Agenda packet, regular meeting — Monterey Park City Council, March 4, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

Ordinance No.

Page 11 of 14 ends

Commercial office or service units which are shared by more than 1 independently owned business enterprise
Commercial developments of 5 or more units or with an area of more than 1 acre, and within 300 feet of a R-zone
Financial institution (retail banking)
Floor area ratio not to exceed 1.0
Government or public facility, except those owned or operated by the City of Monterey Park
Gymnasium, reducing salon and health center
Hotel
Lot size over 1 acre
Places of entertainment, except as otherwise provided in this title.

21.14.210. Data Centers – Development Agreement Required - Requirements

A. Data centers are permitted only with a development agreement in accordance with Chapter 21.44 of this code.

B. For new buildings, modifications to existing buildings, and/or additions to existing structures greater than 25,000 square feet in building area or located on sites greater than 30,000 square feet in land area, projects must comply with the following:

1. Primary and secondary facades. Buildings must have identifiable primary and secondary facades. Public-facing facades must have dimensions, use mixed materials, and provide identification for the facility through the placement and design of entrances, lighting, canopies, artwork, signage, and other special features. Screening and enclosures must be installed to disguise outside mechanical equipment and storage. Rooftop equipment, stairwells, and features must be designed as integral to the building and enhance the form of the site. Ventilation and air-handling equipment must be screened from view with materials designed to attenuate noise.

2. Pedestrian access. Sites must be designed and constructed in a pedestrian friendly manner. The design must be harmonious with the surrounding built and natural environments and identifiable with the site’s location. Pedestrian walkways must be considered before designing vehicle driveways and parking areas for the safety and enjoyment of pedestrians.

3. Landscape. Landscaping must be harmonious with off-site and 402 of 637

Page 177 of 330 ends

Ordinance No.

Page 12 of 14 ends

streetscape landscaping. Where adjacent properties contain residential or other noise-sensitive uses, a minimum 15-foot-wide landscaped buffer must be placed along the property line in addition to any required boundary masonry block wall or fence.

4. Parking. Minimum parking requirement for data center uses is one parking space per 250 square feet of office/meeting/technician workspace, plus one parking space per each 5,000 square feet of floor area or fraction thereof, devoted to computer equipment space.

5. Noise Study. A noise study must be conducted by a third-party acoustic engineer to document baseline sound levels and include expected maximum noise output with all mechanical, electrical, and any other noise generating equipment operating simultaneously at full operational load.

C. In addition to any other public benefits provided in a development agreement, data center projects must provide the following public benefits:

1. Rating requirement. Applicants must submit documentation demonstrating achievement of LEED “Gold” certification by GBCI.

2. Indoor water use reduction. Applicants must submit documentation verifying that a project meets maximum prescriptive fixture flow rates in accordance with the California Plumbing Code. The project must also achieve the LEED WE Prerequisite Indoor Water Use Reduction (WEp2) and a minimum 30 percent reduction in the use of indoor potable water, as calculated to meet the LEED WE credit Indoor Water Use Reduction (WEc2).

3. Construction waste management. Applicants must submit documentation verifying the diversion of a minimum 75 percent of the project’s construction and demolition waste, as calculated to meet LEED MR Prerequisite Construction and Demolition Waste Management Planning and LEED MR Credit Construction and Demolition Waste Management.

4. Monitoring. Applicants must submit documentation verifying that a project will meet the criteria necessary to achieve California Building Code and Option 1 of LEED EA credit (Enhanced
Commissioning), in addition to LEED EA Prerequisite (Fundamental Commissioning) and Verification.

5. Light pollution reduction. Meet LEED SS Credit Light Pollution 403 of 637

Page 178 of 330 ends

Ordinance No.

Page 13 of 14 ends

Reduction.

6. Prohibitions. CFCs and halons are not allowed in HVAC, refrigeration and fire suppression equipment. Meet LEED EA Credit Enhanced Refrigerant Management, and additionally document that all HVAC refrigeration, and fire suppression systems do not contain CFCs or halons.

7. Electric vehicle charging. In addition to meeting the requirements of the Title 15 of this code, applicant will provide an additional 10% electric vehicle charging stations.

8. Such additional design standards that may be adopted by city council resolution.”

SECTION 5: Electronic Signatures. This Ordinance may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code § 16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 6: Construction. This Ordinance must be broadly construed to achieve the purposes stated in this Ordinance. It is the City Council’s intent that the provisions of this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.

SECTION 7: Severability. If any part of this Ordinance or its Application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.

SECTION 8: Recordation. The City Clerk, or designee, is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of Monterey Park’s book of original ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and, within 15 days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, and cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law.

SECTION 9: Effective Date. Based on the findings in Section 1, this urgency ordinance is adopted by a four-fifths vote for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare and becomes effective immediately pursuant to Government Code § 36937(b).

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _________, 2024.

____________________________
Thomas Wong, Mayor
404 of 637

Page 179 of 330 ends

Ordinance No.

Page 14 of 14 ends

ATTEST:

________________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

405 of 637

Page 180 of 330 ends

Staff Report
November 6, 2024

ATTACHMENT 2
Regular Ordinance No. ____ amending the
Monterey Park Municipal Code

406 of 637

Page 181 of 330 ends

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MONTEREY PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 21.14 (ZCA-24-02) TO AMEND REGULATIONS GOVERNING

DATA PROCESSING FACILITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
3(A) OF ORDINANCE NO. 2198 (ADOPTED BY VOTERS AS MEASURE JJ ON NOVEMBER 3, 2020).

The City Council of the City of Monterey Park does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:

A. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the voters’ directives in Ordinance No. 2198, as adopted November 3, 2020 via Measure JJ.

B. Based upon recommendations of the Saturn Park Advisory Review Commission (“SPARC”), the City Council will be considering expansion of uses within Saturn Park.

C. As a preliminary matter, however, the City Council finds that there is a current interest by developers to construct “data centers” within Saturn Park. A review of the Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) confirms that the “data center” land use is not considered as part of the current zoning regulations. While a “data processing facility” is listed as an allowed land use within Saturn Park, that term is not defined. Additionally, since this term was added to the MPMC in 1998, it was well before the concept internet commerce emerged as the “new economy”; the term did not encompass the scope of uses contemplated by contemporary data center developers.

D. It is plain that data centers – as they have developed in the 25 years since the Saturn Park regulations were first added to the MPMC – are energy hungry land uses that are generally aesthetically displeasing and provide few public benefits. Current data show that, overall, buildings consume 74% of all electricity in the United States.

E. Goal 2 of the City’s Environmental Justice Element provides that “Community health and the reduction of exposure to environmental pollutants is a priority and part of all planning and policy practices.” Additionally, Goal 3.1 provides that the City should “[m]aximize the use of the City’s existing open space network and recreation facilities by enhancing those facilities and providing connections, particularly from disadvantaged neighborhoods.”

F. These Goals and Policies reflect the City Council’s overall intent to provide for a cleaner, greener, and more enjoyable community both for our current 407 of 637

Page 182 of 330 ends

Ordinance No.

Page 2 of 13 ends

residents and for future generations.

