Metropolitan Council - Regular Meeting

Stand please. First on our agenda, I do detect a quorum to be present with myself, Council Members Allen, Benedict Campbell, Kupin, and Rutherford to be present. First on our agenda is public comment. We did have three individuals to sign up ahead of time. First to sign up is Ms. Rachel Gladstone speaking on BL 2026-1423 in opposition. Ms. Gladstone, if you can approach the podium, please, and introduce yourself. You're recognized.

I'm Rachel Gladstone. I'm here to talk about this mural, the public art on 60th Avenue. Our council member turned in an amendment, which we're thankful for, but it says four different things, so it's confusing. The first thing says, shall be preserved. Awesome, we want it to be preserved. But then it says, and reused or repurposed within the new development. Suddenly it belongs to the developer. It's no longer public art. It's the developer who picks the option of these things. It becomes private property. Then it says returned or donated to the artists. This thing is 350 feet long, 20 feet high, made of corrugated metal. I don't think anyone's going down there with a screwdriver and a pickup truck. I think we need help with that. And then it says, otherwise relocated to another area for public viewing. We would love this, but we feel like this needs time. This amendment was turned in today. The nation's committee came together, wrote another amendment, which we sent to council member Horton, hoping he would meet with us. He did not. We requested it. He did not. We need a deferral to meet with professionals, the Metro Arts Council, people who actually know how to dismantle and preserve and repurpose this enormous mural. It's nationally recognized. It's a very important part of Nashville public art. The artists are not happy with it. There's a lot of chatter on their Instagrams, a lot of national chatter about this. We would very much like a deferral for at least two, maybe three meetings to find the proper people to help us move this 350 foot long, 20 foot high mural that's made up of five foot panels, many of which are one piece of art.

It's very... Thank you, Ms. Gladstone. Next on our public signup, we have Ms. Tracy O'Neill speaking on BL 2026-1448 and BL 2026-1391 in support of each or supportive with amendments. Ms. Tracy, you are recognized. If you can please introduce yourself, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tracy O'Neill. I am with the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. The bills that you're going to be discussing today on the data centers could determine whether or not Nashville is proactively regulating data centers or reacting to a fossil fuel plant that we can't take down. We've already seen what after the fact looks like in Memphis. XAI told city leaders and nearby residents that its onsite gas turbines were temporary. but its actions have shown otherwise. The company installed hundreds of megawatts of onsite methane gas turbines with very minimal public oversight. Their electricity demand continues to grow into the gigawatt scale. That experience should be a warning. Voluntary assurances are not a substitute for clear enforceable standards. The consequences of Nashville's decisions also don't stop at the county line. The enormous electricity demand created here can drive new power plants, transmission lines, and additional infrastructure across the entire TVA region. We saw that recently in Cheatham County where the TVA proposed a 900 megawatt methane gas plant in preparation for data centers. That's why the moratorium really needs to be a priority. It gives Metro time and protection to finish this very important work. We support permanent data center regulations, but the ordinance shouldn't pass without strong amendments. At a minimum, it should really require certification that capacity exists. Thank you.

Next to sign up is Mr. Chris Remke speaking on bail 2026, 1423 in opposition. Mr. Remke, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. Well, the first thing I'm going to say about this amendment is if I had my developer shoes on and was being paid to do that today, I would really be supporting this amendment. However, I've got my save the neighborhood shoes on and my save the mural shoes on. And I will tell you the following. I've read the bill. And the community proposed some options that they'd hoped to have. The file text sounds like preservation. Read closely, it's a menu for four options. Three of them end with wall down. It requires no funding, no artist consent, no review. It pays for one thing, demolition. Everything after that is optional and voluntary. When the costly choice is optional and the cheap one meets compliance, the cheap one gets made. That is not about one developer. It's how the rule with no money behind it works. And if the land is sold, it doesn't transfer in terms of what voluntary obligations may have come. The text ultimately really requires nothing. The fix is simple. The community has written some terms and would like them to be considered. Put the cost on the developer, hold the permits until a real plan is in place. Those terms can go into a condition before you vote. For all practical purpose, the filed condition preserves the word, not the wall. The wall's destiny is up to you. Please promote a deferral with a community meeting required to allow work on the open issues for the community. Anything less is simply a path to wall down. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Remke. That concludes everybody that signed up ahead of time for public comment. Is there anybody else in the gallery who wishes to speak? Seeing none, I will declare the public hearing closed. Public hearing closed. Next on our agenda are the consent items. I currently have every item on consent apart from five items. Those five items not currently on the consent agenda are item 13, BL-2026-1451. Item 30, BL 2026-1361. Item 32, BL 2026-1391. Item 49, BL 2026-1423. And item 54, BL 2026-1448. Before I read the captions, is there any that need to be removed from consent? And I see Council Member Evans' hand up. Council Member Evans, you're recognized.

Could you remove BL 2026-1415, please? 1415, which agenda item is that?

