would be required
[59:11] for this.
>> What what waiting scale are you using to
[59:16] the sound? a waiting specifically
derates the sal of these facilities.
[59:21] » I'd have to get back to you on that one.
[59:26] » Okay. Uh some proposed regulations for
generator use. Um so generators are part
[59:30] of data centers in terms of backup power
usually. Um so our proposal would be to
[59:35] use cleaner high efficiency generators
such as tier 4 or natural gas or dual
[59:40] fuel. Um battery backups would be used
first during power disruptions. So if
[59:46] there were a power disruption to use
that backup uh battery first before
[59:50] getting into generators. Um there would
be no load shifting allowed which is the
[59:54] uh running of generators instead of
using grid power. Um and then generators
[59:59] run only during emergencies or required
maintenance. Um and then that would be
[1:00:03] non-emergency uh maintenance would only
be limited to 9 to5s on weekdays.
[1:00:09] » Who's going to regulate that and and how
do you file complaints if they're not in
[1:00:14] compliance? So this would be regulated
through our code enforcement. Uh code
[1:00:18] enforcement, you have a website, you can
use um 311. There's several ways you can
[1:00:22] call code enforcement.
>> Who monitors the load?
[1:00:26] » Sorry.
[1:00:30] » Um that would just be a regulation and
if they were out of code with it, then
[1:00:33] they could be issued a violation.
>> How would anybody know they were out of
[1:00:37] code?
>> That would be up to our code enforcement
[1:00:39] department to enforce.
>> Teen will take care of that.
[1:00:43] » All right. I will leave this up for one
minute um just in case nobody got it and
[1:00:49] then I'll move on just a second.
>> I'm going to go back to the compliance
[1:00:54] thing again. These guys have billions of
dollars. So what are you going to do
[1:00:58] when they just keep cutting you a check
and they keep violating stuff? You going
[1:01:02] to shut them off? You going to tell them
to get the hell out? You can't do
[1:01:05] anything. You don't have the money
against these companies. Why are you
[1:01:09] guys not thinking about this?
>> Thank you for that feedback. that stuff
[1:01:12] we would love to hear.
Okay, moving on to proposed landscaping.
[1:01:18] Um so one of the proposed landscape um
items here would be to require an
[1:01:22] enhanced landscaping border of 20 ft. Um
that would be around the property line
[1:01:26] that helps eliminate some visual aspects
of these data centers. It also um
[1:01:31] provides areas to provide um low water
plants um uh desert plants for desert
[1:01:38] landscaping. Um and then to define a
minimum parking ratio. That's also one
[1:01:42] of the aspects of zoning. Um a lot of
these do not require a lot of parking
[1:01:46] and so we would not be requiring a lot
of parking for them to use it. Um kind
[1:01:50] of limiting imperous surfaces at data
centers.
[1:01:55] » So there are no jobs.
[1:01:59] » Cool. Thanks.
>> Okay. Environmental compatibility. So we
[1:02:04] are going to utilize some of our
existing standards. Uh we are not
[1:02:07] proposing any changes to environmental
compatibility. Uh we would require
[1:02:11] applicants to adhere to any overlays
such as the environmental resource zone
[1:02:16] um the wash overlays the water course
amenity safety and habitat zones. They
[1:02:20] would have to utilize commercial
rainwater harvesting and hillside
[1:02:23] development standards.
[1:02:27] This includes protection of existing
aoyos and washes. Uh the use of low
[1:02:32] water and drought tolerant plants. Uh as
well as a requirement of harvesting 50%
[1:02:37] of total landscape water demands. Um
just then touching on some of those uh
[1:02:42] desert landscapes that I was talking
about. Um and then utilizing an existing
[1:02:45] airport hazard district uh requirements
on glare. A lot of our I2 zones are
[1:02:51] pretty close to the airport. So they
would have to comply with all airport
[1:02:54] environment zone uh requirements.
>> Okay. On that last point, what where
[1:02:59] would I find Can you go back?
>> Uh where would I find those standards?
[1:03:04] The state standards.
>> These are in our unified development
[1:03:07] code. These would be in the overlay
section of the UDC. Um if you would
[1:03:11] like, I can talk to you afterward and
show you if you'd like to see them.