G. Requiring data centers to adhere with green building principles is a form of climate action that minimizes greenhouse gas emissions, relies on energy efficiency and renewable resources, conserves water, optimizes material use, provides healthy and biodiverse environments, and bolsters an equitable society.

H. Third party rating systems characterize the lifecycle considerations for green buildings. These programs can offer credibility, transparency, and consistency to project teams in pursuit of an elevated and well-defined performance standards for data centers.

I. It is in the public interest to update the MPMC as to data centers while also considering additional uses for Saturn Park as contemplated by Measure JJ, SPARC, and the City Council.

SECTION 2: Pursuant to MPMC § 21.38.050, the City Council finds as follows:

A. Land Use and Urban Design Element: This Ordinance complies with Policy 4.2 (Sustainable Practices); Policy 4.3 (Environmental Burden); Policy 4.4 (Freeway Buffer Greening); Policy 4.5 (New Development); Policy 4.6 (Active Transportation); Policy 11.1 (Privacy); Policy 12.1 (Compatibility); Policy 12.2 (Comprehensive Design); and Policies 25.1,

25.2, and 25.3 (specific as to Saturn Park).

B. Environmental Justice Element: This Ordinance complies with Policy No.

2.1 (limiting environmental pollution); Policy 2.2 (promote enhanced health outcomes and improved quality of life); and Policy 3.2 (work with local business community to expand green space programs).

C. These regulations will not adversely affect surrounding properties. Such regulations will operate citywide and will not affect a change in the use or the intensity of use of property in any zone.

SECTION 3: Environmental Review. The City Council finds and determines that this ordinance is not subject to further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.; “CEQA”) for the following reasons: (1) it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15060(c)(2); (2) there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3); and (3) the ordinance, by itself, does not constitute a “project” as defined in the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15378).

SECTION 4: Renaming of Zone; Amendment of Zoning Map; Amendment of MPMC § 408 of 637

Page 183 of 330 ends

Ordinance No.

Page 3 of 13 ends

21.02.210. All references to “O-P—OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ZONE (VOTER ENACTED)” within the MPMC are amended to read “S-P – SATURN PARK INNOVATION/TECHNOLOGY ZONE.” All references to the “O-P zone” within MPMC Chapter 21.14 are amended to read “S-P zone.” The reference to the “McCaslin Business Park (O-P Voter Enacted)” in the Zoning Map is amended to read “Saturn Park Innovation/Technology Zone.” MPMC § 21.02.210(B) is amended to add the “Saturn Park Innovation/Technology Zone” to the table of Zone Designations.

SECTION 4: MPMC Chapter 21.14 is amended to read as follows:

“Chapter 21.14

S-P – SATURN PARK INNOVATION/TECHNOLOGY ZONE

21.14.010. Purpose.

In order to provide for the development of innovation and technology uses that exhibit a diversity of business activity from both revenue and service quality standpoints, and which are compatible and responsive to abutting land uses, including residential developments, the following regulations apply to all properties classified in the S-P zone.

21.14.020. Definitions.

Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the following definitions govern the construction of the words and phrases used in this chapter:

“Data center” means a building, dedicated space within a building, or group of structures located on one or more acres of land used to house a large group of networked computer systems used for data storage and processing for off-site users, to be used for the remote storage, processing, or distribution of large amounts of data. Such facilities may also include air handlers, power generators, water cooling and storage facilities, utility substations, back-up batteries, fire suppression systems, enhanced security features, and other associated utility infrastructure to support operations. This definition does not apply to smaller data processing facilities that are located on less than one acre of land and where such facilities are accessory or incidental to another primary use.

“Data processing facility” means a building, dedicated space within a building, or group of buildings primarily used for the processing, storage, and management of electronic data on less than an acre of land. This type of facility typically involves activities such as data entry, storage, conversion, and analysis for onsite use.

“Director” means the City Manager or designee. Unless otherwise designated by the City Manager, the Community Development Director is the Director. 409 of 637

Page 184 of 330 ends

Ordinance No.

Page 4 of 13 ends

“Green Building Rating System” means an assessment tool, created and managed by LLED, a reputable organization in good standing and recognized by the building industry as meeting the standard of care, that includes the following general characteristics, at a minimum:

A. Holistic approach to program requirements, with established and comprehensive sustainability metrics for measuring performance in a range of impact areas, such as energy; environmental justice; human and environmental health; integrative process; materials; site and surrounds; and water;

B. Independent third-party verification;

C. Mechanism for consistent evaluation and communication of achievement or levels of achievement;

D. Standardized processes for project data tracking and project team support; and

E. Commitment to continuous improvement with clearly delineated and transparent methods for program updates.

“Green Business Certification Inc.” or “GBCI” is the global certification body for the LEED green building program and other sustainability rating systems, as well as the administrator of related professional credentials. (www.gcbi.org)

“Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design” or “LEED®” is an internationally recognized and third-party verified green building rating system developed by the U.S.

Green Building Council. (www.usgbc.org/leed)

21.14.030. Permitted Uses.

It is unlawful for any person to use, nor may any property owner permit the use of any lot classified in any S-P zone for any use, other than the following as set out in this chapter.

21.14.040. Prohibited Uses.

All uses not permitted in this chapter are prohibited.

21.14.050. Principal Uses.

The principal uses are permitted as follows:

410 of 637

Page 185 of 330 ends

Ordinance No.

Page 5 of 13 ends

Administrative and professional offices; beauty salon or barber shop; bookstore; Cellular phone, telephone and pager store; coffee shop; Computer store, sales and service; confectionary shop;
Data processing facility;
Delicatessen;
Employment agency;
Financial institutions’ corporate offices, no retail banking; General research facility, not involving testing, manufacturing, fabrication or processing or sale of products, nor the use of a hazardous material that has a degree of hazard rating in health, flammability or reactivity of Class 4 as ranked by U.F.C. Standard 79-3 or succeeding standard;
Gift shop;
Ice cream parlor;
Import and export offices;
Investment service offices, stock brokers; Jewelry store, sales and service; Legal offices;
Mailbox and service store;
Medical equipment and supplies, sales and service; notary public; Photocopying and blueprinting; public utility customer service office; Real estate offices and title companies; restaurant, tearoom and café; Service businesses;
Stationery;
Studio, art, dance, martial arts, photography; tax consulting; Tobacco store;
Travel agency;
Video sales and rentals.

21.14.060. Conditional uses.

Conditional uses are uses specifically enumerated in this chapter.

21.14.070. Standards of Development Generally.

All premises in the S-P zone must comply with the following standards of development as set out in this chapter and as may be adopted by city council resolution.

21.14.080. Lots.
411 of 637

Page 186 of 330 ends

Ordinance No.

Page 6 of 13 ends

A. Lot Area. The minimum lot building on the S-P zone area of each lot is 5,000 square feet.

B. Lot Width. The minimum width of each lot is 50 feet.

C. Lot Depth. The minimum depth of each lot is 100 feet.

21.14.090. Yards.

The following minimum yards are required on all lots:

A. Front Yard. No minimum front yard is required.

B. Side and Rear Yards. Every lot must have and maintain minimum side and rear yards as follows:

1. When the side yard is adjacent to a street, the yard must be at least 15 feet in depth.

2. When adjacent to an R-zone, the yard must be not less than 50 feet, plus five feet in depth for each story above one story of building or each 10 foot increment above 15 feet in height of building on the S-P zoned lot. Where there is an opening, including, without limitation, windows, pedestrian doors and roll-up doors, in any facing a yard adjacent to an R-zone, the yard must be not less than 100 feet from any opening to minimum width of the R zoned lot. The yard may be used for parking, excepting a minimum 15 foot wide area abutting the R zone which must be landscaped and maintained in such a condition so as not to violate this code. The required landscaping must also conform to the standards set forth in Section 21.14.150.