1415, that is item 44. It looks like that's a companion bill to item 43, BL 2026-1414. Would you like to remove them both? Those will be removed from the consent agenda. Are there any other items which need to be removed from the consent agenda? Seeing none, I will read the captions in just one moment. Thank you. All right, here's the consent agenda. First, item one, RS-2026-2115, sponsors Toombs, Horton, Allen, and Gatta, resolution approving the Second Amendment to a grant contract for constructing affordable housing approved by RS-2024-750 between the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, acting by and through the Metropolitan Housing Trust Fund Commission and Arts and Business Council of Greater Nashville, Inc. Item two, RS-2026-2131, sponsors Coopin, Horton, and Evan Siegel, a resolution authorizing Printers Alley Investments LLC to construct, install, and maintain an aerial encroachment at 210 4th Avenue North. Item three, RS-2026-2136, sponsors Horton, Evan Siegel, and Gatt, a resolution approving a project modification agreement between the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County and the United States Department of Army to add a parcel related to the acquisition and removal of flood prone properties in the Richland Creek Watershed. Item four, RS-2026-2137, sponsors Cortez, Horton, and Evan Siegel, resolution to amend ordinance number BL-2023-2028 to authorize the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County to modify the acceptance of water and sanitary sewer mains, fire hydrant assembly, sanitary sewer manholes, and easements to update map and parcel information and add additional phasing. for property now located at 2362 East Zermatt Avenue, also now known as Rosemonte Phase 4-1. Item 5, RS-2026-2138, sponsors Cash, Horton, and Evan Siegel, a resolution authorizing the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County to ban an existing public water main and to accept new public water main for property located at 1515 Wedgwood Avenue, also known as Belmont Court Powerhouse. Item six, RS-2026-2139, sponsors Cash Horton and Evan Siegel, a resolution authorizing the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County to abandon public fire hydrant assembly and to accept the relocation of public fire hydrant assembly for property located at 2415 Vanderbilt Place also known as Vanderbilt University Central Neighborhood RC3. Item seven, RS-2026-2140, sponsors Johnson, Horton, and Evan Segal, a resolution authorizing the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County to accept new public water main and sanitary sewer mains and sanitary sewer manholes for five properties located on Inverness Avenue, also known as 602C Inverness Avenue. Item 8, RS-2026-2141, sponsored for Al Horton and Evan Siegel, a resolution authorizing the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County to accept new public water and sanitary sewer mines, fire hydrant assemblies, and sanitary sewer manholes for three properties located at 3807 and 3817 Hamilton Church Road and Hamilton Church Road Unnumbered, also known as 3807-3817 Hamilton Church Road Phase 2. Item 9, RS-2026-2142, sponsored by Terrell Horton and Evan Siegel, a resolution authorizing the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County to accept new public water and sanitary sewer mains, fire hydrant assemblies, and sanitary sewer manholes for three properties located at 3807-3817 Hamilton Church Road and Hamilton Church Road Unnumbered, also known as 3807-3817 Hamilton Church Road Phase 3. Item 10, RS-2026-2143, sponsors Taylor Horton and Evan Segal, a resolution authorizing the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County to accept new public sanitary sewer manhole for property located at Parthenon Avenue, also known as Parthenon Flats. Item 11, RS-2026-2144, sponsors Horton and Evan Segal, a resolution authorizing the Director of Public Property or his designee to exercise option agreements for the purchase of a flood-prone property located at 5516 Rome Avenue for Metro Water Services. Number, item 12, late filed resolution by Council Member Toombs, a resolution approving, appropriating five million grand from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to the Metropolitan Government acting by and through the Housing Division at the Metropolitan, at the Housing Division of the Metro Nashville Planning Department for pathways to removing obstacles to housing. Item 14, BL 2026-1453, sponsored of Spain, Toombs, Horton, Evans, Siegel, Voe, Allen, Gadd, Welsh, Ewing, and Weiner, an ordinance approving a Greenway conservation easement between the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County through the Metropolitan Boards of Parks and Recreation and AHV Newsome BFR owner LLC for Greenway improvements at 7800 McCrory Lane. Item 15, BL 2026, 1454, sponsors Evans, Toombs, Horton, Evans, Siegel, Voe, Allen, Gad, Welsh, Hill, and Ewing, an ordinance approving a Greenway conservation easement between the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County through the Metropolitan Board of Parks and Recreation and Beezer Homes LLC for Greenway improvements at Zero Godwin Court. Item 16, BL 2026, 1455. Sponsors Gadd, Evan Siegel, Horton, and Ewing. An ordinance authorizing the abandonment of alley number 1702 right of way from Cantrell Avenue to alley 1705. Item 17, BL 2026, 1456. Sponsors Eastlake, Horton, Evan Siegel, and Ewing. An ordinance authorizing the abandonment of portions of Union Street and South Street right of way. Item 18, Bill 2026-1453, Sponsors Horton, Evans, Siegel, and Ewing, an ordinance authorizing the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County to require permanent temporary easements through negotiation, condemnation, and acceptance at 503 Robbie and Court, Stormwater Improvement Project for property located on Idlewild Drive. Item 19, BL 2026-1458, sponsors Horton, Evans, Segal, and Ewing, an ordinance authorizing the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County to acquire permanent and temporary easements through negotiation, condemnation, and acceptance for the 101 Eastmore Street Stormwater Improvement Project for two properties located at 101 Eastmore Land Street and 1315 Dickerson Pike. Item 20, BL 2026-1459, sponsors Vo Horton, Evans, Segal, and Ewing, an ordinance authorizing the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County to abandon existing public sanitary sewer main, sanitary sewer manholes and easements and to accept the vertical relocation of existing water main, new public sanitary sewer main, sanitary sewer manholes and easements for property located at 825 Gale Lane, also known as Gale Lane Residential. Item 21, BL 2026-1460, sponsors Evans, Horton, Evans-Segal, and Ewing, an ordinance authorizing the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County to accept new public water and sanitary sewer mains, fire hydrant assemblies, sanitary sewer manholes, and easements for five properties located on Central Pike, Kemp Drive, and North New Hope Road, also known as Central Pike South. Item 22, BL 2026-1461 sponsors Coop and Horton, Evan Siegel, and Ewing. An ordinance authorized the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County to abandon existing public sanitary sewer mains, sanitary sewer manholes, and easements, and to accept new public sanitary sewer mains, sanitary sewer manholes, and easements for six properties located on Cohen Street and River North Boulevard, also known as Cohen Street Trunk Sewer. Item 23, BL 2026-1462, sponsors Horton, Evans, Segal, and Ewing, an ordinance authorizing the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County to accept new sanitary sewer mains, sanitary sewer manholes, and easements for property located at 1662 Pinkerton Road in Williamson County. Item 24, BL 2026-1463, sponsors Bradford, Horton, Evans, Segal, and Ewing, an ordinance authorizing the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County to accept new public water and sanitary sewer mains, fire hydrant assembly, sanitary sewer manholes, and easements for property located at 701 Donaldson Pike, also known as BNA Northeast Parking Lot. Item 25, BL 2026-1464, sponsors Kimbrough, Horton, Evans, Siegel, and Ewing, an ordinance authorizing the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County to abandon existing public water and easements, water main and easements, and accept new public water and sanitary sewer mains, fire hydrant assembly, sanitary sewer manholes, and easements for property located at 633 West Green Lane, also known as Hill Point, White's Creek Infrastructure. Item 26, Bill 2026-1465, sponsors Kimbrough, Horton, Evans, Siegel, and Ewing, an ordinance authorizing the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County to accept new public water and sanitary sewer mains, fire hydrant assembly, sanitary manholes, and easements for property located at 633 West Green Lane, also known as Hill Point, White's Creek Residential. Item 27, Bill 2026-1489, sponsors Horton, Porterfield, Coop and Parker, Spain, Gadd, Benedict, Ewing, Cortez, Weiner, Rutherford, Gregg, Nash, and Harrell, an ordinance authorizing the Metropolitan Government of Nashville Metropolitan government to require the fee interest in a parcel of property through negotiation or condemnation for office warehouse training and other uses item 28 BL 20 26 13 14 sponsors Fort Nevin Siegel and Harrell and ordinance amending certain sections and subsections of chapter 2.1 0 4 6.2 613 point 3 2 15 point 6 4 17 point 2 0 17 point 2 4 17 point 2 8 and 17 point 3 6 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws to correct typographical errors incorrect references redundancies and other minor Errors. Item 29, BL 2026, 1360 sponsors Stiles and Evan Siegel in ordinance amending chapter 17.28 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws to amend regulations on underground utilities. Item 31, BL 2026, 1387 sponsors Kimbrough in ordinance to amend title 17 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws zoning ordinance of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County by changing from RS 10 to R 10. zoning for property located at 1616 Ashton Avenue, approximately 540 feet west of Hyde's Ferry Road. Item 33, this should also be off consent. Item 33 is not on consent. Item 34, BL 2026-1396 sponsors Parker, an ordinance to amend Title 17 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws, the zoning ordinance of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County by amending specific plan in changing from RS-5 to SP zoning for properties located at 905, 907 West Eastland Avenue, 930, 930C McFerrin Avenue, 609, 611, 613, 615, 625, 627, 629, 631, 633, 635, 637, 639, 641, 643, and 645 Richmond Bend, approximately 417 feet west of McFerrin Avenue and located within the Greenwood Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and the Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit Overlay District to permit 19 residential units and up to 3,250 square feet of non-residential uses. Item 35, BL 2026-1397 sponsors Parker and ordinance to authorize building material restrictions and requirements for BL 2026-1396. Item 36, BL 2026-1398, sponsors tailor an ordinance to amend Title 17 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws, the Zoning Ordinance of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County by changing from RS-6 to SP zoning for property located at 1038 28th Avenue North, approximately 138 feet north of Meharry Boulevard to permit a mixed-use development. Item 37, BL 2026-1399, sponsors tailor an ordinance to authorize building material restrictions and requirements for BL 2026-1398. Item 38, BL 2026-1405, sponsors Taylor, an ordinance from Entitle 17 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws, a zoning ordinance of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County by changing from RS-5 to R-6A, zoning for property located at 1704 10th Avenue North, approximately 80 feet northwest of Jane Street, and located within the detached accessory dwelling unit overlay district. BL 2026-1408, sponsors Welsh, an ordinance for men, Title 17 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws, a zoning ordinance of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County by changing from RS5 to R6A zoning, property located at 311 Joyner Avenue, approximately 350 feet southeast of Nolensville Pike. Item 40, BL 2026-1409, sponsors Parker, In ordinance to amend Title 17 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws, zoning ordinance of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County by changing from RM9 to RM15A NS zoning for property located at 705A Skyline Ridge Drive, approximately 44 feet north of Channing Drive. Item 41, Bill 2026-1410, an ordinance to amend Title 17 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws, a zoning ordinance of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County by changing from RS-5 to RM-20A-NS zoning for property located at 2839 Georgia Avenue, approximately 80808 feet west of 28th Avenue North. Item 42, BL 2026-1413, sponsors Welsh and ordinance for men, Title 17 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws, the zoning ordinance of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County by changing from RS-5 to R6A zoning for prior to be located at 110 Lutie Street, located approximately 270 feet west of Miller Street. Item 45, BL 2026-1417, sponsors tombs and ordinance to amend Title 17 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws, the zoning ordinance of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County by changing from RS-5 to RS-6A, zoning for property located at 129 Elmhurst Avenue, approximately 96 feet north of Lucille Street. Item 46, BL 2026-1418, sponsor Spain, an ordinance to amend Title 17 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws of Zoning Ordinance of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County by changing from AR2A to RM9NS zoning for property located at 7345 Old Charlotte Pike, approximately 322 feet east of Old Hickory Boulevard. Item 47, BL 2026-1419, sponsors Evans, an ordinance to amend Title 17 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws, a zoning ordinance of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County by changing from RS 15 to R 15, zoning for property located at 3524 Earhart Road, approximately 535 feet south of Hessey Road. Item 48, BL 2026, 1421, Spencer's Tombs, an ordinance to amend Title 17 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws, the zoning ordinance of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County by changing from R5 to R6A zoning for properties located at 1233 and 1236 John L. Copeland Boulevard at the southeast corner of Weekly Avenue and John Copeland Boulevard. Item 50, BL... and one should also not be on consent, excuse me. Item 51, BL 2026-1427, sponsors Hancock and Webb, an ordinance to amend Title 17 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws, a zoning ordinance of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County by changing from RS-10 to R-10 zoning for property located at 917 Hospital Drive, approximately 444 feet east of Kingsley Boulevard. Item 52, BL 2026-1428, an ordinance to amend Title 17 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws, a zoning ordinance of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County by changing from RS-10 to MUNANS zoning for properties located at 2212 and 2216 Riverside Drive at the northwest corner of Oakhurst Drive and Riverside Drive. Item 53, BL-2026-1423, sponsor Spain, an ordinance to amend Title 17 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws, the zoning ordinance of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County by canceling a portion of a residential planned unit development overlay district on properties located at 8011 and 8087 Poplar Creek. and Poplar Creek Road, unnumbered approximately 2,078 feet west of Old Harding Pike, zoned RS-15 and AR-2A. And that concludes the consent agenda. Do we have a motion? Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Any opposed? Any not voting? Consent agenda is recommended for approval. How many do we? Eight in favor, zero against, and zero not voting. We'll now proceed to the items not on the consent agenda. The first of which is item 13, bill 2026, 1451, sponsors, Toombs, Horton, Kimbrough, Bradford, Vaux, Coop and Allen ordinance approving amendment number six, arts center redevelopment plan, amendment number one to the Bordeaux redevelopment plan, amendment number one to the central state redevelopment plan, amendment number six to the Phillips Jackson redevelopment area, amendment number nine to the Rutledge Hill redevelopment plan and amendment number one to the Skyline redevelopment plan. Do we have a motion? Moved and seconded, any discussion? Council Member Allen, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment that I would like to move.