[1:03:17] » Okay. Um going to give you another
minute if you would like to put any
[1:03:21] feedback in for those landscape parking
and compatibility. [clears throat]
[1:03:36] » Then no need to go back to the good
[1:03:52] All right, we just have a couple more
slides before we can get to the question
[1:03:56] and answer comment section. U just
wanted to emphasize I already covered
[1:04:01] some of this opportunities for further
input and discussion. This QR code is
[1:04:06] for the PDSD website where information
is going is all posted. Uh, as I
[1:04:12] mentioned earlier, we're looking at
probably a mayor and council special or
[1:04:16] a study session in April and then to be
determined on planning commission study
[1:04:21] session, planning commission public
hearing and merit council consideration.
[1:04:26] Uh, we also have a um
FAQ document that we are continuing to
[1:04:33] update and it's posted to the website.
Uh, this is again the process uh that we
[1:04:39] outlined earlier. you've already seen
that. Um, and so now we're getting set
[1:04:44] up for the Q&A section. Uh, microphone
is being set up by Cesar. Uh, please
[1:04:50] line up behind the microphone to speak.
Uh, we ask that you please be succinct
[1:04:54] and speak for no more than 60 seconds so
that we can ensure that everybody has an
[1:04:58] opportunity to speak wishes to. And your
questions during this Q&A uh, session
[1:05:05] will be included on the record of public
input. um these are being filmed and
[1:05:10] these will be documented and sent to
parent council and the planning
[1:05:13] commission as well.
[1:05:17] » Okay, great. So, we have about 20
minutes for Q&A. Again, no more than 60
[1:05:22] seconds. We want everybody to have a
chance their chance to to ask questions
[1:05:26] or speak.
>> Can you give us
[1:05:32] » the full 30 minutes?
>> Well, spoke pretty slow. So,
[1:05:38] So, um, Colleen is holding going to hold
up cards to remind you of your seconds.
[1:05:44] Um, we know that in public hearings, you
get three minutes. This is one minute
[1:05:48] because this is not a public hearing and
we want more people that have a chance.
[1:05:52] So, um, and Cesar will be making sure
that you also know when it's time to
[1:05:58] stop, but we really value your comments.
So, go ahead. First, let's hopefully the
[1:06:02] mic is working.
>> Yes. Hi. Uh, my name is Vake. I'm a
[1:06:06] member of the no desert data center
coalition um can you bring up the slide
[1:06:10] of the map please with the with the I2
zones. Um and while that's happening um
[1:06:15] I encourage everyone here to leave
comments that say prohibit large scale
[1:06:20] data centers. I think we've heard
tonight that whatever restrictions there
[1:06:23] are incredibly hard to enforce if at
all. Um and so please do say just
[1:06:28] prohibit large scale data centers. It's
not up to us to explain how to do that
[1:06:32] legally. It's up to our city staff to
figure that out. Um so if you do know
[1:06:37] that though, please let them know. Um so
this map, the purple area is the large
[1:06:42] is the um heavy industrial area to the
south of the airport. If you see that
[1:06:46] little carve out south of that purple
area, that's Summit. They have no uh
[1:06:51] representation in the city of Tucson,
but they are 80% Latin. And they border
[1:06:55] the largest section of industrial, heavy
industrial. You can see the western
[1:06:59] border there is the San Javier district
of the Kona nation. So these are folks
[1:07:04] who are disenfranchised by these data
centers and that's the heaviest
[1:07:07] concentration right there. This is
environmental racism.
[1:07:15] So hi, my name is L. I'm here to
represent myself as a geoccientist from
[1:07:18] the University of Arizona and I'm also
here as a member of Tucson Red Action.
[1:07:23] Uh our group has made a list of demands
and I'm just going to go over that real
[1:07:26] quick. Our first one, a complete
dedication to the not one drop policy.
[1:07:31] This includes uh water and it's been
amended to be an airbased project. We
[1:07:36] want to include that also all natural
resources including petroleum, gas uh
[1:07:41] etc. Um our second demand uh we want a
commitment to the prohibition of any
[1:07:48] data center. Um we demand that the city
at every stage if you have spoken that
[1:07:54] you are only able to control this from a
building code standpoint. Um all the
[1:07:59] other groups um need to work with you to
make sure that no data center can be
[1:08:04] made. Uh and most importantly we want a
seat at the table. Uh this TAC board
[1:08:09] lacks proper representation by the
people who will be affected most. We
[1:08:14] want energy experts, water experts from
nonprivate, non um for-profit
[1:08:20] organizations along with gender and
racial tribal voices.
[1:08:24] » Great.
>> And I'll just like if you have written
[1:08:29] comments for this this opportunity at
the mic, please also submit those in
[1:08:33] writing.
