Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening. Are we ready to get going? How to participate in the meeting. You can attend in person at council chambers located at 250 East L Street. Cable TV broadcast, check with your cable provider for your local government broadcast channel. You could live stream online at www.ci.benicia.ca.us slash agendas. Zoom meeting, information located on on the agenda and on screen. On Zoom, use participant option to raise hand or star nine for attendees participating via phone during the public comment period for the item you wish to speak on. Please note that your electronic device must have microphone capability. Once unmuted, you'll have up to three minutes to speak. Any member of the public who requires accommodation should email Development Services Department at planning at ci.benicia.ca.us. And we will make every effort to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety. We'll call the meeting to order at 6.01. Staff, please call roll.

Yes, Commissioner Bennett. Commissioner Donahue? Here. Commissioner Gilpin-Hayes?

Here.

Commissioner Gorman? Here. Commissioner Jessen? Absent. Commissioner Marshall? Here. And Chair Slate?

Here. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

The fundamental rights of each member of the public can be found in the municipal code post on the city's website and on a plaque that is posted at the entrance to this meeting per section 4.04.030 of the city of Benicia's open government ordinance.

Do we have a motion to adopt the agenda?

So moved.

I'll second.

We have a motion from Commissioner Gilpin-Hayes and a second from Commissioner Gilman. Staff, please call roll. Oh, I said Gilman.

Yes, Commissioner Bennett. Commissioner Donahue. Yes. Commissioner Gilpin-Hayes.

Yes.

Commissioner Gorman. Yes. Commissioner Marshall. Yes.

And Chair Slate.

Yes. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda that is within the subject jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. State law prohibits the Commission from responding to or acting upon matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker has a maximum of three minutes for public comment. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with the previous speaker. If applicable, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. Speakers may not make personal attacks on council members or the public or make comments which are slanderous or which may invade an individual's personal privacy. If you're a remote participant and would like to make public comment, please raise your hand now as there is a 10 second delay. And if you're participating in person and would like to make public comment, please come to the podium.

My name is Dave Miller. I'm a Benicia resident for the last 15 years and owned and operated a business for about 25 years or so on Mare Island before retiring last year. I'm here tonight to suggest that the city investigate whether a portion of the former Valero refinery property could be redeveloped as an artificial intelligent data center campus.

I'M NOT ASKING THE CITY TO APPROVE A DATA CENTER TONIGHT, OBVIOUSLY.

I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THIS SHOULD REPLACE THE BROADER REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING PROCESS.

I'M ASKING THAT WE DETERMINE WHETHER THIS OPPORTUNITY IS TECHNICALLY, FINANCIALLY, AND ENVIRONMENTALLY VIABLE. before the future of this unusually important property is decided. The former refinery may have advantages that few California sites can offer. A large industrial property, existing electrical and utility infrastructure, natural gas service, water and wastewater systems, security, transportation access, and an existing 51 megawatt cogeneration plant. These assets do not guarantee that the data center will work BUT THEY MAKE THE PROPERTY WORTHY OF SERIOUS INVESTIGATION. CALIFORNIA ALREADY HAS HUNDREDS OF DATA CENTERS INCLUDING APPROXIMATELY 60 IN SANTA CLARA ALONE. DEMAND FOR COMPUTING CAPACITY IS INCREASING RAPIDLY BECAUSE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. HOWEVER, BANISHA SHOULD ALSO LEARN FROM SANTA CLARA WHERE COMPLETED DATA CENTERS HAVE EXPERIENCED DELAYS BECAUSE SUFFICIENT ELECTRICITY WAS NOT AVAILABLE WHEN NEEDED. That leads to the first and most important question, how much dependable electricity could actually be delivered to the Valero property, at what cost, by what date, and who would pay for the necessary improvements? The second question is financial. Loudoun County, Virginia has received extraordinary tax revenue from data centers. California's tax laws are different. Benicia would receive only a portion of the property taxes generated here. Therefore, we should not assume that Benicia is a project would produce the same financial results. Before supporting a project, the City should require an independent fiscal analysis showing the revenue Benicia would actually retain after accounting for police, fire protection, roads, emergency response, water, and other municipal services. Any project should also provide enforceable benefits for our community. THESE SHOULD INCLUDE DEVELOPER-FUNDED INFRASTRUCTURE, ANNUAL COMMUNITY BENEFIT PAYMENTS, LOCAL CONSTRUCTION AND APPRENTICESHIP OPPORTUNITIES, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS, LOW WATER COOLING NOISE LIMITS, CLEAN ENERGY COMMITMENTS AND GUARANTEES THAT RESIDENTS WILL NOT SUBSIDIZE THE PROJECT THROUGH HIGHER UTILITY COSTS. I BELIEVE THE NEXT APPROPRIATE STEP IS A FOCUS feasibility study conducted with Valero, its redevelopment partner, PGD, the city, and qualified data center engineers. That study should answer four questions. Can sufficient power be delivered? Can the project meet California's environmental requirements?

We're going to have to stop you there for three minutes.

Well, I was just about done.

Thank you. We do have your written public comments as well, so we appreciate that. Thank you. Great. Thank you.

Is there anyone online wishing to make public comment on an item not on the agenda?

Thank you.

Are there any comments from commission or members of the public wishing to speak on the item on the consent calendar?

Seeing none, at this time, I would entertain a motion from the commission.

I move to adopt the consent calendar.

I'll second. That's a motion from Commissioner Gilpin-Hayes and a second from Commissioner Marshall. Staff, please call roll. Commissioner Bennett.

Mr. Donahue? Yes. Commissioner Gilpat Hayes?

Yes.

Commissioner Gorman? Yes. Commissioner Marshall? Yes. Chair Slate?

Yes. That'll take us to the business item for tonight, 11A, amendments to the Venetian Municipal Code, Title 17, zoning for data centers. Staff has a presentation?