Amendment is moved, moved and seconded. Any discussion on the amendment?

Thanks, just a brief explanation. All this does is require a notification. The purpose of the bill in general is to incorporate some changes that were done as a result of studies on TIF financing that showed that they can create some great opportunities, but that it restricted the payment of that to 75% of the tax increment to go back to pay the loan. And it allowed MDHA the flexibility to make changes to that according to a written policy. But there's nothing that says Metro Council gets any kind of notification of that. And if we are very diligent and do the math on the annual reports that come out, we might be able to figure out that they perhaps we're using, by necessity, the entire amount to pay that back, but then that's funding that doesn't go back to schools and other things, so we have an interest in knowing. So unless there's someone here from MDHA that would like to comment on it, I would like to move the amendment that simply requires a notification in writing to council when MDHA chooses to increase that 75% up to something different.

Thank you for that explanation. Any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, all in favor of the amendment? Aye. Any opposed? Any not voting? Recommend approval of the amendment. Eight in favor, zero against, zero not voting. Can we get a motion on the bill as amended? Moved and seconded. Any discussion on the bill as amended? Seeing none, all in favor? Any opposed? Any not voting? Recommend approval of the bill as amended. Eight in favor, zero against, zero not voting. The next item not on the consent agenda is item 30, BL 2026-1361, sponsors Benedict, Capp, Coopin, and Evans-Segal, an ordinance for men Title 17.37 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws to establish an East Bank Design Review Committee within the Downtown Code. Do we have a motion? Moved and seconded, we will go first to the primary sponsor, Council Member Benedict, your recognized recommendation.

Thank you, Chair. There's a couple of amendments in the packet that I'm not familiar with, so I'd love an explanation of what those are before I determine what to do with the bill.

Thank you. We are also joined by the sponsor of each amendment, Council Member Coop.

Thank you, Chair. And apologies, I don't have the amendment numbers in front of me, but I can explain both of them. That'd be great. So there are two amendments. First of all, I appreciate my colleague working on this. I know this has been a long time coming. There are two amendments. I guess we'll start with the one that removes the 1,000-unit amendment. So basically in the bill as substituted, there is a benchmark that says a certain seat on the DRC does not exist until they hit 1,000 residential units on the IEB area. My understanding is we're at 900 and change. So we're very close to that. We're probably gonna cross that at some point in the near future. So just in the interest of transparency and clarity, figured it was easier to take that out and have that seat established. And then the other, I don't, Chair, do you know if that was Amendment 1 or 2? It was 2, I'm going backwards.

Do you want to just start with that one first and then? We've heard an explanation on Amendment 2, although not a motion on it yet. I'll go back to Council Member Benedict for further discussion.

Thank you, Chair. I'd love to, I mean, if it's okay with you to go ahead and hear the explanation on the other, or do you want to take action on this one? We could do it either way.

We can take them together, if Council Member Coopman, if you're all right, to offer an explanation of Amendment 1 as well.

Yeah, totally, totally happy to do that. And then also would love the planning planning table to weigh in as well. I know they've got some thoughts. I think the first one or amendment two is probably a little bit easier to apply. Amendment one may have some challenges, but open to other suggestions. So amendment one, this is talking about a selection for a seat on the DRC from the district council person or council persons over the Imagine East Bank area. Right now, it doesn't provide a tiebreaker effectively. So if this area were to have two council members and they each were to suggest a qualified candidate for the role, as we all know, we can't talk to each other outside of meetings. There's not really a mechanism to debate or discuss it. And so was trying to put a tiebreaker of some sort in there. I do think it's good that it is that district council person that gets to pick it, whoever that may be, but was trying to put a tiebreaker. My understanding is that the planning chair who I selected to be the tiebreaker is the secretary of the DRC. And so that would create a conflict of interest. So that's my second one.

Thank you for that explanation, Council Member. I'll go back to Council Member Benedict.

Thank you, Chair. So I appreciate the explanation because I hadn't seen these until today. Obviously till the amendment packet comes out and wasn't familiar that they were gonna be presented. I guess the, maybe taking them in order of the packet. So the first one about the district council members, the nominations. So the members shall be nominated, sorry. So for the East Bank DRC member that's nominated by a district council member, The way the legislation reads is if multiple district council members represent this area, so that would be if multiple, right? So currently it's just one, but with redistricting down the pike, if more than one, the DRC members shall be nominated by the consensus of all district council members for the IEB area so it's just a nomination my expectation would be at some point you know what I mean I think within this body we you know it's a nomination and then we vote on who that person is I suppose if let's say two council members wanted to duke it out and couldn't figure out you know who the person was that they'd probably bring both to the body and then the body would do that confirmation process. So from that perspective, I think that, I mean, I don't see any reason why, you know, to support this one. If the sponsor of this amendment wants to move it, we certainly can vote on it, but you know, I'm not seeing any reason why it makes sense to do that since it is just a nomination. It's not actual appointment by.