[1:08:36] » Um my name is Reyes or doesn't really
matter. Um, but if I go home and I turn
[1:08:41] on the faucets in my house, um, I will
be shut off water eventually. So, why
[1:08:46] does this standard not, you know, follow
liquid status centers?
[1:08:50] » Y,
>> our water is our most precious resource
[1:08:52] in the desert. And they're already
talking about cutting us off from the
[1:08:55] Colorado River water. Um, and the second
point is the last time I was here that
[1:09:00] your tag group of experts, none of them
were explicitly against data centers,
[1:09:05] which you have a bias in there. If you
have true expertise, some of them would
[1:09:10] lead to the fact that they don't believe
data centers are are a viable option in
[1:09:13] our desert. You're picking first on if
these people are pro data center and
[1:09:17] then decide their expertise among them.
It's not fair. Um, finally, there needs
[1:09:23] to be a prohibitive uses of this data
center. There is obnoxious uses such as
[1:09:27] immigration enforcement and mass
surveillance. Um, that needs to be
[1:09:31] [applause]
[1:09:38] My name is Kathy Thompson. Um, I'd like
to quantify what an actual need is. We
[1:09:44] don't need a data center. We need
schools. We need hospitals. We need
[1:09:48] homes. We need food distribution. We
[applause] don't need data center all of
[1:09:53] our use to just sell us more crap. It's
going to end up in the landfill. Um
[1:09:59] these companies are rushing to build
these data centers because the private
[1:10:03] capital is drying up. Companies like
Blue Owl, Apollo, they have seen great
[1:10:08] drops in their stock prices recently.
They they are just rushing to just take
[1:10:12] advantage of communities. Um I'd like to
also find out if you're going to find
[1:10:17] for excess water use, what are you going
to do? Go to the Midwest or the
[1:10:21] Northwest and buy more and ship it here?
I mean, the fine doesn't do anything.
[1:10:25] The water is a precious resource for
life. It's not for this technology
[1:10:30] behemoth that we're going to look at in
10 years and say, "Who the heck let them
[1:10:34] build that thing?" [applause]
[1:10:42] Hi there. My name is Melissa Westbrook.
Um, number one, looking at that panel,
[1:10:46] it looks about white. Uh, [laughter]
secondly, um, this thing has grammatical
[1:10:52] and one very glaring numerical error. If
you need someone to proofread, I used to
[1:10:56] be a proofreader and editor. Um, I will
say to you that again, we do need to
[1:11:02] understand why are we building these
things? Why this rush for AI? It's
[1:11:09] dangerous. It's dangerous in our public
schools. And that's my area of
[1:11:13] expertise. So, I don't I grew up here.
I'm a pr proud wildcat. Water is our
[1:11:21] most precious resource. We are not going
to give it away. We don't have it. The
[1:11:28] Colorado River, you guys have got to
Somebody's got to put the brakes on. If
[1:11:33] it's all about money, I got you. If it's
all about money, hey,
[1:11:40] [applause]
[1:11:46] my name is Aiden. I'm a member of local
IU 140 or I local 140. Uh, I just have
[1:11:51] two things to say. one, as far as I can
tell, AI has been used to power the
[1:11:56] worst elements in our society just over
and over again. I can't see any real
[1:12:00] reason that it would be a benefit to our
city to have one of these data centers.
[1:12:03] On a more procedural point, uh I have
experience working with a lot of large
[1:12:07] corporations. They're going to violate
your policies. They violate policies,
[1:12:11] safety policies, environmental policies
constantly and with no regard. And so if
[1:12:16] your first thought is not how are we
going to prevent them or stop them when
[1:12:21] they do violate these policies, you're
looking at it from the wrong
[1:12:24] perspective, you're you're not going to
stop them from using too much water or
[1:12:27] too much power or too much whatever.
They do it on a regular basis. They will
[1:12:31] easily put their employees at risk.
They'll take the blood out of your veins
[1:12:34] if you let them. And so if you're not
looking at them as your enemy, you're
[1:12:37] looking at this wrong.
[1:12:41] » [applause and cheering]
[1:12:43] » HI, MY NAME IS DIANE Rosia and I'm a
proud Tucson of 56 years and I'm a
[1:12:48] realtor. So, I house people here in our
city. I have a question.
[1:12:54] Since Tucson already has a data center
operating within the city limits at
[1:12:59] roughly 40,000 square ft of raised floor
space, why wasn't that considered
[1:13:05] sufficient reason earlier to review
whether the land use codes should
[1:13:10] address impacts such as setbacks,
energy, water use, environmental
[1:13:15] compatibility, noise and generator use,
and appropriate zoning before future
[1:13:20] applications arise.