Yes, thank you. While the presentation is coming up, I'll go ahead and introduce myself. I'm Suzanne Thorson. I'm the Assistant City Manager and Development Services Director here for the City of Venetia. I'm joined this evening by Vikrant Sood of BAM Consulting. Vikrant is the Advanced and Precision Manufacturing Sector Investment Coordinator for the Bay Area Jobs First program and also is working with the Solano Economic Development Corporation on some matters related to industrial parks within the county. So if there are questions related to the industrial park and advanced manufacturing and data centers, he's definitely the guy to assist with those questions. So I may call on him to help me if there are questions. Just an overview of tonight's presentation. It'll be a little longer than typical. I want to make sure that the Commission has the appropriate background information and I will also walk through the proposed zoning changes and then we can talk about the next steps and our recommendation. So our zoning ordinance is contained in Title 17 of the Venetia Municipal Code and the zoning ordinance was adopted in 1987. This image is a computer ad from the year 1987, the year that our zoning ordinance was adopted. While parts of the zoning ordinance have been updated over the years, our industrial use classifications and our industrial regulations are largely the same. And our use classifications describe what a particular type of a use or business is, and they form the basis for any regulations that would apply to that use. So today, a data center would be classified as technology industry, which is a permitted use in our industrial zones. Permitted uses require no special approval or analysis. And what this means is that a data center could, under today's regulations, potentially locate in the industrial park without any public hearing, standards, or environmental review. We also could not apply conditions of approval on the use. So they may need to get building permits, they may need to get fire sprinkler permits, but there would not be a zoning review under today's regulations. And this matters because we know that data centers have the potential to consume large quantities of water and electricity, and they can also generate impacts such as noise and heat. By establishing new regulations, this ordinance would create specific standards for data centers and close a gap that currently results in our as a result of our outdated framework. So I mentioned that Benicia currently does not have standards for data centers. But also before I move into the rest of the presentation, I want to point out that this ordinance would not ban data centers. So recall I just said that they are already permitted. This ordinance would reflect a consideration of data centers as a type of industry technology use. and would ensure that the city has the regulations and tools to both address economic needs and limit negative impacts. Specifically, as you will see, the ordinance would limit the scale, utility consumption, and other impacts of data centers to ensure that they are compatible and also serve the needs of manufacturing and industrial hub in the 21st century. We do recommend that the Planning Commission act proactively this evening to consider the proposed recommendation to the City Council that the City has the appropriate regulations in place if a proposal is received. Currently there is no active application for a data center. So I will tell you that Most people, and myself included, when we think about a data center, we're thinking of the image on the left. And that is what a lot of people would call a hyperscale data center. It covers an enormous land area, can be millions of square feet. And these facilities are the subject of a lot of discussion for good reason. They can be very impactful in terms of resource consumption, noise, heat, and other impacts related to the way that they operate as widely reported. However, data centers can actually be established across a wide range of scales and intensities. And so I have a couple of other examples here. And the small text is difficult to read. So the Hyperscale Data Center on the left is currently being built in Indiana. The build out on that is 2.2 gigawatts. And each building has a 69 megawatt capacity. So each building, 69 megawatts total, 2.2 gigawatts. The middle image that's shown here is a 16 megawatt facility. This is described as a co-location facility. And this is probably closer to what this ordinance is built around and envisions for Benicia at the high end of the range. Please keep this middle image in mind as we move through the rest of the presentation as a reference point for scale. And then the smaller image on the right is a shipping container, 40-foot shipping container that is typically up to 1.5 megawatts power capacity. And that is also a data center. That's what you would call a modular data center. And they can be acquired and built out relatively simply. So, you know, I mentioned 1987 computers were really just seeing uptake. In fact, here in Venetia, at the city of Venetia, we were not using computers yet. And then about 20 years ago, broadband became a basic expectation, I would say, for doing business sort of ubiquitously. And computing capacity is heading in the same direction. So data storage, you know, the days where we were storing a lot of data on drives and disks are really behind us in a lot of ways. The cloud, cloud computing and computing capacity is becoming central to how lots of people and businesses operate today. Now here in Venetia, we often hear about the desire to attract clean energy, research and development, green and advanced manufacturing to our industrial park. And these businesses require reliable computing infrastructure. And this is where we start to begin thinking about the industrial parks competitiveness and pivoting to the future. For example, location decisions. can be driven based on the ability for a small business to lease rack space instead of building their own server infrastructure, or for end users to be close to data infrastructure for latency-sensitive work. And the latency is how long does it take to transmit or receive data, right? If I have a lot of lag, that can be a problem, depending on my business. So these individual decisions can ultimately turn into the outcomes for business clusters or anchors in our industrial park. So it's important to think about data centers not only in terms of their land use impacts and their resource impacts, but also the potential that they may have to complement the manufacturing and research and development uses that are already in the industrial park or that may wish to locate in the industrial park.

And now I'm going to walk you through the proposed zoning changes.

So this ordinance would do three primary things. The first is to define and make data centers a conditional use rather than a permitted use. And they would then be distinguished from the technology industry land use category. SECOND, BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE A CONDITIONAL USE, THERE WOULD BE A PUBLIC PROCESS FOR EVERY APPLICATION, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THEN PUBLIC NOTICE, PUBLIC HEARING AND CEQA REVIEW. AND FINALLY, IT WOULD CREATE STANDARDS FRAMEWORK TO COVER THE REVIEW AT THE LAND USE STAGE AS WELL AS ONGOING OVERSIGHT THROUGH REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. This is the entire proposed use classification for data centers. The main takeaway here is that this would apply to a data center at all scales, and it's written to capture different types or configurations of data centers. This is a zoning map of the city. And data centers would be a conditional use in the industrial zones. Those are the limited industrial districts shown in light gray, general industrial districts shown in dark gray, waterfront industrial districts shown in kind of a mid-tone blue-gray, and industrial park district, which is very small and probably not legible, that's shown in blue. This ordinance would not apply and would not permit data centers in the downtown and residential districts, commercial areas of the city. So I highlighted our four industrial districts. This table here shows that in the limited industrial, general industrial, waterfront industrial, and industrial park districts, Data centers would require a use permit and they would not be permitted by right anywhere in the city. There is a cleanup change proposed that would eliminate caretakers housing in the industrial districts. And this is because the industrial park includes heavy industrial uses and traffic patterns and volumes that are incompatible with residential uses. So when we talk about a use permit, what that means is that a data center would require a public hearing and approval or conditional approval before it could be built. In the public hearing process, property owners within a radius of 1,000 feet receive public hearing notification. Notice is also posted at the property. The project is evaluated, and that includes environmental review. And following the public hearing, the city could attach project specific conditions on the use permit or deny the application if the required findings cannot be made. And I'll talk about findings in just a few minutes. And this means that the city has discretion over the use. This ordinance would establish not only standards for the scale of data centers that could be built in Benicia, but it actually also establishes some application requirements. And this is information that the city would need to know at the time it receives the application in order to conduct an adequate review of the project. So these would include information about utilities. First of all, could the data center be served? And if it can be served, what would be required to serve the facility. So for example, are there any on-site or off-site improvements needed for electrical to accommodate the electrical design capacity? And then as well, how much water would be consumed? So not only the water into the facility, but then also what would be released in terms of the effluent out of the facility. We would also want to understand any thermal impacts associated with the facility. Data centers do require cooling, but they can also, if they're not managed correctly, result in some heat effects. Acoustical is another aspect of the review that we would want to understand up front. The city does have noise standards, and we would want to see at intake that the project is designed to reduce noise impacts. including structural measures to limit noise. Noise can be associated with the equipment. It can be associated with the fans. In some cases, it could also be associated with backup power supply. And we would also want to understand how the facility will be managed. So for example, if there are backup batteries in use, what is the plan to address a fire or another hazard associated with backup batteries? And then finally, we would want to understand what the data center looks like at initial construction and what it looks like at full build out. So what is the final build out and capacity of the data center? And when would that be completed? Part of the reason we want to know this information is because we want to make sure that the city is in a good position to evaluate how the data center will meet the standards of the ordinance. So the ordinance establishes a hard cap on the electrical design capacity of the facility, which is 20 megawatts. So if you recall the slide I showed you with three images of data centers, that's slightly more capacity than the center image, which was the co-location facility. We would also require that the power be supplied only through electricity providers such as PG&E or Clean Energy, and the internal combustion equipment not be used to supply the data center. I mentioned that data centers require backup power, redundant power. And that's because it's a 24-7 operation. When the backup power is in the form of a diesel generator, that can generate quite a lot of noise and air pollution. And we know that those are both topics of concern here in Benicia. So we would want to see a data center using renewable backup power. In addition, we understand that data centers do require the use of water, but water conservation is a concern here in Benicia. We run our own water utility and is in our community's interest to reduce potable water use where we can. So the standards require that the data center reduce the potable water to the maximum amount feasible. And this can be through, for example, recirculation or recycled water. Data centers are typically well illuminated. They have a lot of valuable equipment, and we understand the need for security lighting. We do want to be clear, though, that lighting can't be spilling over onto adjacent properties or roadways, and so the ordinance requires that all exterior lighting be fully shielded and downward directed and not overspill off of the property. And then as I mentioned, compliance with the noise ordinance would be required and we would want to ensure through the standards of the ordinance that the noise reduction occurs as part of the land use approval and is not an afterthought. I mentioned earlier that a use permit requires public notice, public hearing, environmental review, and that a use permit requires that the city make findings of approval. We have some fairly standard broad findings in our zoning ordinance in Chapter 17-104. This ordinance would adopt additional findings specific to data centers that would also have to be made in order to approve the use. And these are that the facility would not compromise utility capacity or reliability for the city, that the facility would comply with our performance standards and would not result in injurious effects for surrounding properties. In addition, the ordinance requires an annual report from the data center operator on their utility consumption and their compliance with their conditions of approval. And the city could, through the ordinance, inspect or require additional information. And if the data center is found to be operating out of compliance with the use permit, it could be revoked. I want to touch on the hearing body. So you'll recall from the images that I showed, there's extremely large data centers and extremely small data centers. And so when we were putting the ordinance together, we considered who would conduct a hearing for data centers at different scales. And what we propose is that the review would be tiered by the physical impact. And so facilities that are under 5 megawatts, smaller than 50,000 square feet, and have a water consumption of less than 30 gallons per minute could be heard by the Development Services Director, still a public hearing, but it's scheduled differently, requires the same level of public hearing notice, review, and evaluation. Typically, those types of use permits are not going to be ones that are generating significant impacts or significant community input. If we received something at this scale that we felt would rise to the level of that concern, we have the ability to refer that to the Planning Commission and have done so on occasion. Anything that exceeds those thresholds would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. And so you'll see here that the Director could refer an application to the Planning Commission. or if it exceeds the thresholds for electrical design capacity, gross floor area, or water consumption, it would come to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. So we recommend that the Planning Commission find that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per sections 15301 for existing facilities and 15305 minor alterations to land use limitations. The proposed ordinance modifies our existing framework, including for land uses within existing facilities. But as you'll recall, data are already a permitted use and this actually establishes further conditions and standards that limit the scale and the impact of the use. It's also important to recall that because we would require a use permit for data centers, they may still be subject to CEQA review on a case-by-case basis. After the Planning Commission completes its review and offers its recommendation, the ordinance will proceed to the City Council. There are two hearings required before the City Council can take action to approve the ordinance. In addition, it would need to be considered by the airport land use commission as the airport land use commission considers all zoning changes within the city of Benicia because the city is within the Travis Air Force Base airport land use area. And so those timelines are provided here. Airport land use commission likely this month or next and city council likely next month extending into November. So tonight we recommend that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and move to adopt the resolution recommending that the City Council adopt amendments to Title 17 of the zoning ordinance to establish regulations for data centers and make minor amendments after finding the project exempt from CEQA. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Great. Thank you for the good presentation. We'll open it up for clarifying questions with the commissioners. Commissioner Gilpin Hayes you can kick it off.