3. When the S-P zoned lot is separated from an R zone by an alley, a rear yard setback of 40 feet must be provided, as measured from the centerline of the alley. A minimum three-foot wide landscaped planter must be installed and maintained along the alley, excepting at any vehicular access driveway.

4. When adjacent to a non-residential zone, commercially-zoned or M zoned lot, no yard is required.

21.14.100. Building Height.

No building or structure exceeding 40 feet or three stories may be located on any lot. 412 of 637

Page 187 of 330 ends

Ordinance No.

Page 7 of 13 ends

Buildings or structures exceeding the height limits may be permitted upon approval of a conditional use permit.

21.14.110. Floor Area Ratio (FAR).

The floor area ratio may not exceed 0.5 when the lot is less than 10,000 square feet in area. When the lot is between 10,000 and 20,000 square feet in area, the floor area ratio may not exceed 0.65. When the lot is more than 20,000 square feet in area, the floor area ratio may not exceed 0.8. The floor area ratio may be increased to a maximum of 1.0 for all lots, upon approval of a conditional use permit.

21.14.120. Off-Street Parking and Loading.

Each S-P zoned lot must have and maintain off-street parking and loading facilities as required by this title.

21.14.130. Required Walls.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter the following standards apply:

A. Where any part of the front yard or street side yard of an S-P zoned lot is used for parking or loading, a masonry wall compatible in color with the commercial building and/or sight- obscuring hedge a minimum of three feet in height must be erected and maintained within a landscaped area a minimum of three feet in width adjacent to the sidewalk at the front or side yard property line as required by this title.

B. When any S-P zoned lot has a common side or rear lot line with any R zoned property, a six-foot solid decorative masonry or concrete block wall compatible in color with the commercial building must be constructed and maintained along all such common side or rear lot lines. Where an easement exists, abutting the common property line, the decorative wall may be constructed along the boundary of the easement on the commercial lot. A minimum three-foot wide landscaped planter with automatic irrigation system must be placed adjacent to the wall, planted with trees, shrubs, ground cover and vines. Where a parking lot on the S- P zoned lot abuts a R zoned lot, the additional parking lot landscaping requirements of this chapter apply.

21.14.140. Trash Facilities.

Each S-P zoned lot must provide facilities for the storage and collection of trash as follows:

A. Any outdoor trash facility must be enclosed by a minimum five-foot high 413 of 637

Page 188 of 330 ends

Ordinance No.

Page 8 of 13 ends

solid masonry, brick or concrete wall except for the access way which must be enclosed with solid decorative gates of the same height.

A. Location and size are subject to approval by the Director. When any S-P zoned lot has a common property line with a R zoned lot, no trash facility may be located within the required building setback.

B. Open vehicular and pedestrian access to and from such trash facility must be provided. No parking spaces may block such access to the trash facility.

C. Trash facilities must be maintained in a closed manner at all times to prohibit visibility from public rights-of-way or adjacent property.

21.14.150. Buffering and Maintenance of Landscaping and Easements.

A. For S-P zoned lots with side or rear yards that are adjacent to an R zoned lot, the following buffering provisions must be provided and maintained:

1. Landscaping, irrigation and maintenance plans are required and the plans are subject to approval of the planning agency. The plans must incorporate, without limitation, 15 gallon minimum trees at time of planting, interspersed shrubs, ground cover, raised earthen berms and automatic sprinkler systems. The City may require the maintenance plan to include a bona fide service agreement with a City licensed landscaping service business. Maintaining an active service agreement on file with the Director is the responsibility of the owner of the subject property or authorized agent.

2. All landscaped areas and easements must be maintained in good condition, weed and disease free, and in compliance with this code.

21.14.160. Compressors, Air-Conditioning Units or Similar Mechanical Equipment.

Each S-P zoned lot which has compressors, air-conditioning units or similar mechanical equipment, located on the roof and outside of the exterior walls of any building or structure, must comply with the following:

A. All such equipment must be installed with permanent sound proofing measures, including, without limitation, enclosures, parapet and sound attenuating walls and screens. All such equipment must comply with noise standards set forth in this code. The location, type and scope of soundproofing measures for such equipment are subject to the approval of the Director.
414 of 637

Page 189 of 330 ends

Ordinance No.

Page 9 of 13 ends

B. All such equipment must be maintained in a clean and proper condition to prevent collection of litter and filth, emissions of dust or fumes, vibration or electrical disturbances.

21.14.170. Lighting.

All outdoor lighting must be located and shielded so as to prevent the direct spillage of light or glare onto adjacent lots and streets.

21.14.180. Site Development Plan Approval.

Site development plans must be approved by the Director in accordance with this code before the Building Official issues a building permit.

21.14.190. Limitations on Permitted Uses.

Every use permitted in the S-P zone must comply with the following:

A. All uses must be conducted totally within a completely enclosed building, except for those uses which are customarily conducted in the open. Those uses conducted in the open may not be closer than 100 feet to any R zoned lot, except for parking.

B. No outdoor storage is allowed unless the same is enclosed by a view- obscuring fence or wall, provided that no stored material is visible above the fence or wall, that the fence or wall is approved by the Director and that such storage is limited to the accessory storage of items sold or utilized in the conduct of a permitted use on the premises. Where the S-P zoned lot is adjacent to a R zoned lot, no outdoor storage is permitted within 100 feet of a R zoned lot.

C. No loading and unloading is permitted in any required side or rear yard.

D. Where the S-P zoned lot is adjacent to a R zoned lot, no deliveries of goods and commodities nor loading or unloading shall be conducted during the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

E. Overnight parking of vehicles is prohibited, except those vehicles used in conjunction with a permitted use.

F. Driveways cannot exceed 30 feet in width or 60% of the lot frontage.

G. No use is permitted which produces or causes or emits any dust, gas, smoke, glare, noise, fumes, odors, electromagnetic emanations or 415 of 637

Page 190 of 330 ends

Ordinance No.

Page 10 of 13 ends

vibrations which are or may be detrimental to the health, safety, welfare and peace of the City and its residents and businesses.

H. No use is permitted which uses or stores a hazardous material that has a degree of hazard rating in health, flammability or reactivity of Class 4 as ranked by U.F.C. Standard 79-3 or succeeding standard. A business materials usage and operations form must be filed with the Public Works Director before the Building Official issues a certificate of occupancy.

I. No person may, at any location within the S-P zone, create nor allow the creation of noise which causes the noise level to exceed the applicable noise standards set forth in this code. Where the S-P zoned lot is adjacent to an R zoned lot, the noise level at the property line of the R zoned lot may not exceed the allowable noise level for residential properties.