Okay. We have not had a motion on either amendment yet. So we are still on the bill overall, unless an individual would like to move either amendment.

if I could go ahead and address amendment two then, since I was addressing the one. That's right. On that one, I understand the concern. I think that when I reviewed this with planning and we looked at multiple times, this is about that 1000 unit. I think that there were 900 and some permits, but not UNOs. And so the goal here is that once there's a thousand, if that's the triggering amount and that within 12 months of that thousand, let me kind of rephrase that and explain it so that it's understood. So the review committee, in order to have quorum, there's been quorum issues in the past. And so when you have fewer members counting towards quorum, then you're more likely to have quorum. And so the goal here was that if there's not going to be residents there yet, then let's not have a member who counts towards quorum. So there was a threshold there that we put in that Mr. Hammer and planning and I came up with. And that's this $1,000. when there's UNOs or certificates of occupancy for 1,000 units that then the district council member representing the area will nominate somebody and they'll have 12 months to do that so that then it'll become a member on the body counting towards the quorum. So the goal there was to try to find a way to make sure that review committee can have quorum. So I think that, you know, the merit of leaving it in there is on par with what planning and I discussed. And I think that it also helps with that quorum issue that I know we've had with other, with the existing review committee. So I would not be supportive of this one either.

Thank you for, for that response. I guess any further discussion on this council member Cuban, you're recognized.

So amendment 16, Amendment one, just to clarify, Amendment one is the 1,000 person and then Amendment two is the consensus?

I believe it's the other way around.

Other way around. Amendment one is the consensus, Amendment two is the 1,000. Okay, just make sure I'm getting the right apologies. I don't have that in front of me. As far as the consensus one, I'm happy to not move that. I think We can if we need to do a little rock paper scissors or something on the on the floor figure that one out so i'm okay not moving that. I do think and i'm trying to double check it, but I checked it for a spend and my understanding was that there were. That those permits were if not already at you and those are very quickly getting to you and those and so I really appreciate quorum. I'm on the DRC emails now and I see when we don't have quorum. In fact, I think we may have lost it this month. So that is a challenge to address, but I do think that we're getting close enough that there are residents and obviously if this is, I mean, the goal of this to me is to have the East Nashville and East Bank voices represented And so would want somebody who lives there. I know there are people that currently do live in that area to, as these projects come up, have a voice in shaping it. We know over the next couple of years, there's gonna be a lot of influential decisions and important decisions. So to me, I would like to move that amendment to have that 1,000 person restriction removed.

Is that a motion? That is a motion. Motion, do we have a second? Moved and seconded, we're now on discussion of the amendment. Council Member Benedict, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair, and I appreciate the sponsor here explaining that. I think going back to when the bill was substituted with the work with planning that I did in order to substitute it. This position was based on a residence association that does not yet exist. So in the existing DTC, there's an Urban Residence Association person on that committee. And so the goal here that I had originally was to put an East Bank Resident Association on this committee. That doesn't exist. And we don't know if it ever will exist. So we actually, the sponsor of this amendment brought a really good one in that substitute that eliminates the naming of that. And so the thing is that, you know, the goal here would be that when there are residents that whatever organization that might be, or, you know, no organization, however it might be, that it would be a member from that, and that's how we got to this place. I think if it's about to happen anyway, I would just say let it naturally happen, and as much as we can do, if there's a quorum issue this month, I would say that there might be a quorum issue without this, so let's give 12 months for the East Bank Design Review Committee. Work's already beginning to be done with the TPAC review, and as other things are coming up, I'd say that it makes sense to not add this person to count towards quorum over the next 12 months. If that thousand threshold, let's say we're met next week, then you've got a clock ticking for 12 months. This gives more time for that, which I think aligns with the goals that planning and I had discussed when we created the bill together. So I'm against this and I would encourage my colleagues to vote against it as well.

Thank you, Council Member. I think it seems, jumping in myself into the discussion, it seems like we're aligned on policy that it's valuable to have a resident from this area represented on the Design Review Committee at the same time not impairing quorum and ensure that this review committee works in practice. I think to the extent there's a gap, it seems to be a factual one on whether how many people live there currently measured by population or if we're perhaps mistakenly going by permits. I don't wanna put planning on the spot. I'm wondering if that's something you might be able to speak to whether this threshold is already satisfied as a practical matter or not. I don't know if that's information we have access to here.

Hi, Lisa Million with Metro Planning. looking through permits actively to try to get a full counting, but I don't think we're quite to 1,000 yet. The residential units that are existing within River North Boulevard that are occupied, I'm sorry, existing within River North, that are occupied are the sort of only ones that are within this designated area of Imagine East Bank area. And so I don't have an exact count on the number I was trying to get that, but it takes a bit to work my way through all of the permits, if I may.

Council Member Benedict, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair. So to give a little color, Mr. Hammer, who was the staff reviewer on this, Eric Hammer, and I worked very closely on this, trying to figure out, is there a good number for us to pick here? Because are we just picking a number out of the sky? We reached that number partly because there's permits that have been pulled, but not yet occupied. So there's not UNOs for those permits. And we just thought, let's make sure that there's enough people so that somebody's voice could be heard. from the residents in the area. So that's, you know, is it the right number? We think so. We passed it through the planning commission. We passed it here last reading. Um, so I just, you know, again, um, as I understand it from Mr. Hammer, those, there's not a thousand currently and we're approaching it, but we're not, not there yet on the UNO side. I think it was around 900 as I think the sponsor here said, but they're not occupancy. They're just permits that have been pulled so far.

Understood. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Coopin, did I see your hand up? Council Member Coopin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the discussion. I think we're very close and kind of saying this very similar thing, so I appreciate the discussion. Given that there's, again, on the current DRC, there is a resident seat And if this 1,000 seat requirement were to, or 1,000, I keep saying seat, the 1,000 person or unit requirement, what's the downside? And we know that there are people living in River North. We know that there are more and more residents on the IEB area every day. What would be the downside to selecting someone that currently lives there, even if there's not a certain number, to start having that person serve and be part of that conversation?

Is anyone else gonna be recognized? Okay. Council Member Benedict, if you'd like to speak to it.

You know, the concern that Mr. Hammer and I were talking about when we, quote, hammered this out, I'm sure he gets that a lot, was, you know, finding that right number so that, again, the issue is quorum. And so we're trying to help with quorum here while also getting somebody who is a local resident to have a voice in this design review committee. So, you know, I mean, is it a hill I want to die on? I mean, you know, like a thousand is a thousand, right? On the other hand, you know, it's already been vetted through the planning department, the commission, and, you know, this body passed it last time. So it just seems we're already approaching it. Maybe it becomes a moot point, but it's in there and it's what we've been looking at. I don't see a need to, I mean, we've spent a ton of time on it, right? Again, not a hill I want to die on, on the one hand. On the other hand, you know, the bill, I think it's fully baked as it is. I just don't see this as necessary.

Thank you, Council Member. I think normally here, I would suggest passing it at this reading and addressing it at a subsequent one, but I believe we're on third and final reading now, so we can't address this at a subsequent reading. I don't know if this amendment is significant enough to merit a deferral. Do any of the committee members have a thought? We have the primary sponsor and the district council member here. Council Member Koopman, you recognize?

I appreciate that. No, I don't think deferral is necessary. I think my colleagues worked very hard on this bill, so I would love to move it. you know, I hear quorum being an issue. I think that quorum, the issue of quorum to me is less about the amount of people living on a certain area and more so the, you know, schedule, availability, commitment, et cetera, of the individuals selected. So I think that that, whether it's 500 people or a thousand people or 10,000 people, I think, you know, the quorum I think wouldn't be a problem here. I think it would have been an issue with the way the seat was originally defined, but given the expanded area, but I would just love to move it and let everybody vote the way they wanna vote and then kind of keep moving. I know we've got other stuff going on on the agenda as well.