I have a list of questions and some of them are clarifying questions more for members of the public versus me but just you've said this a couple of times and I appreciate it but just for clarification this is a more restrictive this is more restrictive versus less because right now it's permitted no matter what correct well I mean given building permits etc.

Yes, this is significantly more restrictive. We currently have no restrictions.

Okay. And then currently there are no current applications for any location in the industrial area, including by Valero or Signature Development or CINO or any other property owner out in the industrial park.

That's correct. There are no current applications.

Okay. And then I'm curious if anyone actually knows the answer to this, but on the images that you showed, it showed the 2.2 gigawatts for that Indiana location. with 69 megawatts per building. And then that middle image is probably more likely would be for Benicia, but that's 16 megawatts. Do we have any comparison of what does 16 megawatts mean in connection with other industrial use out there in the industrial park?

I actually have thought about this. And so for that middle example, the 16 megawatt power capacity, we think the The closest comparable is probably something like a semiconductor packaging and testing clean room facility.

Okay. And are there any existing facilities in the industrial park already using that level other than potentially Valero or other large-scale refinery operations?

To my knowledge, no, but I'm often not aware of the power draw of industrial users. We do have a cannabis facility under construction right now that's roughly, approximately, would be equivalent to about five megawatts.

And then lastly, one of the questions that I had was, it's going to limit it to 20 megawatts per facility, but do we have a limit on how many data centers can be built? What if there's 10 different organizations that all want to build data centers? Is there a limit to how many can be out there?

We do not propose a limit on the number of data centers that could be built, nor the amount of, like, tapping it on the basis of power. But what we have proposed in the supplemental findings, the first one reads, and so the hearing body, so the Planning Commission in this case, would have to find that this is true, that the operation of the data center individually or in accumulation with other existing data centers will advance the specific purpose of the underlying zoning district to provide areas for business, commercial manufacturing, or water related industry. And then also that it would not compromise the capacity and reliability of public utilities, including electric power and water supply.

Thank you.

And I just realized I had one more. This is, again, just for clarification for the public. But you did mention that data centers are already restricted under the general plan and municipal code for outside of the industrial area. So we don't have to consider anything in the downtown area or other commercial areas.

I believe that's correct, and I can take a quick look. I'm confident that it's because it's industry technology that it's limited to only industrial zones. Okay. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bennett.

Thank you. Sorry about that. Thank you for the presentation. The 20 megawatt number, is that built on assumed estimates based on existing power capacity on the grid or something else? I'm just kind of curious where that number may have come from.

I'm going to start answering your question, then I'm going to actually ask Vikrant to assist me with the further detail. So, you know, we mentioned that there can be economic development benefits and specifically benefits to the industrial park related to proximity to data centers. It's sort of like everything else. In scale is the important caveat. And so the ordinance is drafted to facilitate a data center at a scale that could provide colocation benefits, computing capacity benefits, that lag or latency reduction that some businesses might need. avoiding something at a scale that then begins to overwhelm either the resource capacity or the physical arrangement of the industrial park. And I'm going to invite Vikrant to speak to that a little bit further as he has more detail.

Good afternoon.

Vikrant with BAM Consulting. That's a really good question about the limit. To some extent, it's an arbitrary limit. There's no scientific way to determine what scale of a data center you would want to restrict, but 20 megawatts is big enough for what the business industrial users might need in Benicia, which includes all of the industrial districts. Most of the inference data centers, which is really what manufacturers need, advanced manufacturers now need, is probably going to be around a 5 megawatt facility. And then on the other side, 40 megawatts is when the facility starts to become a hyperscale facility that then requires massive amounts of mitigation because it has significant impacts on the neighboring users. We don't want to overwhelm the industrial users. We actually want to provide them additional infrastructure. So to the extent that we could bracket it, we've arrived at a 20 megawatt facility. In terms of square footage, it's about 200,000 square foot. A facility of that size would take up about 200,000 square feet, which also fits into existing buildings in the industrial. So, again, it is a little bit of an arbitrary number, but it also kind of captures the size and scale that Venetia would require.

Thank you. That answers the question.

Commissioner Marshall.