21.14.200. Conditional Uses.

Auditorium, not within 300 feet of an R zone
Buildings exceeding height limit
Business college (office or medical, dental)
Child care center, not within 300 feet of an R zone
Commercial office or service units which are shared by more than 1 independently owned business enterprise
Commercial developments of 5 or more units or with an area of more than 1 acre, and within 300 feet of a R-zone
Financial institution (retail banking)
Floor area ratio not to exceed 1.0
Government or public facility, except those owned or operated by the City of Monterey Park
Gymnasium, reducing salon and health center
Hotel
Lot size over 1 acre
Places of entertainment, except as otherwise provided in this title.

21.14.210. Data Centers – Development Agreement Required - Requirements

A. Data centers are permitted only with a development agreement in accordance with Chapter 21.44 of this code.

416 of 637

Page 191 of 330 ends

Ordinance No.

Page 11 of 13 ends

3. Landscape. Landscaping must be harmonious with off-site and streetscape landscaping. Where adjacent properties contain residential or other noise-sensitive uses, a minimum 15-foot-wide landscaped buffer must be placed along the property line in addition to any required boundary masonry block wall or fence.

C. In addition to any other public benefits provided in a development agreement, data center projects must provide the following public benefits:

1. Rating requirement. Applicants must submit documentation 417 of 637

Page 192 of 330 ends

Ordinance No.

Page 12 of 13 ends

demonstrating achievement of LEED “Gold” certification by GBCI.

5. Light pollution reduction. Meet LEED SS Credit Light Pollution Reduction.

7. Electric vehicle charging. In addition to meeting the requirements of the Title 15 of this code, applicant will provide an additional 10% electric vehicle charging stations.

8. Such additional design standards that may be adopted by city council resolution.”

SECTION 6: Construction. This Ordinance must be broadly construed to achieve the purposes stated in this Ordinance. It is the City Council’s intent that the provisions of 418 of 637

Page 193 of 330 ends

Ordinance No.

Page 13 of 13 ends

this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.

SECTION 9: Effective Date. This Ordinance will become effective 30 days after second reading and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _________, 2024.

____________________________
Thomas Wong, Mayor

ATTEST:

________________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

419 of 637

Page 194 of 330 ends

Staff Report
November 6, 2024
ATTACHMENT 3
Resolution No. ____ adopting design standards
that apply to data center developments

420 of 637

Page 195 of 330 ends

RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR DATA

CENTERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MONTEREY PARK MUNICIPAL
CODE CHAPTER 21.14.

THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: Authorizations. This Resolution may be referred to as the “Data Center Development Standards.” It is adopted in accordance with Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) § 21.14.210(C)(8). The City Manager is authorized to promulgate administrative policies and procedures (“AP&P”) to implement this Resolution.

SECTION 2: Standard Development Standards . The standards set forth in attached Exhibit “A,” and incorporated by reference, constitute the Data Center Development Standards that represent public benefits required of any person executing a development agreement with the City.

SECTION 3: Contracting Authority. The City Manager is authorized to solicit bids, award contracts, and execute on-call contracts to ensure uniform application of the Data Center Development Standards.

SECTION 4: If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SECTION 5: Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 6: The Mayor, or presiding officer, is hereby authorized to affix his signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park, and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, is directed to attest thereto.

SECTION 7: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK ON THIS __ DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024.

Thomas Wong, Mayor

421 of 637

Page 196 of 330 ends

City of Monterey Park
Resolution No. ___

Page 2 of 2 ends

Attest:

________________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

422 of 637

Page 197 of 330 ends

Exhibit A - page. 1
RESOLUTION NO.___

EXHIBIT A

Design Guidelines
(Data Centers)

Data Centers must comply with the following to the Director’s satisfaction:

1. Building Orientation: Prioritize public -facing elevations, screen less appealing elements, maximize daylighting.

2. Access: Provide pedestrian and bicycle access along primary frontages, limit vehicle access width to 20 feet.

3. Parking and Loading: Locate to the rear, separate from pedestrian/bicycle access.

4. Landscaping: Use native plants, create transitions between private/public spaces, buffer sensitive areas.

5. Lighting: Highlight features, prevent light spillage, use downward- directed lights with shields.

6. Security: Incorporate crime prevention and natural disaster protection measures.

7. Screening: Use architecturally compatible screening for mechanical/utility equipment.

8. Amenities: Include elements like outdoor seating, water features, vertical gardens, or artwork.

9. Signage: Keep unobtrusive but functional

10. Hierarchy: Identify primary, secondary, and ancillary structures.

11. Architecture: Balance proportions, avoid monolithic scale, promote human-scale elements.

12. Facades: Compose identifiable segments, design corner lots with two public-facing facades.

13. Roofs: Use identifiable, proportionate roof forms.

14. Materials: Incorporate at least 2-3 materials, select colors for depth and dimension. 423 of 637

Page 198 of 330 ends

Exhibit A - page. 2

15. Context: Ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhood in scale and design.

16. Walls/Fences: Use compatible materials, break up long expanses, avoid chain link or barbed wire.

Sample Data Center Designs:

The following photographs provide examples of designs which integrate the intent of these Design Guidelines. These are merely sample designs and are not intended to be used as protypes.

424 of 637

Page 199 of 330 ends

Exhibit A - page. 3

425 of 637

Page 200 of 330 ends

Exhibit A - page. 4

426 of 637

Page 201 of 330 ends

Exhibit A - page. 5

427 of 637

Page 202 of 330 ends

Staff Report
November 6, 2024
ATTACHMENT 4
Data Center Research
428 of 637

Page 203 of 330 ends

Staff Report
November 6, 2024
ATTACHMENT 4.a
County of Fairfax, Virginia – Data Centers
Report and Recommendations, dated
January 9, 2024

429 of 637

Page 204 of 330 ends

Department of Planning and Development
12055 Government Center Parkway
Fairfax, Virginia 22035-5507
Phone 703-324-1314
Fax 703-803-6372
www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development
C o u n t y o f F a i r f a x , V i r g i n i a
To protect and enrich the quality of life for the people, neighborhoods and diverse communities of Fairfax County January 9, 2024

DATA CENTERS
Report and Recommendations
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 RESEARCH TOPICS..................................................................................................................... 2

1. Land Use and Site Design.................................................................................................... 3

2. Energy Demand ................................................................................................................... 6

3. Water Demand ................................................................................................................... 10

4. Water Quality..................................................................................................................... 11

5. Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 14

6. Noise .................................................................................................................................. 15

7. Building Design ................................................................................................................. 18 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS.............. 19 NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................................... 23 ATTACHMENTS......................................................................................................................... 23

INTRODUCTION
On May 9, 2023, the Board of Supervisors (Board) approved a Board Matter that recognized data centers as an evolving industry that merits further research and analysis.1 The Board Matter directed staff to provide a report with research, findings, and recommendations on topics including environmental issues and mitigation; locational guidelines for siting facilities; how data centers should be permitted; and where any new guidelines should be located, including the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.