Thank you. Any further discussion before we are now on a motion to approve amendment two. Any further discussion on amendment two? Seeing none, all in favor? Can you raise your hands, please? I think it was just two. All opposed? Or three? Recommend approval. Four in favor. Was it two against? Sorry. Everyone in favor, please raise your hands again. And everyone against, please raise your hand. Sorry, Council Member Gamble, I missed you on that side. Any not voting? We recommend approval five in favor, three against, zero not voting. We're now on the bill as amended with amendment two. Any discussion on the bill as amended? Moved and seconded, any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Any opposed? Any not voting? Recommend approval of the bill as amended with amendment two, eight in favor, zero against, zero not voting. Moving along, agenda item 32. This is BL 2026-1391. Sponsors Horton, Porterfield, Gadd, Huffman, Welsh, Toombs, Prepte, Benedict, Spain, Parker, Wiener, Voe, Bradford, Kupan, Ewing, Johnston, Sepulveda, Evans, Cortez, Hill, Allen, Taylor, Capp, Gamble, Gregg, Suara, Harrell, Druffle, Benton, Nash, and Rutherford. This is an ordinance amending title 17 of the Metropolitan Codes of Laws to add various new data center uses and related definitions and conditions to the zoning code. Do we have a motion to get us started? Moved, do we have a second? Moved and seconded. We're now on discussion of the bill. Before we dive into all of the amendments, I have grouped these topically for purposes of facilitating discussion between amendments which are similar or address the same part of the code. So we're gonna take them out of numerical order but within topical organization. Those categories I have are clerical corrections, those that address reporting requirements, those that address power and environmental standards, and then another catch all category. The first one is a clerical one, which is amendment one by myself. Do we have a motion from a committee member? Moved and seconded, a brief explanation. This is housekeeping amendment to correct section numbers and ask for your support for it. Any discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, all in favor? Any opposed? Any not voting? I recommend approval of amendment one, eight in favor, zero against, zero not voting. Jumping into the first category of amendments, the first is reporting requirements. And the first one I have in this category is amendment number five by council member Johnston. Do we have a motion from a committee member to get us started? Moved and seconded. Council member Johnston is with us today. Council member Johnston, you're recognized for a brief explanation.

Thank you, so this requires the submission of an emergency response and power resiliency plan to the fire marshal's office. It's literally just to have a plan articulated and communicated to those that would be responding. It further identifies emergency contacts, site access, shutoff procedures, generator locations, there's a whole litany of things. And I realize that there are parts of this that later in the process, are probably more applicable just because of clarification after the build. So maybe before an occupancy type thing. So I wanna open the discussion to hear people's concerns or, but I think we, I may need to speak with codes to figure out a more appropriate, is it appropriate with the building permit or is it more appropriate for a UNO? That's... And I don't know the answer to that. But I just want to hear in general what people think about having that requirement.

Thank you, Council Member. I'll just jump in myself first. I agree with you, I think this is a good amendment. I think it's information that's already gonna be compiled elsewhere in the legislation and I think it's useful to require it to be acquired at the outset of the process and to provide it to the relevant departments so that they have it at the beginning in the event of emergency and not just later down the road. So something I'm supportive of and ask my colleagues to join me in support. I don't have a thought on whether which building permit should trigger this. Would you like me to address that to a?

Yeah, I see a Mr. Dodd.

Council Member Dodd, you are recognized from the planning, Mike.

Thank God I'm not a council member.

Sorry, sorry.

I believe that would be best addressed as a sign off on the building permit and submission of that through OEM or the fire marshal's office could be something that before that UNO comes out, we would have to add the sign off just like any other sign off for a department building permit.

Okay. So a condition required for issuance of correct, right?

Correct. As part of the workflow.

Does any language need to be changed or do you think we're good and

Let me get back to you.

Okay. Okay. Well, um, we'll press pause, but I'll just move approval. Oh, I can't move approval.

It's not, I'm not on that. We have a, we have a motion for approval. Okay.

So, um, and then if we, if there's needed changes by tomorrow, we'll figure that out.

Thank you. We've heard an explanation of the amendment and a response from our contact at Metro codes. Any further discussion on amendment number five? Seeing none. All in favor. Any opposed? Andy not voting. I recommend approval of amendment number five, eight in favor, zero against, zero not voting. The next amendment I have on this category is amendment number seven by council member Porterfield. Do we have a motion to get us started? Moved and seconded. Council member Porterfield is joining us today. Would you like to speak on amendment number seven?

Thank you so very much, Chair. And which one is seven? Is that the public notice one?

No, amendment number seven is the one that addresses the compliance report. It adds a third party requirement and increases the frequency of reports for data centers larger than 27 or 20,000 square feet.

Thank you so very much. Let me get to my. notes, I had them in a different order.

Sorry to spring it on you.

No worries, thank you, but thank you for doing such a great job of explaining it. But basically, it would go from the yearly reporting to the quarterly reporting. It would be that the administrator would be the one to, sorry, getting it pulled up here, Chair. So it would be that the compliance reporting The operation of the data center shall submit the compliance report into the zoning administrator or their designee and that those reports will be prepared by a neutral third party professional company that would be on behalf and paid for by the operator of the data center, but that third party entity will be chosen by the zoning administrator that the report would detail any changes to or assessments submitted as a part of the zoning permit approval process to demonstrate compliance and monitoring of all application requirements and conditions of the zoning, as well as a summary of the power use during the reporting period that contains the breakdown of energy sources so that we have a good idea of how much renewable energy is also being used. and that the operator of the data center smaller than 20,000 feet shall be required to submit it as an annual report instead of the quarterly report. And then lastly, that the zoning administrator shall submit that a summarized report of the compliance reports received each quarter to the council no later than 60 days after to give them time to prepare their report.

Thank you. We've heard an explanation of amendment number seven. Any discussion? I see Council Member Johnson. I had already left your mic on. I apologize for that. You're recognized.

Well, I'm glad I didn't say anything inappropriate. And I might have. That's right. I'm going to ask this question probably of every amendment. Would this cause a re-referral back to the Planning Commission? And the reason I'm asking is because I think We are at a fever pitch with the community, not only Nashville, but Middle Tennessee, and we're getting people from all over. And I think it's really important that we pass this in a timely fashion. I agree that there are some concerns where we could tighten some things up. But I also think that it's really important that we pass this and we can work on that in the coming months. And so I think there's an overall desire to have this pass in decent form without having to go back to the Planning Commission now and then really take a deep dive and work on refinements. And so I'll just repeat my question. Will this cause a re-referral back to the Planning Commission?

Thank you, council member, I'll direct that question to planning and also add a supplemental question of my own on what the consequences of requiring a re-referral would be as well. If you can speak to that, please.

Sure, yes. Proposed amendment number seven would require a re-referral to planning. Planning, the implication of that is that it would need to be heard before it's back, before you all re-heard by the planning commission. The planning commission, The first available meeting that that would be able to happen would be likely in August. We do have a meeting this week, but per state law and local ordinances, we can't amend our agenda that quickly to get something put back on it. We would be outside of sort of the noticing requirements. And so it would be August planning commission before anything could be reheard.

Thank you for that explanation. Council Member Johnson, I'll go back to you if you have any further comments.

Yeah, I just, you know, we're gonna talk about the moratorium either next or here, hopefully not too long from now. But... Anyway, I was gonna renew my desire and I think a lot of people's desire to pass this. I don't want perfect to be the enemy of good. And I think this is a really, really good start. And then when we get to refining is when we can really elbow down on some details that are important to folks, but that getting something on the books in a timely fashion is imperative.

Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Toombs, you're recognized.

Thank you chair for recognizing me, even though I'm not on the committee. I had a couple of questions. One, the amendment appears to require a significant amount of information to be submitted to the zoning administrator for that person to summarize all of that information. One, I have a concern about resources in COADS to handle whatever work comes as a result of this amendment. And then two, and this may be a question, maybe COADS has some insight or the sponsor of the amendment, the third party professional company that's supposed to prepare all the documents. What would that third party professional company be? Does COADS have any insight into companies that prepare information from data centers? Like just some more. information on that part.

Thank you. Would you like me to address that to the sponsor or to our codes department?

Codes first, and then if the sponsor has some follow-up.

Thank you. Mr. Dodge, you're recognized.

Councilmember, that's not something I have in front of me. That's a process we're not really familiar with. This is like something we haven't done before as far as this reporting, so I'd have to get back with you.

Thank you. In that case, I will go over to Councilmember Porterfield. You're recognized.

Thank you so much, Chair. The intent of that was to make sure that we have someone that, a non-biased view of someone that is like bringing the report together and also the intent of giving the 60 days after the reporting period gives them two months to be able to compile that report. So I believe the initial legislation already has some reporting. So this did add some reporting requirements, but I don't think it added a significant amount of additional reporting requirements. And also I wanted to get it on the record. I've already had this conversation with folks in planning and with Mr. Wilkinson. I agree with council member Johnston. I think that we all want to make sure that we get this permanent legislation passed in a timely manner. So it's not my intent to pass, to bring any legislation that is going to need to be re-referred to planning at this time. So I would ask to be able to introduce it tomorrow with a brief comment, but it is my intent to withdraw anything that needs to be re-referred back to planning so that it could be addressed at a later time.