I had the same question. I wanted to expand upon it. It seems like a little bit of an existential question to me. And I'm wondering, in part, we have we have the requirement to provide will serve letters, which means you know, wastewater, water, potable and electrical are going to tell us whether we can serve that wattage. So I guess I'm wondering why we would limit the wattage since we still have that discretionary barrier beyond that. And really thinking kind of to the future, it sounds like 40 megawatts is way outside of our ability. And quite frankly, 200,000 square feet. I don't know how many facilities have in the industrial park that could house that big of a development so anyway I kind of wanted to ask that question at a high level like if we're asking for a will serve that in theory should be assessing whether specifically the wattage can be provided and that's backed up by some sort of on-site generation potentially why would we limit it which could encumber us in the future which we have no idea what data centers are going to look like

So let me back up a little bit to the process of drafting this ordinance, and then I will answer your question. So to me, although they're two completely different types of businesses, in many ways the approach to this ordinance is reminiscent of what we did with the cannabis ordinance, in the sense that when the cannabis ordinance was drafted, cannabis facilities were not terribly common in California. We knew that there was a great potential for them to locate in various forms, whether it's manufacturing, cultivation, distribution, what have you, and that there would be changes over time to those facilities. And the city did our best effort to craft an ordinance that we thought would facilitate cannabis at the scale and intensity appropriate to our community. Once we got more experience with that ordinance, we amended it. I think we've amended it two or three times to adjust it to what's appropriate in Benicia based on what we've learned having worked with that industry. As it relates to data centers, it's funny because data centers, like data is not new. Data centers are a very large topic. And the way that these facilities are being constructed and monetized is different. In that sense, it is new. And in this case, we have something that's allowed right now basically without limitation. Our industrial park is the economic center of our community. It may not be, you know, where a lot of people affiliate their image of Benicia, but economically it's absolutely critical for our community. And one of the things that's very attractive about our industrial park that people may or may not realize is it's resource rich. So we have our own water treatment plant, our own wastewater treatment plant. We have water to serve the industrial park. We also have fairly abundant electricity. And when we were thinking about capacity limitations, You know, on the one hand, it's like, yes, we should make sure to make room for something that complements and encourages the further development of our industrial park. But how do we make sure it's not consuming the resources that another type of business might also need? So the 20 megawatts seems like more than reasonable to accommodate the types of data centers that could benefit our industrial users and future industrial users without necessarily taking away from the electrical capacity or the water supply that might be needed for other types of businesses and users in the industrial park. The other thing that we have to bear in mind is that there are changes afoot. In Benicia, we have quite a lot of development currently proposed and likely coming our way. And so we want to make sure that land uses are balancing with the resource needs. PG&E does have some incentives, I suppose, related to providing additional capacity for data centers. But those benefits may not extend beyond the data center. And so we also want to understand, like, if whatever the power draw is, whatever the need is associated with a data center, how is it being supplied? Is it dedicated to that data center? Is it taking up significant resources that would otherwise serve the balance of the industrial user base that's also pulling from the same substation. I don't know if that completely 100% answered your question, but that was the thinking that went into the ordinance and why we do propose a limitation on the electrical design capacity. If we get further down the road and we're having a fabulous experience with data centers and let's say, for example, they're generating a huge amount of their own Electricity, we're not seeing adverse impacts on resource consumption. I think, you know, the zoning amendment process is something that we don't necessarily shy away from here. We're happy to make adjustments where needed to meet the community's needs. And that's something that we could take a look at adjusting in the future if it seemed appropriate.

And is the 20 watt inclusive of whatever the data center would be generating with renewables? Or is that only the draw?

That's the total electrical design capacity.

So that's everything they need, what they generate, and what they draw.

Yes.

I got a few more. This is probably a hard question to answer, but kind of tied to my 200 square foot Do we anticipate that if and when data centers come, these are new construction projects? Are these remodel projects and repurpose of infrastructure that's in the industrial? Is it a mixture? As far as I understand, there's a lot of new construction happening. I don't, I'm not familiar with a lot of repurposing.

I will respond to you and then I'll ask Vikrant if he has anything to add. Data centers are rapidly changing as an industry. Just like they're built at many scales, they're also built in many configurations. They can be new build. They can occupy tenant space. They can bring in a trailer. So I don't think it's appropriate to assume that a data center would not move into a tenant space. I think that's entirely possible. I also think it's entirely possible that someone might say, no, I'm actually building a new facility here. I've covered that.

OK.

Thanks. Who's going to review the annual report that these data centers provide? Do we have a plan for that? Is it a consultant or staff?

So we will either establish a fee or pass along the direct costs to the operator. I anticipate we would probably bring on professional services with the appropriate expertise to evaluate that report.

I'm also curious about the Section D3, the water conservation, the language maximum extent feasible. How do we attack that? When we think about objective standards that we can ask these applicants to meet, the goal is great, but knowing technologies change, how does that work?

So the city is not obligated to establish objective standards within our industrial zoning regulations. As you just mentioned, technology is always changing. So data center technology changes, energy efficiency technology changes, water conservation technology changes. And I think the maximum extent feasible will probably be based on professional analysis at the time that the application is filed. And that information would be supplied as part of the hearing materials for the use permit.

And this would be done by a consultant who knows what they're looking at?

Yes, just to be fully transparent, I think that anyone seeking a use permit for a data center in Benicia should expect that the cost of professional services to adequately review the application would be passed along to them.

Okay, thanks.

I have two questions. One is, I'm not up to speed on our noise ordinance, but I assume that it covers more than just volume of sound and there's protections that would cover say a low continuous hum if that's what these put out and if not is there language that can be drafted

The noise ordinance sets specific standards for noise levels, and it also talks about nuisance. And so we can review the acoustical analysis for both. We also have some broadly worded performance standards in our zoning ordinance. So for example, vibrations. that we could apply and then the findings of approval would also allow the hearing body Planning Commission to consider that type of a noise impact in terms of the determination that the data center would not result in injurious effects due to placement of equipment or operation of the facility.

And then if the redundant systems require renewable energy, what size and scale does a backup system that's not diesel that has to power something look like?

I don't know, and I think that depends if it's now or in the future.

That's acceptable. Through the chair, sorry. Yeah, Commissioner Marshall. I missed one question. Hopefully it's a quickie. It's standard D2 limits electrical power supply produced by very certain things onsite, wind, solar. Is that precluding cogeneration? As the gentleman in public comment mentioned, the Velera has their cogeneration plant. Is cogeneration off the table? And if it is, should we not be considering that as an efficient way to be producing electricity?

I don't think cogeneration is necessarily off the table. There are ways to produce power that are not diesel generators that still can result in emissions, however. So I think we would need to look at the specific facts of the project at that time. And Vikrant, is there anything else that you would like to add to that?

My understanding is cogeneration is using combustion to create the energy. And just reading that language verbatim, I would not assume that it's allowed.

Right. I think fuel cells, for example, could be an alternative. But again, if you're using natural gas, that emits nitrogen oxides as well as greenhouse gases. gases. So if it's, for example, renewable hydrogen that powers the fuel cells, you know, that would be considered a renewable energy source. So I don't know if that completely answers your question, but yes, I mean, there are multiple ways that you could actually provide power on site. It could be solar, it could be just battery storage, but it could also be fuel cells because sometimes there are requirements for different data centers about how much, what duration of backup power they need for them to get financing. So if they need multiple days, then something like field cells are going to be more viable.

So is what he's described allowed within this section or? I'm not sure.

Sorry, is the question that if it's a green hydrogen fuel cell?

Yeah, what you're describing, is that allowed by this language or is it not allowed? Because the language is very specific.

Yes, it says electric power supply shall be through a utility provider or on-site solar, wind, or geothermal energy only.

So it seems like it wouldn't be allowed. Right, we need to amend.

Well, that's a question I suppose that the Planning Commission could deliberate on. Okay. But as written, no.