Research has included a review of written materials, site visits, and meetings with stakeholders and the community. In addition, staff engaged Clarion Associates for background research; Clarion’s report is provided as Attachment 3. Engagement with key stakeholders was critical for staff to understand the data center industry in Northern Virigina and to collect feedback from the 1 Board’s Board Matter: “Guidelines for Data Centers” https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning- development/sites/planning-development/files/assets/documents/pdf/5-9-2023-board-matter.pdf 430 of 637

Page 205 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 2 ends

variety of interests. In addition to hosting a general community input session, over 20 meetings were held with various stakeholders, including representatives of the following:
• Dominion Energy
• Fairfax Water
• Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality
• Fairfax County Environmental
Quality Advisory Committee
(EQAC)
• Fairfax County Tree Commission
• Nature Forward
• Sierra Club
• Faith Alliance for Climate Solutions
• Various data center consultants
• Noise consultant
• Amazon
• CoreSite
• Stack Infrastructure
• Data Center Coalition
• Fairfax County’s Land Use
Attorneys Work Group
• Northern Virginia Building Industry
Association (NVBIA)
• Northern Virginia Commercial Real
Estate Development Association
(NAIOP)
A project webpage and email address for public comment were created. Presentations were also provided to the Board’s Land Use Policy Committee on October 17, 2023, and the Planning Commission’s Land Use Process Review Committee on October 26, 2023.2 This report is intended, in part, to address questions and feedback that have been shared by the community and industry. It is based on the work of an interagency staff team consisting of staff from the Planning, Zoning Administration, and Zoning Evaluation Divisions within the Department of Planning and Development, the Office of Environmental and Energy Coordination, the Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District, the Operations and Building Divisions in Land Development Services, and the Stormwater Management and Wastewater Management Divisions in the Department of Public Works and Environmental Services.

RESEARCH TOPICS
Information is presented below according to seven topic areas: land use and site design; energy demand; water demand; water quality; air quality; noise; and building design. Each topic area includes a summary of current regulations and guidelines followed by a discussion of research and recommendations. These sections are followed by a summary of recommendations for the Board’s consideration.

A data center is a facility that houses computer servers and their network connections. This report focuses on data centers as a principal land use, not those cases where an accessory server 2 Project webpage with information about the community input session, and Board and Planning Commission committee meetings: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/data-centers 431 of 637

Page 206 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 3 ends

room is located within another business facility or office. Data centers can be developed as stand-alone buildings or as part of a complex that may include other uses. The growth of digital data has expanded exponentially in recent years, resulting in a rapid increase in data center facilities that is anticipated to continue. This growth is needed to support the increased online population as well as business applications in all sectors, including finance, entertainment, healthcare, and education. Major factors contributing to data center growth in Northern Virginia include the long history of a robust fiber optic network in the area and reliable electric power.

Some of the benefits that data centers bring are job creation with good wages, few impacts to transportation systems or schools, and positive tax revenues. Individual businesses can benefit from the scale of cloud computing services where they share in the use of data center resources.

Data centers are designed with optimal cooling and other systems to support computer servers and for 99.999% reliability. Data centers can provide better computer processing, storage, data security, and energy efficiency than if each individual business were to manage its own servers.

However, data centers are industrial uses that may affect surrounding uses (through noise and visual impacts), or affect energy demand and associated greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, and water supplies.

1. Land Use and Site Design
Current Regulations and Guidelines
The Zoning Ordinance3 currently4 allows data centers in the zoning districts shown in Table 1 below.5 These districts are currently located across the County, with industrial districts primarily in the western portion of the County along Route 50 and Route 28, in the Herndon and Reston areas along the Dulles Toll Road, in the Merrifield/Mosaic areas between I-66 and Route 50, near the intersection of I-495 and I-395, and along I-95 in the southern portion of the County. Zoning districts can be viewed by using the Zoning District Analyzer or JADE.6 Additionally, the locations of existing, approved, and proposed data centers with surrounding zoning districts are identified in Attachment 1. As shown on these maps, existing data centers are located in the I-3, I-4, I-5, and PTC Districts, and pending data center applications are in the I-5 and PDC Districts.7 3 Zoning Ordinance: https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fairfaxcounty-va/index.aspx 4 Before the new Zoning Ordinance (re-adoption effective May 10, 2023), starting in 2000, data centers were considered by interpretation to be telecommunication facilities which were allowed by right in all C and I districts, in all P districts when shown on an approved development plan, and with SE approval in all R districts. Par. 5 of Sect. 9-101 and Sect. 9-102.
5 Abbreviations used in the table: SF – square feet; GFA – gross floor area; FAR – floor area ratio. 6 Zoning District Analyzer:
https://fairfaxcountygis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e64b68aa834d46b0ad0e6cd4d831f843 or JADE:
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/GeoApps/Jade/Index.html?configBase=https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/GeoApps/Ge ocortex/Essentials/REST/sites/Jade/viewers/Jade/virtualdirectory/Resources/Config/Default 7 Pending (in-progress) data centers include those with site plan and building permit approval for at least one building.
432 of 637

Page 207 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 4 ends

Zoning District By Right Special Exception (SE)
C-3 (Office)
C-4 (High Intensity Office)
Up to 40,000 SF of GFA;
larger if repurposing a
building existing on
May 10, 2023
Required for larger size; or
for increase in height or
FAR
I-2 (Low Intensity Industrial)
I-3 (Light Intensity Industrial)
Up to 80,000 SF of GFA;
larger if repurposing a
building existing on
May 10, 2023
Required for larger size; or
for increase in height or
FAR
I-4 (Medium Intensity Industrial)
I-5 (General Industrial)
I-6 (Heavy Industrial)
Yes (limited by district
height of 75 feet and FAR
of 0.5)8
Required for increase in
height or FAR
PRC (Town Center,
Convention/Conference Center)
PDC (Planned Development
Commercial)
PTC (Planned Tysons Corner
Urban)
Yes, if shown on the
development plan
n/a
Table 1: Current Zoning Permissions
Setbacks vary according to the zoning district. In the I-4, I-5, and I-6 Districts, the front setback must equal the building height (but be at least 40 feet) and there are no minimum side and rear setbacks. In addition to building setbacks, the Zoning Ordinance requires transitional screening and barriers on the lot of a more intense use when it is located next to a less intense use, as prescribed in Table 5108.2.9 Transitional screening yards are required to be 25, 35, or 50 feet wide and planted with trees and shrubs in accordance with Zoning Ordinance standards. Currently, a data center is required to provide a 35-foot transitional screening yard when located next to single-family detached or attached dwellings, or a 25-foot transitional screening yard when located next to certain other uses, such as multifamily dwellings, religious assemblies, and child care centers. Under the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment for Landscaping and Screening, the transitional screening requirements would be the same for most industrial uses, including data centers, and would require 50 feet of screening (the maximum) next to all residential uses and 25 feet next to most public, institutional, and community uses and commercial uses.10 8 FAR is also subject to the provisions of the Route 28 Highway Transportation Improvement District, and the Dulles Phase I and Phase II Transportation Improvement Districts. 9 Transitional screening and barriers: https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fairfaxcounty-va/doc-viewer.aspx#secid- 3017
10 Webpage for the proposed Landscaping and Screening Zoning Ordinance amendment:
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/zoning-ordinance/landscaping-screening 433 of 637

Page 208 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 5 ends

Appendix 12 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan’s Policy Plan includes guidelines for certain uses, including data centers, that propose higher intensities than what is shown on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map.11 The guidance in this Appendix applies during the review of a rezoning or SE and provides an option for higher-intensity development in designated industrial areas, while ensuring proposals are compatible with surrounding uses and can be supported by existing infrastructure. The criteria used to review such proposals are organized into five topic areas: transportation, mitigation of noise and other impacts, building design, lot size and parcel consolidation, and site design. The use of this option for additional intensity is not meant to supersede any site-specific Plan guidance for intensity and applies only to areas with a baseline Plan recommendation for industrial use.