[1:13:24] » [applause]
>> have an answer before the next comment.
[1:13:33] » Okay, sorry about that. Um, yes. So,
honestly, we hadn't heard any concerns
[1:13:38] related to that and it wasn't until we
heard concerns from the public that we
[1:13:43] really needed we needed to go in and
actually create regulations related to
[1:13:48] this and look at those attacks. And so
that is the reason why those data
[1:13:52] centers were just functioning within
industrial areas and it really we hadn't
[1:13:58] had any complaints by neighbors around
there or anything else. That's the
[1:14:01] reason why until this point we hadn't.
[1:14:08] » Hi guys, it's April. I wanted to bring
up two things. When my neighborhood
[1:14:14] wanted to install a traffic calming
device with a grant in our neighborhood,
[1:14:19] we had to get signatures from 60% of the
residents on that street.
[1:14:26] And yet, these proposed
notifications are actually nowhere near
[1:14:32] the amount that should be compared to
something like a community trying to get
[1:14:37] a very real benefit like a traffic
calming. Secondly, I know that we know
[1:14:43] as people who have code and write code
and deal with code in Tucson, we know
[1:14:48] how to make land uses prohibited. We
know how to make it prohibited for
[1:14:55] shelters, for rehabs, for many other
actual useful land uses. And that's why
[1:15:00] Mayor Castle just had to declare an
emergency around homelessness to get
[1:15:05] over those codes. I encourage you to
learn from what you do well already
[1:15:10] [laughter] and apply that to this
situation. Thank you.
[1:15:19] » Hi, my name is Reed. Um, I'm
I'm tired. I'm tired of this. I'm tired
[1:15:27] of coming to these meetings. I'm tired
of saying the same things over and over
[1:15:31] again to the city officials,
specifically mayor and council, who do
[1:15:36] not appear to be listening. Why should
we expect mayor and council to listen to
[1:15:40] you or to listen to the feedback that we
have given you when they were spending
[1:15:46] they spent a couple years before they
told anyone about project blue working
[1:15:51] behind the scenes to make it happen?
They were meeting regularly with Amazon
[1:15:55] every few weeks. I think 2024, 2025 to
get advice from Amazon about Arizona
[1:16:02] water law and they never thought to tell
the people of Tucson. These are the
[1:16:06] people you're reporting to. My question
for you is, how are you, given that
[1:16:12] betrayal, how are you going to get them
to listen to you? How are you going to
[1:16:16] get them to listen to us? Cuz I don't
have any faith that they will.
[1:16:21] [applause]
[1:16:26] Hi there, Derek Espalos. I am an
accountant, a data analyst, and a
[1:16:30] current candidate for the Arizona
Corporation Commission, which I can
[1:16:33] assure you is not going to protect
anyone from anything that happens. So, I
[1:16:39] have three questions. I'm just going to
throw them out there. Why should we
[1:16:43] trust this process? Because there, as
was just mentioned, we've been through
[1:16:48] this process. We keep going through this
process and no trust is never
[1:16:52] established. The second question is, are
you going to disclose how you're
[1:16:57] scraping and putting together this data?
Because having the binary options mixed
[1:17:02] with the comment option leads to a lot
of statistical bias. And finally, when
[1:17:08] will [clears throat] Tucson understand
that no means no?
[1:17:11] » No.
[1:17:14] » Response before the next.
>> Yeah, I want to respond to that question
[1:17:17] and the previous question about the
process and where is this feedback
[1:17:20] going? How do you know this is going to
be listened to? So, our mayor council is
[1:17:25] very interested in the feedback from the
public and the technical advisory
[1:17:29] committee. That's actually why they put
a pause on project blue last summer so
[1:17:34] that we could have a broader community
conversation about what are the
[1:17:38] safeguards we need to have in place for
our community as these uses are
[1:17:41] proposed. So, I think it's exactly in
reaction to what they heard from the
[1:17:45] community that they directed staff to
make sure we have protections and guard
[1:17:50] rails in place for our community. So,
that's their intent with this process.
[1:17:54] Um, and we will be taking all of this
feedback to mayor and council in the
[1:17:58] next month or so um to give them an
update on what we've heard so far and
[1:18:04] give them an opportunity to provide
additional feedback and direction.
[1:18:13] Hi, my name is Leilani. Um, a comment
and then a question. Um, under the
[1:18:19] location and design section, I believe
there was a bullet that said the
[1:18:25] applicant would propose the regulations.