Thank you.

All right, at this time, we'll invite the public to comment. Those participating remotely wishing to make comment will be placed into a waiting room and admitted one at a time to speak. Participants dialing in by phone may press star nine to comment. Zoom participants may signify an intent to make comment by utilizing the raised hand feature in the participant's window of the Zoom meeting. After you've made your comments, the meeting moderator will mute your audio. If you're participating in person and would like to make public comment, I'll invite you guys up a couple at a time. And I believe we've already received the two comments from after three o'clock today, is that correct?

That is correct. All comments are part of your handout packet.

Okay, thank you. Well, then at this time, if you guys like make public comment, we can come up one at a time and we'll come forward.

Hello.

Okay, just a point. I wrote this and rehearsed it before I saw the presentation, so I agree with actually quite a lot of the presentation except for the size part, so I think this still has validity. Okay, good evening. I'm asking you not to put an arbitrary size limit on the potential data centers in Benicia. This is not because I'm a fan of massive data centers. I simply want Benicia to keep its options open. As controversial as the refinery was, it provided a major source of jobs and tax revenue to the town, but now it is gone. We have an opportunity, some would say a generational opportunity, to build something different, a more diverse tax base with more sources of local employment. And one of our greatest assets sits on our doorstep, the Benicia Industrial Park, everybody knows. At a previous council meeting, we heard a presentation about the future of the industrial park and the port. One of the key messages was simple. Keep our options open, maintain flexibility, and I think we should follow that advice. We should actively market the industrial park and invite businesses that bring tax revenue and good local jobs to the area. Manufacturing, clean technology, logistics, life sciences, nationally strategic industries, you name it. Yes, including data centers can all be a part of that portfolio. The town's general plan update gives us an opportunity to decide what we want and where we want it. But we don't know what opportunities are coming, so why should we limit our choices now? I understand the mistrust around data centers. That is exactly why any proposal should be evaluated publicly with input from the community. What tax revenue will it generate? What are the real environmental costs, power usage, water usage, noise, et cetera? What does Benicia get in return? Let's have that discussion openly so we can all understand what we are getting into or conversely what we are rejecting. If it's a bad deal, we say no and keep looking for something better. But don't say no before there's even a deal to consider. Our North Star should be a financially sustainable Benicia with good local jobs and a diverse tax base. Let's market the industrial park. Let's invite businesses we want. Let's keep our options open. Please do not limit those options tonight.

Thank you.

Would anybody else like to make a public comment? Hey, everyone.

Unlike Chris, I found about this meeting today, so I have nothing rehearsed. I worked for an AI hyperscaler. We were acquired, so I'll also admit that there are quite a lot of problems with data centers. I came here today expecting to see a bit more of an outrage. I thought I'd come for a spectacle, quite calm. It seems to me that the ordinance here is unfairly targeting the specific industry, the tech industry, rather than a general, broad... INDUSTRIES ACROSS THE INDUSTRIAL PARK. SO ECHOING SOME OF THE COMMENTS YOU WERE MAKING, IT SEEMS FAIR TO ME We don't necessarily need to target data centers themselves. But if it's concerns over power or water usage, that could be applied generally to the entire industrial park. A lot of the stuff that we're working on today, we're really bottlenecked on compute, just general compute, not necessarily AI compute. And we're using this technology to help with drug therapeutics and finding new cures for things, helping with logistics and increasing construction quality and efficiencies. These are things that can actually help society quite a bit. Bringing this kind of technology here, again, there's lots of problems with a lot of this. And as you all mentioned, this is all moving quickly. So some of these limits to me seem quite arbitrary where we don't necessarily know what's going to evolve with these things in the future. So keeping our options open and understanding where this is all going and trying to attract in a lot of new technology. So been to a lot of the industrial park meetings, and we're trying to, it seems, transition the industrial park into be more tech-focused-ish, innovation-focused-ish. And this seems like it might be giving the opposite signal of what we're trying to do to attract more companies into the area. I think if I had more access to compute, there's a lot more that I could do. We're running our own home labs at home. And that's not getting us very far. And again, obviously, there's no data centers on the docket that's coming through. So it seems a little premature that we're targeting something that can help. Of course, there's a lot of concerns here. And I think the light pollution stuff is a little silly. But yeah, I would like to encourage us to either apply this more broadly to the industrial park if it's a concern. or reconsider kind of how we're approaching this and not necessarily targeting data centers themselves. Thanks.

Thank you. Hello.

Good evening. My name is Ken Taylor, and I'm a longtime Venetia resident. And I have a couple of questions, and I don't expect you to answer them now, but I'll at least throw them out there. I heard talk about there are businesses that might, businesses in the industrial parks that might benefit from the data center. So I'm wondering if we have any information about which businesses those might be. I'm just curious if it's a big number, a small number, or no number at all. And then I wonder about if there's a need to get this done now, this ordinance, or if we have time to look at this and make sure that we do it right. And I'm wondering if there is a need to do further investigation. I know the study of Oakley has a moratorium on data center, and I'm not sure what that all involves, but that sounds an attractive thing to me, rather than rush into something. And not to say that we are rushing into something. I'm a layperson at this. And then data centers are controversial. I've learned that in reading, especially in the last month or so. And I'm wondering if we know what it is about them that makes them controversial. And I'm wondering if the staff recommendation considers issues that have challenged other communities so that If we move forward, we benefit from best practices that other entities have learned as a result of those things evolving across the industry. So we aren't learning by trial and error. And that's it.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. Would anybody else like to make a public comment?

So before I start, I'd like to note that I had just found out about this meeting today. So I apologize if I hadn't had any extensive, compiled research concerning the data center. But as a member of the youth of Benicia, I just wanted to be present to speak on the issue. And it is obviously controversial. But I think that the thing that we should be considering here, and I'm glad that we have spoken about, is specifically the environmental impact of these data centers. And not that I, I just think that it would be a good recommendation to consider specifically the carbon emissions that we're getting and also increases in like local temperature. Because doing a tiny bit of research online, reading articles, I was looking at how urban heat is affected by these data centers and how we're seeing increases in local temperature, especially in urban areas surrounded by these data centers. In a study in Phoenix, Arizona, we were looking at increasing surrounding land surface temperatures by as much as 16 degrees Fahrenheit and raising air temperatures in nearby neighborhoods by up to 40 degrees Fahrenheit. And I just think that while it should not be understated, the economic impact that we have and the jobs that we create, especially in the vacuum of the Vallejo Refinery, I also think that it goes without saying that just think that the environmental impact of these data centers are incredibly important to be considered and and it's it's just should be at the forefront of what we're looking at and what we're discussing here and I think that the questions arise earlier about the renewable energy sources could be looked into more especially because of the sort of focus on renewable energy in Benicia and California as a whole. I just think that it would be smart to look into that more. Again, I apologize, it's very brief, spur of the moment, but I just think it's important to consider factors beyond just the economic impacts, because while we can see that, I think that environmental impacts are among some of the most concerning things in our increasingly production-driven world, where we're seeing a lot of technological advancements made, but at the cost of environmental impacts and how these are affecting our communities, like as I mentioned with heat, with carbon emissions, that if we were to open these data centers, that it would be forefront to consider that before anything else is done, a source of renewable energy is considered before we continue and go forth with it.

Thank you. And thank you for being involved in representing the youth. That's awesome. Would anybody else like to make public comment who's here?