Research and Recommendations
As outlined above, data centers are currently allowed by right in certain zoning districts.

However, as further discussed under the topic areas below, data centers have the potential for impacts to surrounding uses, environmental resources, and infrastructure, and the SE process may provide for a more site- and application-specific review of impacts and mitigations. As indicated in subsection 4102.1.F(1) of the Zoning Ordinance, the SE process is appropriate for certain uses which by their nature or design can have an undue impact upon or be incompatible with other uses of land. Requiring SE approval for data centers in the C-3, C-4, and I-2 through I-6 Districts would allow the Board to consider land use impacts and mitigations through a public process. In the Planned Districts—where the use is allowed if represented on the approved development plan—the current standards could remain because the current process provides for an in-depth, site-specific review. However, the Board could consider clarifying the requirement for a data center to be specifically shown on the development plan, including its location, size, height, and setbacks.

While data centers could continue to be allowed by right with additional standards or conditions, some of the recommendations included in this report—such as reviewing building design and noise studies and encouraging increased open space, tree planting, and stormwater treatment—may be more appropriately and effectively implemented through an SE review in accordance with SE standards in the Zoning Ordinance and guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan. Applications for rezoning are reviewed for conformance with the applicable guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan, and SEs must be found to be in harmony with the Plan. The SE review process also allows for consideration of flexibility through Board modification of standards where appropriate.

A new appendix to the Land Use Element of the Policy Plan could be created with updated performance criteria that would apply in the review of all data centers undergoing a rezoning or SE review, not just those seeking additional intensity. As shown on the maps in 11 Land Use Appendix 12: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/sites/planning- development/files/assets/compplan/policy/landuse.pdf#page=39 434 of 637

Page 209 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 6 ends

Attachment 1, some industrial districts are close to residential districts. Revised guidelines in a new Policy Plan appendix and SE standards in the Zoning Ordinance could bolster existing guidelines and regulations. These could address land use compatibility with existing and planned uses for the property and surrounding properties, including the size of the proposed data center, and the distance of the proposed building and generators from surrounding development. Setbacks and buffering can serve to minimize visual, noise and other impacts; therefore, guidelines could encourage enhanced buffering for data centers near residential development, other noise-sensitive uses, and environmentally sensitive areas.

As industrial uses, data centers are currently allowed in industrial zoning districts, and Appendix 12 of the Policy Plan provides guidelines for additional intensity in areas that are planned for industrial use; however, additional investigation may be warranted for consideration of data centers in areas that are planned in the Comprehensive Plan for future residential or mixed use. Although this report is focused on the potential impacts of larger data centers, smaller data centers with upgraded equipment and design features may be appropriate in areas not planned for industrial use if they meet certain performance criteria.

Additionally, as discussed below, due to the energy demands of data centers, they are typically located near a substation that is connected to major transmission lines. To reduce the need for new transmission lines and substations, a new Plan appendix could include consideration of the distance from and availability of a substation and transmission lines to serve a proposed data center.

2. Energy Demand
Current Regulations and Guidelines
The Zoning Ordinance does not include regulations for energy use and efficiency. As noted above, data centers are typically located close to an electrical substation, which is considered a light utility facility under the Zoning Ordinance and is allowed by right in the I-3 through I-6 Districts; with SE approval in all other conventional zoning districts; and in planned districts if shown on the development plan or with SE approval. When a substation is located in a residential area, the Zoning Ordinance requires a finding that there is no alternative site in a commercial or industrial district. Substations are also subject to the 2232 review process for public facilities.12 Data centers also need to be located close to electrical transmission lines which, if over 138kv and approved by the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC), are not subject to the Zoning Ordinance.13
12 The public facility 2232 process is summarized at: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/public- facilities-review/process
13 If the voltage exceeds 138kv, SCC approval satisfies the requirements of local zoning and Virginia Code Sect.

15.2-2232 for the transmission line. Virginia Code Sect. 56-46.1(F). The locality retains jurisdiction to enforce local zoning over “associated facilities.” For any transmission line of 138kv and associated facilities, a public utility must either obtain a certificate of public necessity from the SCC or obtain approval under 15.2 -2232 and the local zoning ordinance where the transmission line will be located. Virginia Code Sect. 56-265.2(A)(2). 435 of 637

Page 210 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 7 ends

Starting on January 18, 2024, the newly approved 2021 Virginia Energy Conservation Code (VECC)14 will require data centers to comply with “ASHRAE 90.4 - Energy Standard for Data Centers,” which will include several changes to the design and construction of these facilities. Prior to the 2021 VECC, there were no specific enforceable requirements for energy conservation related to data centers. With the adoption of the 2021 VECC, a new data center will be treated like any other commercial building for the purpose of energy conservation. ASHRAE 90.4 is a performance-based standard and will encourage a more efficient design, presumably leading to less energy usage.

The Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the design and construction of new buildings and associated landscapes to use energy and water resources efficiently and to minimize short- and long-term negative impacts on the environment and building occupants. The Comprehensive Plan also recommends that development within designated Industrial Areas incorporate green building practices sufficient to attain certification through LEED-NC, -CS or equivalent. Additional recommendations exist within the Comprehensive Plan guidance for certain Suburban Centers, Transit Station Areas (TSAs), and other development centers. The Environment Element does not contain existing guidance for the evaluation or consideration of energy demand.

Research and Recommendations
Data center operations rely on large amounts of electricity from the electrical grid. Although there is not a consistent correlation between square footage and energy demand (expressed in megawatts, MW), a data center of about 400,000 square feet would likely have a capacity of 48 to 60 MW. Also, with the advent of more powerful computer chips, future data centers may need even more energy. For comparison, the energy demand for 250 homes is approximately 1 MW, the Fairfax County Government Center uses about 2 MW, a typical hospital uses 3 to 4 MW, and the Noman Cole wastewater treatment facility uses 5 to 6 MW.