Thank you for that additional explanation. Any further discussion on this amendment? Council Member Capp, you are recognized.

This is a question for legal, if they're still here, I guess they are. What precisely in legal's analysis would require a re-referral to the Planning Commission? Would it be if we put the amendments on the bill on the floor tomorrow night, or if we vote on them here in committee, what would trigger... the further consideration by the Planning Commission.

I'll go back to Ms. Zeitlin, who has rejoined us today. You're recognized.

Hannah Zeitlin, Metro Legal. It would be if it's added on the floor tomorrow, the council would need to make a motion to basically defer and re-refer to the Planning Commission.

Thank you. Thank you, and absent any further discussion, I would like to reiterate that I think this is a good amendment as well. I think, as Council Member Porterfield said, there's already a compliance report required to this. This supplements and increases those reporting requirements, as well as increases the frequency of the report for the larger data centers. So we're not waiting a long time in between reports in case there's an issue, but we can catch it sooner. And I think... Being aware of codes is capacity, I think is good to do. But in this instance, the burden falls on the data center operator themselves and not our Metro Department. So it's not a concern that I had. The only concern I had is ones raised by both Ms. Porterfield and Ms. Johnson that this would require an unnecessary delay. So I think this is something I would look forward to supporting at a future date, hopefully. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we're on the motion to approve amendment seven. All in favor? Any opposed? Any not voting? We recommend against approval, zero in favor, eight against, zero not voting. Moving along, the next in this category of reporting requirement amendments is Amendment Number 11 by Councilmember Capp. Councilmember Capp, you are recognized for a motion. If you can get us started. Thank you, Chair.

Move the Amendment 11.

Moved and seconded. Do you recognize for an explanation?

Thank you, Chair. This requires that the zoning administrator publicize the compliance reports as required elsewhere in the substitute.

Thank you. Any discussion on the amendment? Council Member Johnson, you're recognized.

I don't think so, but would it require a re-referral?

I will go to the Planning Department. You're recognized.

Proposed Amendment 11 does not require re-referral.

Thank you. Any further discussion? I'd like to reiterate my support for this. It's a friendly amendment. I think it's useful to have these reports publicly available. Absent any further discussion, all in favor of Amendment Number 11? Aye. Any opposed? Any not voting? We recommend approval. Eight in favor, zero against, zero not voting. Oh, yes, Council Member Gamble.

Point of order, you skipped number 10.

Yeah, I'm taking them out of order. We're addressing them topically rather than- It's a reporting matter, so that's why. I have that in this category, I was taking the compliance reports. There are several amendments which address compliance reports directly, and so I was taking those. Next, we have amendment number 15 by Council Member Toombs. Council Member, do we have a motion to get us started? Moved and seconded. Council Member Toombs, you're recognized for an explanation of amendment number 15, if you'd like to.

Thank you, Chair. There's a lot of reporting requirements in the bill as proposed, and so I didn't see anything that directed any of that reporting to come to Council, so I just included that the zoning administrator would submit a summary of the reports received to Metro Council quarterly within 60 days.

Thank you for that explanation. Any discussion on Amendment 15? I just had one question on how this interacts with council member Kapp's bill amendment number 11, which requires a compliance report to be available publicly. If it's available publicly, I questioned whether we also need it sent to the council, but I think having it summarized and sent to the council is useful, but just any question, if you have any thoughts on how it interacts with council member Kapp's other amendment.

We have a lot of reports that are available online that we also receive through email and that's considered reporting to the council. So I do think that it's helpful to have that summarized report that's at the fingertips of the council members as opposed to having to look for it online.

I think the summarized report is helpful as well.

Council Member Capp, you're recognized. Thank you. Yeah, I'm not sure if there's a formal conflict between these two, and if that's the case, I'm certainly comfortable having both of them. If there is, I am certainly open to withdrawing mine or not moving it tomorrow. Does legal have an opinion about whether these two are in conflict with each other? No.

I don't think, I'm getting two head shakes. My understanding is no, one requires them to be publicly available, the other requires them to be summarized and sent to the council.

That was what I saw as well, but I wouldn't want to walk us into a situation where we're moving conflicting amendments. In that case, then I support this and I'll intend to move mine as well.

Thank you. Any further discussion on Amendment 15? Okay, seeing none, all in favor of amendment 15? Any opposed? Any not voting? Recommend approval, eight in favor, zero against, zero not voting. That was our last one on the compliance report. On the final one, addressing reporting requirements is amendment number 10 by council member Gamble. Do we have a motion to get us started? Moved and seconded. Council member Gamble, you're recognized for an explanation.

Thank you, Chair. This amendment defines terms that are used regularly with measuring or metrics for performance requirements, PUE. which is Power Usage Effectiveness and WUE, Water Usage Effectiveness. So this amendment asks those terms used for describing metrics for measuring performance requirements. It also requires data centers operators to monitor and report these metrics, the PUE and WUE annually to zoning administrator and to make the reports available to the public. amendment is to ensure best practices and good resource stewardship in energy and water efficiency reporting and transparency. So just wanting to add a reporting mechanism to the zoning administrator that would then make these reports available to the public to provide more data and transparency in what metrics and measurements are being used in energy efficiency.

Thank you for that explanation. I'm seeing Council Member Johnson. You're recognized.

I'm not opposed. I had a question to is this defined anywhere else in our code? I'm finding that we have certain things defined in different areas and so that would be a question maybe more for codes and then also would it trigger a re-referral?

I'll go first to planning on the re-referral part and then to codes to give them a bit of time on the definition question.

Sure. Proposed Amendment Number 10 does not require re-referral.

And I think... Council Member, can you restate your question?

Your mic's on back. Oh, thank you.

Do we have, she's defining power usage effectiveness and water usage effectiveness, P-U-E and W-E, Lord, W-U-E, respectively. Do we have that defined anywhere else in our code where the proposed definitions would conflict? I'm just making sure, like I said, I'm not opposed to this at all. I just want to make sure we're not conflicting.

No, it doesn't exist in the code.

Awesome, thank you.

Thank you, any further discussion on amendment number 10? Seeing none, all in favor? Any opposed? Any not voting? Recommend approval of amendment 10, eight in favor, zero against, zero not voting. The next kind of category that we have are environmental and power standards, led first by amendment number nine by council member Nash, amendment number nine by council member Nash. Do we have a motion to get us started? Moved and seconded. Any discussion? He's not joined with us here today. I'll offer a brief explanation of that. It says, requires that where data centers located on or adjacent to a natural gas line, then that's the type of backup power they would have to use in the event of an emergency. Rationale, I guess, being that gas turbines are the least bad emission, just causing power generation better than diesel, at least. For discussion, I see Council Member Johnson, you're recognized.

Thank you. I'm, I'm just a little bit concerned about this. I mean, I, I, you know, you want to have clean renewable energy, 100% get that. The reality is, is that it's not number one, it's not the net, the industry standard. So I'm wondering if that would open us up to, um, litigation, if we prevent diesel, um, being sort of the industry standard and, um, able to generate more power more quickly. Because what we don't want to do is put ourselves into a situation where a data center or anything can't operate effectively because we just haven't caught up technology or sustainability hasn't quite caught up. So I just wondered if maybe legal had some way in there. But this gives me a little bit of heartburn.

I'll go to Ken. Metro legal, Metro legal, you are recognized.

And let me repeat the question so I make sure I'm understanding it. So is your question about whether we have concerns about requiring the usage of natural gas?

Yes, for this, you know, those backup generators in an emergency situation where we have part of our bill that is limiting how much we can use any type of generator power for emergencies only, and we can get into those later on. And so they would be used, you know, in reality, assuming this passes, for very short terms, periods of time. And so if, but it could, be in a situation where it's having to power the entire facility. And so if we're requiring it to be operated by natural gas versus diesel, which doesn't have as much power and can't ramp up quickly, and is not the industry standard, if it was the industry standard, that'd be different. Are we unnecessarily or, you know, restricting the operating of a land use facility that would cause litigate, you know what I mean?