Hi, I'm also a member of the youth of Benicia, and I would just like to make a couple comments and voice a couple concerns from what I heard in the presentation. I do also have a lot of concerns, as he stated, about the environmental impacts. I know that we're only looking at small data centers here, but the water usage is an issue and the water quality in Benicia is an issue. Even if they only used 30 gallons of water a minute that would still equate to over 40,000 gallons a day and I think that's a lot of strain on our already like kind of limited resources, especially if we like have an issue getting water from Berryessa and we're only getting water from Lake Herman. I just don't know if our like current production can handle that if we have a data center. Also I heard that we, I heard in the presentation that there's no limit on the amount of data centers and so if I think that that should be something to consider if they just keep popping up because if there's like more than one consuming that many resources then it kind of defeats the purpose of having limits in general in my opinion. And also just making sure that they're using clean energy because a lot of data centers rely on like dirty diesel generators and that puts things into the air that we just shut down with the shutting down of the Valera Refinery. So I just want to voice that I have a lot of environmental concerns and I think that as a member of the youth that's really important to a lot of us here and we should think about the environment that we live in and not just the economy. And that's all I have, thank you.

Great, thank you.

Would anybody else like to make a public comment? Yeah, oh, do I just press, oh, okay.

I just have a couple of questions, building off of what my friend said. You know, what happens if we have another emergency where we have to rely on our water from Lake Herman. What happens then to the data center? Does it have to shut down? What happens? Because, I mean, we don't have a lot of water in that reservoir. And when we had to switch to Lake Herman, I mean, just a couple of years ago, we really, you know, struggled to, we put out, you know, a whole bunch of city notices where we're like conserve as much water as possible. So what happens when we have to switch to our reservoir and we can't get water from other places or other areas? The second thing I was concerned about is you know, what happens when the data center decides to break these laws we're going to put, you know, if it does occur, like the light or the noise pollution or any of these things where we're saying you have to meet these requirements in building. What if they decide to disobey that? Are there going to be fines? Or, you know, what is the process by which we... you know, go about, I guess, for lack of a better word, punishment. And my main concern, if it is fines, I mean, these data centers are obviously going to be making a lot of money, I would assume. So what if they just decide to pay those fines? I mean, and then they just keep on doing it. What happens then? What's the process by what we go about that? That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else here? Moderator, do we have anybody on?

Yeah, go ahead and come forward.

Good evening. I've been living in this city for about four years, and this is my first time coming to a city council meeting. I just found out about this data center about few hours ago. I was down in the downtown area where there's like a farmer's market. I mentioned there was a couple of people and no one was aware that, you know, that this was happening. So I appreciate that the city council is having an open hearing about this. And they're, you know, when I, you know, they're discussing, you know, it seems like you've taken a lot of consideration about residents concerns, but I'm looking around and I see like, maybe like, I like around eight people. Now there's probably like 12 people here. I was wondering if like future hearings about data centers, if it could be, I don't know how you would market this more to the people to get more people involved. Because just going down the street and asking people about data centers, it seems like the consensus is vehemently no, no data centers in our community. Even before finding out what kinds of proposals and what kind of amendments, what kind of restrictions you want to put on data centers are, it doesn't seem like there was a lot of information put out to the community at large about this meeting in particular. So I don't know if there's anything you can do to get the word out the next time you have this kind of proposal coming up or having this kind of discussion. I feel like the turnout will be more if there was more awareness in the community about this. The other thing is reading through the proposal, looking through the amendments. I didn't really have a problem with most of it concerning data centers. I'm not a fan of data centers myself. but I'm also not going to be a vehemently no against it. The only thing is the proposal about power production, whether it be on grid or green energy, I would suggest make it green energy only, or I appreciate that there's no... you know, no degenerates be promoted, but I wouldn't want to see like a data center just putting more strain on the grid. Doesn't seem like there's much strain right now, but you know, if you have multiple data centers popping up, that's probably going to put a lot of strain on the grid. And we don't really know. Like data centers are pretty new in the communities. People are learning about it. It's a very quickly evolving industry. So I would suggest that either, you know, I would just take that I would propose that they just be straight off-grid energy production, if possible. That's pretty much all I have.

Thank you. And just to clarify, we're not, we're just the Planning Commission, not nearly as cool as City Council. There'll definitely be two other public opportunities. It will come before City Council. So this is just the beginning.

Thank you.

Moderator, do we have anybody online who would like to make public comment?

Yes, we do. Yes, good afternoon.

I state I'm not representing this council. I'm speaking on my own behalf. I appreciate the presentation, and I want to thank you all. And planning commission just as important because as you're probably council members really on you asking staff to do all the work and get all the communities of feedback including your own you are bridge. As we're the bridge to the to the city manager city attorney as council people. I want to state that The point probably the reason why you got a lot of the 7 people 12 people in the room now is because I posted online about this meeting to everyone I can think of because I was actually looking for something else and I came across this instead and I just feel like it is very important that you have more public in the room and I would appreciate very much if you can reconsider have more voices to be completely transparent regarding data centers. I'm not here to make a a judgment or a say, but I am saying that it should be more voices in the room regarding this issue. Not only this, but battery centers as well. Those are becoming popular and more consequences of what the aftermath may look like. Yes, now, five years from now may be all right, but what is it going to look like later? I'll give an example. I have a son who lives with Down syndrome. And the neighborhood that we were at used to be nothing but fields. They built a house there. And it was CEQA waived. It was not that popular at the time when I grew up about CEQA. But now I have a son with disabilities. And with that state it was environmental neglect. health issues. So basically, we later found out that the reason why it was a field, because it was never meant to have anything on it. So what was there before was toxic radiation and toxic chemicals. So those are the reasons. At first, it was like a pavement. It would never really generate a person contact, vehicle contact. So the chemicals were way deep, but as time went on, the chemicals rose to the top. So I'm not saying that I regret myself by no means. I'm blessed to have him in my life. He changed my world. However, just giving that as an example. So I really appreciate this conversation. I hope that you will be able to help us get more people in the room, be more transparent, so that when it does come to...

Okay, we're going to have to stop you there. But thank you very much for your public comment.

Moderator, is there anyone else online who'd like to make public comment?

No, there's not.

Okay, then at this time we will close public comment. and bring it back to the commission for deliberations. Commissioner Gilpin-Hayes.

Thank you. I want to clarify again. I appreciate the gentleman's comment about the fact that this is city council. It's not. I appreciate you mentioning that. I will say that I'm encouraged. I know that people are saying like why aren't there more people here the last multiple Planning Commission meetings have had zero people so I am encouraged by the volume of people that are in this room and even the people that are on that were online that doesn't mean that I would love to see every chair in this in this place packed I will say that I know that the city has published this notice on every social media site and was shared on Benicia happenings it's been shared on Benicia politics it was also shared on next door And so there's lots of ways that people can get access to this information. I say that only because I'm hoping that every person in this room can go home and talk to all of your neighbors and tell them to make sure that they're following. The agenda is also posted every week in advance of a planning commission meeting or a city council meeting. Again, like I'm encouraged by the volume of people in the room and I know that's actually kind of sad given that it's still a relatively small turnout. There are going to be two more city council meetings that are going to consider this, and I encourage every person to go home. I'm wildly happy about the youth that are in the room today that were able to make public comments. So go tell all your friends as well. This is the way people get involved. One of the things that I would like to talk about is the size limit. I understand the... the desire to not place limits on the size of the data centers. I do believe that we should continue to keep it at the 20 megawatts that have been proposed by staff, primarily because there are already developments being considered for the industrial area, not quite in the industrial park, but adjacent with that with the Rose Estates project, as well as redevelopment of the Valero property. I think that if we just eliminate the size limitations, we really do run the risk of that those buildings, the properties that are being considered in that area are gonna probably be multiple years before they break ground on those, assuming they get approved, where a data center can kind of go up much more quickly. So I feel like we are running the risk of really discouraging that development if we don't have a size limitation for a potential data center. I also agree with the environmental impacts that the youth mentioned. Usage is high. And we don't want people to not want to buy a home here because there's a massive data center across the street. We also, I think, want to make sure that we, one of the things that we run into with Valero is that they were kind of the only game in town as far as industrial use. And I think if we say, okay, hey, we're gonna just open up for a massive data center, we are really limiting our ability to diversify the industrial use. So I hope that the rest of the commission considers keeping that in there.