As discussed below, the large energy demand of data centers poses several concerns: a) the availability and reliability of energy for existing and planned development; b) the potential need for clearing and construction of new major transmission lines and substations and related costs relayed to rate-payers; c) potential water quality and air quality impacts of large numbers of diesel backup generators (see Water Quality and Air Quality sections below); and d) increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Availability and reliability: Most of Fairfax is served by Dominion Energy, and a portion of the western part of the County is served by the Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative (NOVEC). Both Dominion and NOVEC purchase power from the Pennsylvania-New Jersey- Maryland Interconnection (PJM), the regional transmission organization. Concerns have 14 Land Development Services Technical Bulletin, No: 23-07:
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/landdevelopment/sites/landdevelopment/files/assets/documents/23 -07-adoption- 2021-virginia-uniform-statewide-building-code-usbc.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery 436 of 637

Page 211 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 8 ends

been raised by the public that the uniquely large energy demands of data centers could present a challenge in planning for reliable power to all customers. However, in meetings with staff, Dominion has indicated that data center growth does not pose a risk in terms of reliability to residential and other customers. Dominion has also stated that PJM has sufficient power available, and the risks of inadequate transmission capacity would be borne by the data center customer. While the planning for power infrastructure falls to PJM and the utility companies, with regulation by the SCC, land use approvals for data centers are the purview of the County. Therefore, staff recommends that the County pursue discussions with Dominion and NOVEC on enhancing coordination on data center applications through the review of energy capacity analyses. Communication about proposed data centers could facilitate planning for utility service and inform County land use decisions. Energy capacity analyses would allow an assessment of regional power supplies into the future and a common understanding of the power demands of data centers. The growth in data centers and their associated electricity load could be compared against the ability of the existing infrastructure to satisfy those forecast load demands to identify needed transmission infrastructure upgrades, and potential reliability issues, including the timeframe and duration of any electricity delivery shortages. The analyses could also state whether electricity constraints may impact other electricity customers.

Transmission lines and substations: Because of their energy demands, data centers need to be located near a substation that is near a major transmission line. If sufficient substation and transmission line infrastructure does not exist, the utility company will have to plan for and construct the necessary infrastructure to serve its customers. Construction of substations and transmission lines usually involves land clearing. Once constructed, the utilities can have visual and noise impacts and, depending on their location, impacts on natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas. Although utility infrastructure is usually separate from a data center project, and the infrastructure is part of the larger grid that supports other customers, the need for certain infrastructure can be directly attributed to data center development. Therefore, when a proposed data center is proposed, related needs for utility infrastructure and its impacts should be evaluated as part of the new coordination process suggested above. Dominion has indicated that the costs of infrastructure projects are absorbed across the system’s customers, with some of the costs covered by PJM as well.

Because of the need for proximity, some data center developers seek land near existing transmission lines or include enough land area to support a substation. A substation typically has a 300 MW capacity, so a data center campus may need to provide a new substation. Data center developers may coordinate with the utility company in various ways to facilitate the development of a new substation, if needed, including selling or donating land. As noted above, a new Plan appendix could include consideration of the distance from and availability of a substation and transmission lines to serve a proposed data center.

Greenhouse gas emissions: Increased electricity demand also increases GHG emissions, which may make it harder to meet the state and County GHG emission reduction goals:
437 of 637

Page 212 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 9 ends

o The Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) establishes mandatory renewable portfolio standards for Dominion Energy to deliver electricity from 100% renewable sources by 2045 and Appalachian Power by 2050.
o Fairfax County’s Community-wide Energy and Climate Action Plan (CECAP) sets a goal for the entire community to be carbon neutral by 2050. Based on the 2020 GHG inventory, 48% of emissions come from the use of energy in buildings (25% commercial plus 23% residential).

Approximately 25% of GHG emissions in Fairfax County comes from commercial buildings.

Fairfax County community-wide GHG emissions have decreased by 30% between 2005 and 2020, despite a 12% growth in population.15 This decline in GHG emissions reflects a strong and consistent effort across multiple sectors, especially increased energy efficiency and conservation in residential and commercial buildings, cleaner vehicles travelling fewer miles, and a greener electric grid. Strategies to reduce energy use and related GHG emissions include improving energy efficiency and transitioning to clean, renewable energy.

Energy Efficiency: A review of best practices indicates that data centers can improve energy efficiency with current technology. Data centers typically measure their power utilization efficiency (PUE), which is the total facility power including cooling systems divided by IT equipment power. The PUE is a performance metric, with a PUE of 1.1 to 1.3 or less representing an efficient facility. To promote energy efficiency, a PUE standard or another performance metric could be included in the new appendix in the Policy Plan for data centers undergoing rezoning or SE review. The ability for staff to review this standard would need to be considered. Additionally, given the substantial energy demands of data centers, proposed data centers could be encouraged to achieve LEED-Data Center Silver certification or greater. Under Section C405.12 of the 2021 Virginia Energy Conservation Code, data centers will be required to monitor their energy consumption. The County could pursue partnerships with data center operators for the voluntary sharing of that information with the County, which could assist in measuring the achievement of CECAP goals.

Renewables: Regarding the use of clean, renewable energy sources, data centers rely on the power grid and are not able, at this time, to generate sufficient power onsite through solar or other renewable sources. As previously noted, a data center of about 400,000 square feet would likely have a capacity of 48 to 60 MW. With current solar panel technology, approximately 5 acres of solar panels would be needed to produce 1 MW of power.

Therefore, a 48 MW data center would need at least 260 acres of solar panels to be self- sufficient. Nevertheless, data centers should be encouraged to install onsite solar and invest in offsite renewable energy. Some data center operators have sustainability goals. For example, Meta states that they have maintained net zero GHG in global operations since 15 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Summaries, MWCOG:
https://www.mwcog.org/documents/2022/12/27/community-wide-greenhouse-gas-emissions-inventory-summaries- featured-publications-greenhouse-gas/
438 of 637

Page 213 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 10 ends

2020, primarily by purchasing 100% renewable energy. Meta has an additional goal to reach net zero emissions across its value chain by 2030.16 Amazon states that it is the world’s largest corporate purchaser of renewable energy and is on target to power its operations with 100% renewable energy by 2025 and to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2040.17

3. Water Demand
Current Regulations and Guidelines
The Zoning Ordinance does not regulate water demand. The Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Plan provides limited recommendations on water demand topics through the discussion of water conservation for buildings sufficient to attain certification through LEED-NC, -CS, or equivalent. A majority of water-related recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan Policy Plan are related to exterior stormwater management mitigation and best practices.

Research and Recommendations
The amount of water used by a data center depends on the type of cooling system used. There are reports of data centers in other jurisdictions that use large amounts of water. However, since water demand is highly variable according to the technology used onsite and the climate of the area, the analysis in this report relies primarily on water use data and recommendations provided by Fairfax Water, which are included in Attachment 2.

Fairfax Water reviewed water use by data centers located on Sunrise Valley Drive and found that they use an average of approximately 38,000 gallons per day (gpd) which equals about 90 to 100 gallons/1,000 square feet. This is higher than the planning values Fairfax Water uses for office uses (60 gallons/1,000 square feet), but lower than retail (140 gallons/1,000 square feet) or hotel (180 gallons/1,000 square feet). Fairfax Water also compared water usage information from the Prince William County Service Authority and Loudoun Water and found comparable average water usage by data centers. Fairfax Water has concluded that with its periodic planning process, it is well prepared to address overall water supply needs.