I find that comical. Why would we afford
[1:18:32] the applicant the right to propose the
regulations? I don't know if you're
[1:18:38] looking for feedback on how we should
incorporate or mandate the process as
[1:18:46] well as the feedback on the impacts. Um,
and then also with regards to the
[1:18:53] penalties that have been assessed, I'd
like to know over the last 10 years what
[1:18:59] the financial penalties that have been
assessed. He didn't mention, Chris did
[1:19:04] not mention
uh and because we know there no one's
[1:19:08] monitoring it. Um and that would show
that it would support that no one's
[1:19:14] monitoring it. So the financial
penalties I'm curious what that amount
[1:19:18] is. Um yeah, I know. But um
>> you're good.
[1:19:24] » Okay.
>> Yeah. Okay. Um with regards to the
[1:19:29] applicant demonstrating the access to
energy Okay. Okay. Go ahead and respond.
[1:19:35] » I'll get back in line if there's still
by the way I'm happy to speak and talk
[1:19:40] through the details of some of those.
I'm not entirely sure about the um
[1:19:45] applicant proposing. Um I will say
related to the large quantity water use
[1:19:49] ordinance. It was just put in place in
August and as Scott has mentioned
[1:19:53] previously um existing there are no uh
large quantity water people that would
[1:20:01] actually qualify for that that are on
the portable system and the only ones
[1:20:04] that are really in the in the city.
There's only a handful and they're on
[1:20:07] the reclaimed system as of now. And so
that kind of gives you an understanding
[1:20:12] of how large of the that threshold is,
but it also gives you an understanding
[1:20:16] of kind of the reason why there wouldn't
be any penalties because no one is
[1:20:19] actually a part of that program at this
point.
[1:20:26] » Good evening. Thank you for taking my
question. My name is Albert. I am a
[1:20:31] retired
uh environmental biology teacher. And
[1:20:35] one of the things I used to teach my
students when it became the topic of
[1:20:40] water was the concept of water mining.
And most people don't understand what
[1:20:46] water mining is. So I'm going to address
you guys. That is when you take more
[1:20:51] water out of the ground than
reflections. There's nothing in a hole
[1:20:55] and pumping water. Just water was
limited by 2025 by law to stop water
[1:21:02] mining. And that's why we started
blending cap water. Any development in
[1:21:08] town has to be a guaranteed 100year
water supply. How is billions of gallons
[1:21:15] a month going to guarantee that this
data center will will have enough water
[1:21:22] supply for a 100 years. And how are we
going to do that without water mining?
[1:21:28] That would be my question perhaps for
the lawyer of Susan. Thank you. I think
[1:21:34] the [applause] change
[1:21:39] 2030
used to be 2025.
[1:21:46] [clears throat]
>> All right.
[1:21:49] » So to help answer that question, one of
the requirements of the large quantity
[1:21:53] water users policy was that they do have
to fall within our assured water supply.
[1:21:57] So that is one of the requirements that
we would look at to make sure that we're
[1:22:00] not going above and beyond. Um so that
is one of the things that we have that
[1:22:04] much water in the desert.
>> We have that much water.
[1:22:09] » We have a very resilient supply as of
right now.
[1:22:18] » Okay. I want to let you know we have our
hard stuff at 8 because we have to leave
[1:22:23] this room. It will continue in the lobby
and staff will stick around for at least
[1:22:27] a half an hour and can talk individually
with all of you. So, let's continue. We
[1:22:32] can get in hopefully three more people.
>> Hi, Elena native Tonan. Um, I want a
[1:22:38] future in Tucson, which is why I'm here.
Um, I just want to add my voice to the
[1:22:44] many voices here who are asking to see
more prohibitive zoning that would
[1:22:48] actually prohibit hypers scale data
centers in the city t of Tucson limits.
[1:22:53] Um, I see some of the efforts in the
proposed code to mitigate harms um from
[1:23:00] this development. I appreciate that and
frankly it's just not enough. Um, I
[1:23:05] think we're still seeing that
communities are facing disproportionate
[1:23:09] harms while we don't really get to see
any of the benefits, frankly, of these
[1:23:13] projects. Um, I have major concerns
about enforcement and monitoring. Who
[1:23:18] does this? Is this sufficient?