Thank you. Does anybody else have a comment?

Commissioner Gorman. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. I really appreciate its proactive text amendment. Those are hard to do for planning community development departments. Really appreciate that, that we're getting to have this conversation ahead of time. We're not under the gun with a specific... project. We received sophisticated answers from staff and the consultant, which I really appreciated and sophisticated public comment, which was really good. The need for inference and the need for review of carbon emissions. One thing I'm encouraged by is that as this stands before tonight, permitted by right means you don't review carbon at all if it comes in. And so if this were to go through with a use permit, your likelihood, any large project's gonna need a review of the carbon emissions and the utility usage. And so we have a high likelihood of getting that information studied with these provisions, which is really encouraging. I agree with Commissioner Gilpin-Hayes about the size limit. I'm supportive of that. And then I'm also supportive, you know, it gets tricky to add things when you're making a motion, but Commissioner Marshall, if you want to look at additional onsite power generation, having that included in the resolution, I'd be supportive of that as well. So I appreciate it. Thanks for the chance to add comments.

Commissioner Bennett.

Thank you for all the public comments. I'm just going to run through a few notes here. While I understand the need to stay flexible, the economic resiliency of the city requires diversity of both both residential and commercial. Residential by itself doesn't really pay for itself. We want to attract businesses to Benicia that bring revenue that can compensate for not just Valera leaving, but future growth. And the fact that we know we're going to have future residential growth that long-term won't pay for itself. And I actually think we risk We actually risk not having as much flexibility as we could if we allow a large hyperscaler to come in and build. That 20 megawatt limit, I think, is actually a great balance that allows for a colo to come in that can bring, that can actually bring and attract businesses that require that local compute, low latency compute, without attracting customers. a large, large build-out that's actually going to crowd out other businesses. So, Benicia's blessed with having a nearly 3,000-acre industrial park. And we want to make sure we have a diversity of businesses that are there that won't provide a shock like Valeria Leaving did, but can also bring in sales tax revenue. I do understand the concern around environmental impacts. I wish we had a better answer for this. The fact of the matter is we don't. I think as a city, we're obligated to unfortunately address the concerns of the here and now of the budget this year and the next five years. And it's my hope, for lack of a better term, that we can address some of the long-term environmental issues. as we develop this technology and better understand it. For instance, we've made huge gains in water usage. There's a lot of new technologies that have come out that greatly reduce the water usage in data centers. So I recognize that may not be an acceptable answer to you, but I want to address it as it is. That is all I have. So I think it tricks a good balance.

Commissioner Marshall.

Thank you. So I don't disagree with what everybody said, but I guess, again, existentially, I have an issue when the city's experts saying it's an arbitrary limit. And what I'm looking at is a discretionary process that's tied to multiple will serve components, right? Like at some point, we, the city, have to be accountable for what we're allowing to be developed, right? We have to say, I think one of the youth mentioned the water shortage, which is a great point. We have to say, no, we can't be allowing more than 30 gallons a minute because if our water service fails, we can't support that, or we have a stop gap or a fallback to that. But yeah, just as somebody who seeks use permits, they're not easy to get, A. And they're definitely not easy to get in the industrial park When we're combining CEQA to that process that doesn't make it easier It makes it much harder and it should be considering things like traffic and noise and other things that we're concerned about So I'm not saying I wouldn't accept 20. I just wonder if we're saying it's arbitrary and And we're also agreeing that we've got all these other checks and balances. What are we achieving other than kind of a peace of mind that we've restricted the really large facilities? I guess I would also offer maybe more concerning to me is the peripheral properties that are still zoned industrial, like the properties north of East 2nd, do adjoin residential and open space areas. It seems and maybe staff can clarify at your discretion. It seems like those could potentially, you know, and we know they're developed or potentially developed through housing and other components. But as far as I can tell, they may be able to install a data center there. And that's probably where we don't want it, regardless of its size. I don't know, I guess I'm offering that there seems to be some planning that needs to happen here. But at a high level, I really appreciate the energy comments that were made. And I wonder if we shouldn't be more aggressive and say, okay, maybe we accept the size, but we should be expecting a higher level of energy generation that's outside of our grid and set levels for water efficiency use and so forth. that exceed maybe what a data center might call a standard. I don't know what those look like, but I'm offering that concept that You know, we're going through a discretionary process for each of these, and I think it's a great start because we don't know what's coming. But that also gives us the ability to ask these applicants for information. It defines what they're going to do. We have, you know, smart city staff at the water department and the sewer department. You know, I guess at some point we're relying on PG&E. I won't comment on that, but again, the will serve process The connotation of that is that we'll be able to serve it, right? And these departments, as far as my experience, they don't just hand those out. They look at the project you're proposing and they say, you know, can we actually support it with the infrastructure? If we can't, what needs to happen? And I would expect 99% of the time that's on the applicant to make that happen. Anyway, I'm not going to die on the 20 megawatt hill. But I'm just throwing that out there. And the cogeneration concept is kind of tied to that. Should we not be thinking about how to produce energy really efficiently, or as efficient as we can? Because you can't put a wind farm on these sites and expect we're going to... I don't think it's sustainable to think that we're going to have them generating all their electricity. That's not... When we know they are a big demand, maybe we need to be thinking a little more aggressively. Thank you.

I apologize. Can I offer a clarification on something? Thank you. I do want to, for the record, clarify the 20 megawatt threshold. It is not arbitrary. So the threshold that was selected is based upon under our current framework for data centers. And I would just add the asterisk that this is very diverse dynamic industry that 20 megawatts would allow for data centers of various types and scales to meet the needs of the industrial park without becoming so out of scale that they begin to overwhelm the physical industrial park or the availability of resources in the industrial park. The scale and the intensity, it's based upon the type of data center that would typically be provided at a 20 megawatt, like a co-location inference, edge, kind of like the more local serving data centers, and it is not an arbitrary number.

Just want to clarify, the expert used the term arbitrary. That's what I'm reacting to.

But to be clear, the ordinance was drafted by staff. And so we did research all aspects of the ordinance.

For my money, what I read in researching data centers, 20 is kind of the limit to small. Once you go above 20, you're starting to get into medium. And so that's why I use the term existential earlier. This is kind of an existential question for us. Do we want medium or larger data centers here? We're hearing a lot of no's, right?

Commissioner. Gil Van Huis and then Commissioner Bennett.