So I guess I would say, well, this is not a question that I've researched. I'm happy to research and get back. And I think that that's probably what I need to do in order to adequately answer the question. Because yeah, there may be concerns like that, but I'm not aware of any, but I've also not researched the question.

Okay, yeah, I guess my concern is just requiring something that's not the industry standard that doesn't have the ability to perform the way that diesel generators do. Also, I do think this will require a re-referral because I don't think that this was contemplated originally. And so I think this is something that we could take up at a later date and it's very important to take it up, but that would be my request is for the committee to or the sponsor to withdraw with the intention of the expeditious passing of 1391.

Thank you, Council Member. I will ask that question to Planning for confirmation whether this amendment would require a re-referral to the Planning Commission.

Sorry, my microphone came unplugged. Yes, this would require a re-referral.

Thank you, I think for that reason, I think this amendment has merit, but for procedural reasons, I think that this is better considered at a later date and not at this stage where it would require a delay in the passage of this bill. So for that reason, I'll be voting no today in committee on this. Any further discussion on amendment nine? Seeing none, all in favor? Any opposed? Any not voting? We recommend against approval, zero in favor, eight against, zero not voting. The next is amendment, I'm gonna go first to amendment 12 by Councilmember Capp. Councilmember Capp, you're recognized for a motion to get us started, please. Thank you, Chair, move approval of amendment 12.

Move and second it, you're recognized for explanation. Thank you, Chair. This tightens up some important definitions in the substitute. Emergency it defines it to require really a true emergency of the previous definition was quite a bit looser and it also gets away from using terms like renewable and sustainable and instead just defines the type of energy that we would allow to be either generated on site. or to be part of the mix of what we had previously called sustainable energy generation offsite as part of the 15% mix of sustainable energy generation. So with that, I ask your support.

Thank you. Any further discussion on this amendment? Council Member Johnson, you're recognized.

Thank you. I am very much in support of this as well and would have brought it forth had Council Member Capnot beat me to it. So I'll be signing on to it. I know that it does not require re-referral because I already vetted that. It is in direct conflict with 14, which is probably next on your list, I would assume, Chair. And so I can wait to have my comments on that, but this is a really good amendment.

Thank you. I agree. This is a good amendment and it tightens an important environmental protection of the bill, one which reimposes some of the original language as well. So I'm grateful to Council Member Capp for bringing it. Any further discussion on Amendment 12? Council Member Allen, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did read all these, but it's been a couple hours and they've all run together a little bit. If I could just get the sponsor to clarify a little bit more about how this interacts with proposed diesel emergency generators. Does it? Does it preclude that or work with that?

I will go to Council Member Capp for an explanation.

And sorry, the question is for backup power or for, it sort of eliminates the substitute's use of a backup category, which was, it's currently in the substitute and requires backup power generation only to be used in true emergencies, which it then pretty, in my view, pretty comprehensively defines as being true emergencies.

Yes. Thank you, any further explanation or discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Amendment 12? Aye. Any opposed? Any not voting? Recommend approval of Amendment 12, eight in favor, zero against, zero not voting. Next on this list of power and environmental standards is Amendment 14 by Council Member Parker. Do we have a motion to get us started? Moved, and we have a second? No second? Motion fails. We have a second, seconded. We're not joined by Councilmember Parker today, so I'll offer a brief explanation. his legislation reverted to the original language of the bill, which tapped the use of emissions generating power onsite for 72 hours to align with the original version of the bill, which was walked back at the planning commission. It is somewhat in conflict with council member caps bill. Also ask planning, would you be able to find on whether this amendment would make the bill disapproved?

Hi. Yes. Proposed amendment. Amendment number 14 would result in a recommendation of disapproval from the planning commission.

Thank you for that explanation. Any further, any discussion by the committee on amendment 14? Council Member Johnson, you're recognized.

I'm not on the committee, but I appreciate it. I just want to give like a real life example of where this would cause problems is when we were in Fern, we had no power for much longer than 72 hours. And so a 72 hour cap would effectively make that, you know, whatever data center completely, out of commission after that 72 hours. Whereas where we've defined in Mr. Capps, we know what an emergency is and it's very well defined.

Thank you, Council Member. I agree, I think given the conflict between the two, I think Council Member Capps is superior and also has the advantage of not making the bill disapproved. So we unfortunately voting against this amendment. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Amendment 14. All opposed? Any not voting? We recommend against approval of Amendment 14, zero in support, eight against, zero not voting. That means we've gone through nine, 12, 14. Next on this category of environmental standards is Amendment 13 by Councilmember Capp. Council Member Capp, you're recognized for a motion and a brief explanation, please. Move approval of amendment 13, please.

Move and second it. Thank you, Chair. This requires the installation of sound monitoring system at the property line to be included in the reports that we've included elsewhere so that the property will have to be monitoring their sound at the property line.

Thank you for the explanation. Council Member Johnson, I see your hand up.

Yes, I appreciate this amendment and I am in support of it. I'm just concerned about a re-referral, which I think it might trigger. I just wanted to ask that.

Planning, can you speak to whether Amendment 13 would require re-referral to the commission?

Proposed Amendment 13 does not require re-referral.

Thank you, Council Member Allen, you're recognized.

Thank you. Just for clarification, I mean, this is, again, additional data that would be really great to have. Do all these things sort of get wound up into all these reports that are going to codes that they're going to summarize and send to us automatically? Or is that something we might want to add later?

The question is whether this is a good planning for that explanation of whether this goes into the new reporting requirements or existing ones that we've put on the bill.

This would be, this information will be rolled into the annual compliance reporting that's already required within the bill.

Thank you for that. I think it makes sense if we're requiring them to test and comply with noise requirements, require them to keep that system onsite. So I'm in support of this amendment. Any further discussion on this? Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 13. Any opposed? Any not voting? We recommend approval, eight in favor, zero against, zero not voting. The next category I have is other. The first two I had was amendment two and amendment three. Council Member Cortez, the primary sponsor of each. Oh no, he sent a letter to approve for amendment two. Do we have a motion for amendment two by Council Member Cortez? Seeing none, amendment two will not be considered. Amendment three, he wrote a letter indicating an intent to withdraw, so absent a motion to approve that, we will not consider it here. Seeing none. Next is amendment number four by Councilmember Huffman. Do we have a motion? I'll move for approval. Do we have a second? Moved and seconded. Council Member Huffin's not here. I'll offer a brief explanation of it in his absence. This amendment clarifies that telecom facilities aren't considered data centers. That's already the intent of the bill. Telecoms are a separate land use category on our land use table. This prevents ambiguity, prevents any ambiguity to what the legislation already does. Open up for discussion if any council members have any thoughts. Okay, seeing none, all in favor of Amendment 4? Any opposed? Any not voting? We recommend approval of Amendment 4, eight in favor, zero against, zero not voting. The next amendment in this category is Amendment 6 by Councilmember Porterfield. Do we have a motion to get us started? Move, do we have a second? Moved and seconded, Councilmember Porterfield, you're recognized for a brief explanation.

Thank you, Chair. Is this one the reporting or the distance?

This is Amendment 6, the public notice.

Thank you so very much. So this is just basically added language that the developer of the data center for a small use as well as for a medium use shall require public notice to anyone who lives within 1,000 feet of the property, and that is to include the proposed use, the included total square footage of the proposed data center, and this notice will also be mailed in the event of renters. It will be mailed to both the property owner as well as the renter, so the address of the property that's within the 1,000 feet. And this does not have to be re-referred back to planning from my understanding.

Thank you for that explanation. Any discussion by committee members or otherwise? Seeing none, all in favor? Any opposed? Any not voting? We recommend approval of amendment eight, or six, excuse me, amendment six. Eight in favor, zero against, zero not voting. Next and final amendment on our list is amendment number eight by Councilmember Porterfield. We have a motion to get us started. Moved and seconded. Councilmember Porterfield, you're recognized for an explanation, please.