Particularly, as folks have mentioned,
[1:23:22] for companies that are making billions
of dollars. Um, you seem to imply in
[1:23:26] some of your answers and some of what I
saw written that it's up to the public
[1:23:29] to like call in. Um, so anyway, I want
to understand the enforcement and the
[1:23:33] monitoring mechanisms. Um, how do data
centers fit into plan Tucson and how
[1:23:40] you're prioritizing economic development
in the city? A plan Tucson general plan
[1:23:46] is a reflection of a city's values. Is
like, do we value this? Is this within
[1:23:51] our values? Is this something
[1:23:57] [applause]
[1:23:59] about us?
Hi. Um, I am not an expert in anything
[1:24:03] unfortunately. Um, I just had a couple
of like facts that I just kind of
[1:24:07] Googled really quickly. Um, so that's a
quick quick Google search. Um, you can
[1:24:11] see that AI in 2025 used about give or
take 3 312 to 764 billion water liters
[1:24:19] of water this year, last year alone. And
it's projected that in Phoenix um, data
[1:24:24] centers could consume up to 3.8 billion
gallons of water per year. Tucson
[1:24:28] doesn't have that kind of water. Do we
want the water to go to people in
[1:24:32] communities or do we want it to go to
data centers here? Yep. [applause]
[1:24:39] » Hi, my name is Brandon. This might be
normally where I take do the courageous
[1:24:43] thing and thank you for hosting this
meeting, but we're not thankful that we
[1:24:46] have to keep coming out to these
meetings and talking to you guys. Last
[1:24:49] summer, we told you we don't want a data
center in the desert. It does not make
[1:24:52] sense for us. no matter what regulations
you put on the screen, um it's just not
[1:24:56] right for the desert. It doesn't make
any sense here. Um and instead of
[1:24:59] listening to us, you guys have jumped to
this inevitability that the data center
[1:25:03] has to be here. So, let's just go ahead
and figure out how we're going to
[1:25:05] regulate that.
>> They're not inevitable.
[1:25:07] » They're not inevitable. That's what
we're here to tell you. We don't have to
[1:25:10] have a data center in the desert. It
doesn't make sense to do it. The first
[1:25:13] question on your frequently asked
questions flyer is, can we prohibit a
[1:25:16] data center from being here?
>> Yeah.
[1:25:18] » Instead of answering that, you've just
told us what a data center is. If you
[1:25:21] look at that, the question should be,
"What is it actually?" You didn't answer
[1:25:23] the question. Um, but I think in one of
your slides, you maybe did because it
[1:25:27] says that the city is able to control
land use.
[1:25:30] » Yeah.
>> So, instead of having these regulations
[1:25:32] and these conversations, how about we
stop stop and talk about how we're going
[1:25:36] to not have a data center here. It does
not make sense.
[1:25:41] [applause]
We'll take the last question, but I
[1:25:44] think it should be noted that there's a
complete error in the response to the
[1:25:48] first question. That's not actually the
response. They just discovered this.
[1:25:52] Final question for comments.
>> Hi, my name is Lee and my question is
[1:25:57] why was TEP allowed on the technical
advisory committee when they have a
[1:26:01] vested interest in building data
centers? [applause]
[1:26:05] The for-profit company, the Canadian
company that owns TP said they plan to
[1:26:09] spend$ 1.5 to2 billion on additional
generation. So, it seems like we
[1:26:14] shouldn't have someone with a vested
interest guiding this. Um, I also want
[1:26:17] to know if you're looking at all about
the connection of this map and
[1:26:20] environmental racism cuz these seem like
the communities like on the southside
[1:26:25] that have been poisoned for generations
and generations. So, if you're not going
[1:26:28] to put one in the foothills, I don't
think you should put a data center
[1:26:31] anywhere in
the final question. Why is there so many
[1:26:35] police here? This is a community
meeting. It feels like to have a whole
[1:26:39] line of police here. So,
>> yeah, I would really like to look at
[1:26:43] facts to include environmental justice
and the history of of pollution in
[1:26:47] Tucson. Thank you. [cheering]
[1:26:51] [applause]
[1:26:54] » We really need all the feedback. Thank
you for sharing your concerns,
[1:26:58] questions, and input in this process. It
is definitely going to shape what we
[1:27:02] take to Mayor Council and where this
process ultimately goes for our
[1:27:06] community. So, thank you all for being
here tonight. We will be around um in
[1:27:10] the lobby for more questions and
discussion if folks have more time and
[1:27:14] more questions that you want to ask. Um
but we do need to leave the auditorium
[1:27:17] now so that uh Ringcon High can close up
for the evening. Thank you very much to
[1:27:22] Ringcon High for hosting us and thank
you all for being here.