This is a hill I'm willing to die on. And so I appreciate your comments. I think that given the size of this city and the size of the industrial park and the size of the future developments that we already know are coming, I think to the consultant's point, some of the smaller ones are in the five megawatt area. 20 is decent. It's quite large. I mean, it's not huge. It's not like a massive data center that's going to take over an entire prairie in Indiana. But for given the size of the industrial park and the size of like, you know, the open space that's out there and the Sino property and the Valero property, like 20 is big, it's not small. And so I do feel like, you know, obviously if I get outvoted, I get outvoted, but this is, you know, I really feel strongly that it should not exceed 20. And also, you know, to staff's point, It's not like we can't revisit this and reconsider. This is what we're doing now. We're changing the zoning. The zoning is going to be amended probably multiple times over the course of the next multiple decades. And so I do think we can reconsider it in the event data centers become less controversial, have less of an environmental impact. I really do feel strongly about that. One thing that I wanted to ask staff about is To one of the youth comments said like what happens when they violate we learned this with Valero They violated and violated and violated and sure we got you know a big penalty But if they were still violating for multiple years in a row in this case by reading the ordinance it does sound like there is a potential for revocation of the use permit and so I just want to clarify that if we revoke the use permit then it gets shut down is that accurate and

I think I'm going to take this one. Thank you for the question. Yes, I mean, there's a process you have to go through if conditions of the use permit are being violated, including public hearings for due process reasons. It's a very different situation than the Valero situation. So the answer to your question is yes.

I just want to add, there's a report annually that should be preventing most violations in theory. Yeah, as long as somebody's looking at it that knows what they're looking at, it's going to be smarter than all of us. We're in pretty good shape.

And ideally, they mentioned a consultant. It's maybe third party, not hired by the user.

Commissioner Bennett. I just want to respond to a few things. So the 20 megawatt limit is small for hyperscaler. But most colo clients, and this is just from my experience having worked in the industry, are around 5 megawatts. So the way this is drafted, the idea is it's actually, it will attract smaller businesses that need on-site compute without attracting hyperscalers is the idea. The other thing is these larger data centers require, as of right now from everything I've heard and read, PGD requires them to have power behind the meter, meaning they're bringing their own power, which isn't even an option here. So not that hyperscaler wouldn't come to Benicia, but I think, I don't think we'd actually be an attractive site for hyperscaler anyway, because we don't have the onsite power.

Just food for thought. Just to cut everybody short, I said I wasn't going to die on that hill. So I'm in line. Again, I'm asking high-level questions because this is really a high-level presentation. And again, I side towards we're going in the right step. And if anything, we should be more aggressively approaching our sustainable goals, as we've heard many speak to. Thank you.

Do you guys have anything?

Commissioner Donahue?

I'm concerned about emergency power. If you're not allowing them to use combustion engines for emergency power when they need power, they're going to need it now. If PG&E goes down and for them to come to something that's not a combustion engine would be very difficult for a data center. I think you should allow something like that and give them, say, 72 hours or one week of power per year from combustion engines. You're just trying to not have them run combustion engines all year long, but you ought to give them something with a reasonable cost on a small data center that you can give them emergency power.

Well, I was trying to envision that, because going back to what the consultant said, until we know size, until we know how long they need to keep it online, how long the power is going to be out, to say a week, that could be massive amounts. So it's hard to quantify, I guess. Commissioner Gilpin has?

Yeah, that's a hard pass for me. I think that there's, as proven by everybody that's got a Tesla in there, Garage, there's plenty of opportunity for battery backup. There's no, if a use permit came across me, if I'm still on the planning commission in the event this ever happens, a diesel power backup would be an absolute no. There's way too many other opportunities for backup power.

The industrial park has seen battery backups proposed at least. I don't know if I ever saw the permit issued, but they were viable enough to have the plan submitted. Any other deliberations? I'm so sorry, Chair. I have one more. It's just the same instrument, a zoning text amendment that's proposed to us by staff. Anyone can pay to submit one as well. So if we really, if we have someone who thinks they can provide enough value to the community and they're at a higher power level, it's less than 20K and they get to have their hearing, their day in court. And so they can propose that.

Thank you.

Well, if there's no further deliberations, I would entertain a motion from the commission.

I'll give it a shot. I would move to approve with some offerings. I would hope that we could consider different forms of renewable green energy, not diesel combustion, that would allow these data centers and applicants to creatively find ways to produce energy that we want them to be doing. Hopefully staff can put that in better language than I can. And again, I would offer that staff consider some more aggressive sustainability goals for these centers and how much energy they are producing onsite. I don't know how we quantify that. So those are my offerings by motion. So I understand the first part.

How would we put the language in for? I would probably rely on the expert. So just so we're clear as to what we're actually voting on, I guess.

Right now it says wind, solar, and geothermal. That's extremely limiting to how they can produce energy. We don't want diesel. The alternative would be to just exclude what we don't want and open up the opportunity to provide green energy, which changes constantly the ways we produce it. That part I... I'm not smart enough. I thought there was a second... Yeah, I thought there was a second amendment you were making. The second part I'm offering to the commission that... You know, we heard a lot of folks that are going to be here when we're gone talking about how they wonder if we should even be having these types of uses and how much energy they use. And I'm offering why wouldn't we respond with trying to counteract how much they are using and ask them to produce more on site. Again, I don't know what's feasible, but if it's open-ended, they may say if I get my will serve letter, I'm gonna do the token amount, right? I can't tell from the language if they're obliged to do any more. I don't think they are. But it would be at the commission's discretion and ultimately the council. Take a stab at how that would go.

I'm not sure exactly. Would that be, could we mandate that through the use permit versus in the actual ordinance?

I would recommend doing it through the use permit only because it could be a couple years from now and there could be technology that we're not aware of right now that's very attractive and cost-effective.

We could... Let me reframe it.

We use the language... What was it? Maximum feasible extent for water. Why wouldn't we use that for power?

That was way more clear. Took me a while, but I got through. Thank you.

The chair, may I clarify? Please. Okay. So if I understand Commissioner Marshall's motion, the under standards item D2 electric power would be amended to acknowledge that there would be renewable energy, inclusive of solar, wind, or geothermal, but not limited to solar. And we can wordsmith that.

And then you have the discretion. I think that works.

Right. And then it would also be amended to mirror the language in D3 through operational practices to reduce electric power consumption to the maximum extent feasible. Is that correct?

Yes. Do we have a second on that?

I can work with that. I'll second it.

Commissioner Bennett jumped in first, so we'll give it to him for the record. So then, staff, can we have roll call on the amendment as we discuss, and then with a proposal from Commissioner Marshall and a second from Commissioner Bennett.

Yes, Commissioner Bennett? Yes. Commissioner Donahue? Yes. Commissioner Gilpin-Hayes?

Yes.

Commissioner Gorman? Yes. Commissioner Marshall? Yes. And Chair Slate?

Yes. Thank you. Item 12, communications from staff.

Yes, we do have one exciting announcement tonight. In case you weren't aware, the city was awarded the pro-housing designation by the state of California last month. And that is due in part to work by this commission and all the other housing element implementation efforts to date. So we joined one of only 75 jurisdictions statewide to earn that designation. So we're super excited about that. Beyond that though, it's more than just a gold star. There is a lot of grant funding that is paired with that, that only jurisdictions like us that have the designation are able to apply for and obtain. And in fact, we've already seen that pay off with a grant for our senior housing project, about a $750,000. So again, super excited about that. And thank you for your work as part of that whole housing element implementation effort. And it's ongoing, but just wanted to announce that.

Well, you're welcome. And congratulations to the city. Any communications from the commission? Well, seeing none, then we'll adjourn this meeting at 741. Thank you.