Thank you, Chair. This would just change the distance requirement from 500 feet to 1,320 feet. It is my understanding that that has to be re-referred back to planning. So it is not my intent. My intent is to withdraw it tomorrow.

Thank you for that explanation. Any further discussion by committee members? I'll just adjoin Council Member Porterfield. I think this is a good amendment to consider, but not at the expense of potentially delaying the legislation. So with that, we'll go to a vote. All in favor? Any? Are you in favor? No, okay. All in favor? Any against? All against? Any not voting? We recommend against approval, zero in favor, eight against, zero not voting. We are now on the bill overall with favorable recommendations for amendments number one, four, five, six, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15. Any discussion on the bill as amended with those favorable recommendations? Seeing none, all in favor? Any opposed? Any not voting? We recommend approval as amended, eight in favor, zero against, zero not voting. Next item not on consent is BL 2026-1392, sponsors ordinance to authorize building material restrictions and requirements for BL 2026-1391. Do we have a motion? Moved and seconded, any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Any opposed? Any not voting? Recommend approval. Eight in favor, zero against, zero not voting. I was pulled off. The next item, not on consent, is Bill 2026-1414, sponsors Evans, an ordinance from End Title 17 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws, a zoning ordinance of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, by changing from RS-15 to SP zoning for property located at 6114 North New Hope Road, approximately 352 feet north of Central Pike, to admit 44 multifamily residential units. Do we have a motion? Moved and seconded, I'll go first to the sponsor, Council Member Evans, you are recognized.

Thank you, I just needed a committee member to move a one-meeting deferral.

We have a request, moved and seconded. All in favor of a one-meeting deferral? Any opposed? Any not voting? Recommend approval or we defer for one meeting. Eight in favor, zero against, zero not voting. The next up is the companion bill, item 44. This is BL 2026-1415. Sponsor's Evans. An ordinance to authorize building material restrictions requirements for BL 2026-1414. Do I have a motion to get us started? Moved and seconded. Councilmember Evans, are you seeking deferral? Please, thank you. Do we have a motion for a one-meeting deferral? Moved and seconded. All in favor of one-meeting deferral? Any opposed? Any not voting? Recommend a one meeting deferral, eight in favor, zero against, zero not voting. Next item, not on consent, is item 49, bill 2026-1423, sponsors ordinance to amend title 17 of the Metropolitan Code of Law zoning ordinance to the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County by amending a specific plan on property located at 5901 California Avenue at the southeast corner of 60th Avenue North and California Avenue zoned SP to permit a mixed use development. Do we have a motion? Move and seconded. Do we have a motion on the amendment? Moved and seconded on the amendment. Brief explanation, this adds a requirement to reuse or repurpose or otherwise display in a public place the mural that's located on the current building, which would otherwise be destroyed. Any discussion? Council Member Allen, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the amendment being offered. I know that was something we certainly heard a lot about at the public hearing earlier during public comment tonight as well. And one question is, some of the questions that were raised in terms of if there's no funding, can planning enforce that this actually happens? It seems so important to the, to the community that that be preserved. Can we, can we ensure that this language will make that happen?

I'll go to the planning department. You're recognized.

Hi. So there are several different options within the, um, the amendment as written, and so preservation, relocation, offering to artists, and so we would ask for confirmation if it's not sort of preservation or relocation that there's been an offer made.

Thank you for that explanation. Any further discussion on the amendment? Council Member Allen, do you recognize?

Thank you, and then I guess the question was, Ray, just in terms of funding and things like that. Is there a reason to believe that the developer would commit to whatever it costs to relocate if that's the option that's chosen?

I mean, it's a condition of the SP. This was something that on the original SP approved by my predecessor back in 2023. When I was on the board, this was a concern that I had that the original SP would have destroyed the mural, really the only remarkable part of the current building, which is otherwise unremarkable. It was the developer's intent to reuse or repurpose this throughout the existing site, especially the main portion of the mural, which says out west the nation's on it. So this is codifying an existing intent by the developer to address some community concerns that they might not have complied with their original intent. So we are amending the SP to make this a condition of the zoning. Any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, all in favor? Any opposed? Any not voting? Recommend approval of the amendment. Eight in favor, zero against, zero not voting. We are now on the bill as amended. We have a motion. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Any not voting? Recommend approval as amended. Eight in favor, zero against, zero not voting. I should have taken this as a companion bill, but next is item 50, BL 2026-1424, sponsors Horton and their ordinance to authorize building material restrictions and requirements for BL 2026-1423. Do we have a motion? Move and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Any not voting? Recommend approval, eight in favor, zero against, zero not voting. And our final item, not on the consent agenda, this is item 54, BL 2026-1448, sponsors Johnston, Bradford, Cooper, Weiner, Evans, Huffman, Stiles, Spain, Cortez, Ellis, Nash, Hill, Druffle, Rutherford, Benton, and Ewing. This is an ordinance declaring a temporary moratorium on the acceptance, processing, approval, and issuance of zoning, building, grading permits for data center developments on property within Nashville and Davidson County. Do we have a motion to get this started? Moved and seconded. I'll go first to the primary sponsor, Council Member Johnston. You're recognized for an explanation.

Thank you. I'd like to, well, if someone could move the amendment for me, please.

Moved and seconded.

Thank you. So two reasons for this amendment. First, what it does is it deletes the language that ends the moratorium upon the passage of BL 2026-1391. The second thing it does is changes the other date, which was November the 1st to December the 1st. Two reasons for that. Number one is to accommodate the impact of Executive Order 59, which directs, among others, codes, health, planning, NDOT, and agency, water, and agencies, NES, and any other department designated by the mayor to, sorry, it's, I need to read it, to evaluate the potential impacts of large scale data centers within Nashville and Davidson County to provide a report of any legislation, any policy that needed to be changed. And so there was a two month, from June 15th, there was a two month time period for which these reports are due, which would put that August the 15th, which would be passed when we are going to pass 1391. And we anticipate having legislation that is going to be responsive to these reports from these various agencies and departments. And so to allow for that legislation to move through the process, which could include amending Title 17, which would include going to the Planning Commission, which takes obviously more than just what would be a month and a half or three readings. And so it is not arbitrary when I say December the 1st. The other thing is, as we have discussed tonight, I think we all want to have 1391 pass in its current form as amended as we've discussed, but we all see room for improvements. And I think that's gonna take some time. And so I anticipate that there's gonna be further bills to amend this policy to close loopholes and tighten environmental legislation. I mean, environmental regulations, all those types of things. What we don't want is a situation of STR where you've got different regulations for different types of developments. And so we know we're going to have further legislation. Let's give us ourselves the time to do that. in order to have all data centers from this point forward under the same regulations. And so I hope you are supportive of that. So it would effectively hold the moratorium all the way to December 1st to accommodate that, to accommodate what the mayor has asked for, but also what we know we're looking at. There's obviously several amendments that we have said we were going to withdraw and voted against because we were trying to prevent the re-referral. And it also adds administrative appeals into the definition. I think there's a legal argument that the moratorium would apply to the administrative appeals anyway, but I want to make that explicit so that nothing is happening with data centers, including appeals, until we get through this moratorium.

Thank you, Council Member, for that explanation. Any discussion by the committee? Seeing none, I'd like to reiterate my support for this amendment. I think as the council member said, this is a complimentary to the zoning regulation bill that we've just recommended approval of. And I think this is worth it, not just for the work that the mayor's office has directed as part of the executive order, but also a lot of the really great amendments that we considered here today, but didn't recommend approval for procedural reasons. This gives us time to consider this more fully. So join the council member in recommending approval of this. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of the amendment? Any opposed? Any not voting? We recommend approval of the amendment, eight in favor, zero against, zero not voting. And now we're on a motion to approve as amended. Any discussion on the bill as amended? Seeing none, all in favor? Any opposed? Any not voting? Recommend approval of the bill as amended. Eight in favor, zero against, zero non-voting. And that was our final item on the agenda. We are adjourned. That was long.

This has been a service of the Metro Nashville Network. If you would like to see this presentation again or for more information on this and other programs, visit nashville.gov.