Reno council declines to open citywide data‑center rules after heated public debate

The Reno City Council declined on Feb. 26 to begin a formal citywide rewrite of zoning rules for data centers, voting 3‑3 on a motion to initiate a text amendment that would have created new, citywide standards for energy, water and noise. The meeting followed more than two hours of public comment from residents, business groups and environmental advocates weighing potential tradeoffs of rapid data‑center development in Northern Nevada.

Why it matters: speakers said data centers already proposed for the region can strain local power and water systems, create persistent low‑level noise and receive state tax incentives that reduce local revenue. Supporters of permitting urged the council to be cautious about introducing new rules that could drive projects to other counties. Council members who opposed the amendment said the city’s conditional‑use process already gives the public and elected officials a way to examine each project and add conditions.

The debate grew out of a 2023 administrative interpretation and a subsequent zoning cleanup approved last year that created a specific land‑use definition for data centers and required formal public review for such projects. Staff said the administrative interpretation was added to create consistency while planners studied what a long‑term code change should look like.

Progress and process: Angela Fuess, Reno’s principal planner, told the council the city already requires data centers to undergo conditional‑use review and to meet existing noise, lighting, landscaping and setback rules. "We put in a new rule that says data centers have to go through a public review process," Fuess said, explaining that the move was intended to increase transparency after a wave of inquiries from developers.

Public speakers urged the council to go further. Leah Moser, who identified herself as representing the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, said she supported a pause on new permits while the city and regional agencies study impacts. "From a pragmatic perspective, data centers are illogical, specifically for the Reno Metro Area," Moser said in public comment, adding that she expected only a handful of permanent jobs at some projects and that the projects could add pressure on scarce developable land.

Local business and development groups urged the opposite. Trey Abney, representing NAIOP Northern Nevada, told the council the city recently updated development rules and "the ink is not even dry"; he said data centers can be compatible with many zones and urged predictable, uniform rules that do not single the industry out unfairly.

Many residents and local organizations focused on two technical concerns: water and power. Several speakers — including environmental advocates and residents — said large new electricity loads could require new gas‑fired generation or other grid changes that would raise rates and increase greenhouse‑gas emissions if not paired with dedicated renewable power. Others cited water cooling for some types of data‑center designs and asked for limits or reuse requirements; the Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMUA) and NV Energy were identified repeatedly as key outside agencies that would determine whether local supplies can meet proposed projects.

Not all projects are the same. City planners and several speakers noted there are two broad types of data facilities: local "boutique" centers and the very large "hyperscale" campuses seen in other parts of Nevada. Many of the local proposals the council has seen in recent months were small by hyperscale standards and did not, in staff analyses, require large acre‑feet of water. Fuess said her team had reviewed three projects that ranged from very small water users (about 2 acre‑feet per year) to one project that would seek roughly 8 acre‑feet. By contrast, public comment emphasized how a single large load — an example often cited at the meeting was 30 megawatts — would have broader effects on the grid and on ratepayers. At one point a speaker characterized 30 megawatts as roughly equivalent to the power used by 20,000 homes; council discussion noted the variable scale of projects and the importance of distinguishing between them.

Council response and outcome: Councilmember Naomi Doer moved to begin a text amendment to add explicit standards for data centers; the motion was seconded and, after debate, the council vote tied 3‑3 and the motion failed. Council discussion showed a split in approach: some members said a new, citywide ordinance was necessary to set minimum requirements for noise, water use and energy sourcing; others said the conditional‑use review the city already requires allows commissioners and the council to address impacts project by project and preserve flexibility.

What’s next: Staff told the council it will continue to require public conditional‑use review for any new data‑center proposal and will work with regional agencies when projects trigger regional review for traffic, water or power. Planners also said they can provide council with a proposed data‑center text amendment if the council requests it; any such ordinance would itself require public hearings with neighborhood advisory boards, the Planning Commission and a final council decision. Several council members said they want more technical analysis before pursuing a citywide rule: specifically, a closer look with TMUA and NV Energy at how larger loads would be supplied and at potential measures to reduce noise and require lower‑water cooling technologies or renewable‑energy offsets.

Ending: The February meeting left policy questions unresolved but clarified process: data‑center proposals will continue to be reviewed in public under the city’s conditional‑use process, and the council can return to the question of a text amendment if it wants staff to draft more specific citywide standards for energy, water and sound. Council members and several public speakers said they will press regional utilities and state agencies for clearer answers as projects are evaluated.