Typically, it has been reported that air cooling systems use more energy but less water, while evaporative cooling systems use more water and less energy. However, not all data centers with evaporative cooling systems use large amounts of water. Techniques that data centers may use to reduce water consumption include, but are not limited to, rainwater harvesting and closed-loop cooling systems. The direct evaporative cooling systems being employed by newer data centers do not require chillers or cooling towers and the water usage is reported as approximately ten percent of older evaporative cooling systems. For example, Amazon has indicated that its typical data centers (250,000 square feet) use an average of approximately three million gallons of water per year, which equals only 8,220 gpd. [While recent articles 16 Meta sustainability: https://sustainability.fb.com/2023-sustainability-report/ 17 Amazon: https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/products-services/the-cloud?energyType=true 439 of 637

Page 214 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 11 ends

regarding a proposed Amazon data center campus in central Virginia reported a projected use of approximately 21 million gallons per building per year based on 640,000 gpd, Amazon has indicated this report is a miscalculation because the 640,000 gpd is the peak day demand, with an estimated average number of ten peak days per year.] According to industry sources, a data center with direct evaporative cooling systems in Virginia only needs to use water during the hot summer months.

Some data center companies have goals to reduce their water demand. For example, both Meta and Amazon have a water positive goal to return more water to communities than they use in data center operations by 2030.18 One approach to reducing water usage is to use recycled or reclaimed water systems for non-potable water uses, such as industrial cooling.

Loudoun Water operates such a system serving over 50 data centers. Fairfax has a reclaimed water system available in the Lorton area, but to date, no data centers are using that system.19 Based on this information, staff has not identified any potential Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance amendments related to water demand at this time. As Fairfax Water noted, it is possible that the declining per capita and per employee water use trends could change; therefore, staff recommends that monitoring of data centers and coordination with Fairfax Water continue, and the issue of water demand be revisited on a regular basis.

4. Water Quality
Current Regulations and Guidelines
Stormwater runoff: The County’s Stormwater Management Ordinance (Chapter 124 of the County Code20) is designed to mitigate stormwater runoff impacts from all impervious cover regardless of land use type. Runoff from a data center building is no different than runoff from any other building. Additionally, development that requires a site plan and occurs within the Water Supply Protection Overlay District21 must provide water quality control measures designed to reduce the projected phosphorus runoff pollution by one-half for the proposed use. Stormwater impacts can also be mitigated by other measures, such as preservation of open space, floodplain protection, and landscaping and screening as required 18 Meta: https://datacenters.atmeta.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Water-Stewardship.pdf; Amazon:
https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/aws/aws-water-positive-by-2030 19 Fairfax reclaimed water system: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/publicworks/wastewater/water-reuse 20 Chapter 124:
https://library.municode.com/va/fairfax_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=THCOCOFAVI1976_CH124ST MAOR
21 WSPOD: https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fairfaxcounty-va/doc-viewer.aspx?tocid=001.004.004.005#secid- 2542
440 of 637

Page 215 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 12 ends

under the Zoning Ordinance, as well as tree preservation as required under the Tree Conservation Ordinance (Chapter 122 of the County Code22).

Additionally, to ensure that stormwater is appropriately managed (water quality and water quantity), the Comprehensive Plan promotes site design and low-impact development (LID) techniques that reduce stormwater runoff volumes and peak flows; increase groundwater recharge; and increase the preservation of undisturbed areas. Developments are expected to optimize stormwater management and water quality controls through the use of innovative infiltration techniques, nonstructural BMPs and bioengineering practices, and infiltration landscaping. The Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Plan also identifies Environmental Quality Corridors (EQCs) as an integrated network of ecologically valuable land and surface waters that should be protected and enhanced for the present and future residents of Fairfax County. The policy categorizes characteristics of EQCs including habitat quality, connectivity, pollution reduction capabilities, hydrology, stream buffering, and stream protection; the policy recognizes that EQCs are delineated through the entitlement process based on policy criteria. The Plan also recommends protecting and restoring the ecological integrity of streams and protecting the Chesapeake Bay from the avoidable impacts of land use activities.23
Diesel tanks for backup generators (spills): Federal, state, and County regulations address the fuel storage tanks for backup generators:
o Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) requirements – Aboveground Storage Tanks | Virginia DEQ24
o Fairfax County Fuel Storage Tank requirements – Fuel Storage Tanks | Planning, Permitting and Construction (fairfaxcounty.gov)25
Research and Recommendations
Water quality impacts can include: a) cooling system discharges to the wastewater system; b) spills or leaks from diesel tanks; and/or c) stormwater runoff.

Cooling systems: According to data center industry sources, most newer interior cooling systems utilized by data centers, even those that use water, do not have cooling towers that discharge to wastewater or stormwater systems. However, for those that do have cooling 22 Chapter 122:
https://library.municode.com/va/fairfax_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=THCOCOFAVI1976_CH122TR COOR
23 Objective 2, 3 and 9: Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 2017 Edition, Policy Plan, Environment:
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/sites/planning- development/files/assets/compplan/policy/environment.pdf 24 VDEQ storage tank requirements: https://www.deq.virginia.gov/our-programs/land-waste/petroleum- tanks/aboveground-storage-tanks
25 County storage tank requirements: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/plan2build/fuel-storage- tanks#:~:text=Tank(s)%20capacity%20of%20500,and%20plan%20reviews%20may%20apply 441 of 637

Page 216 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 13 ends

towers, evaporative cooling concentrates salts in the water that must be periodically discharged to the wastewater system. Even if no other chemicals are added to the system, the discharge has concentrated sodium, a constituent of concern in drinking water. If the facility is in the sewer collection area of the Upper Occoquan Service Authority (UOSA), the treated wastewater discharges to the Bull Run River upstream of the Occoquan Reservoir, which is a potable water source. Although this is true of any commercial or industrial use that employs a cooling tower, the extensive cooling systems needed by data centers heighten the potential concern. Currently, the County prohibits the use of bromide as a treatment additive in cooling water systems that discharge to UOSA based on direction from UOSA.

As noted in the attached comments from Fairfax Water, their facility for treatment of raw water from the Occoquan Reservoir is not designed to remove salts or other emerging contaminants of concern. Although the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set a health advisory of 20 mg/L for sodium levels in potable water,26 an advisory is not an enforceable federal standard and the UOSA pre-treatment requirements do not include a standard for sodium. Consideration could be given to establishing Comprehensive Plan guidance to encourage data centers to monitor their discharges and, if needed, provide for pre-treatment. Additionally, to reduce the potential for impacts to potable water, within the UOSA service area, the Plan could encourage the use of non-chemical/non-water-based cooling systems or systems that do not discharge to the wastewater or stormwater systems.

Diesel tanks for backup generators (spills): Typically, depending on the size of the generator, about 5,000 to 15,000 gallons of diesel fuel are stored in individual, above-ground, double-walled tanks below each generator to provide sufficient fuel for 24 to 72 hours.

Existing state regulations include procedures to prevent pollution of state waters, lands, and storm drain systems from the discharge of fuel from aboveground storage tanks that are 25,000 gallons or more. Further analysis could be done to determine whether these existing regulations could be enhanced. Consideration could also be given to including SE standards in the Zoning Ordinance (or amending another chapter of the County Code) for tanks smaller than 25,000 gallons for proper surface grading, berms, or other additional containment practices to protect surface water and ground water by ensuring that if the tank were to fail or if a spill were to occur during filling, the fuel does not enter the stormwater system or open space areas.

Stormwater runoff: Regarding stormwater runoff, data centers are similar to other nonresidential uses with expansive impervious surfaces. With the provisions in place to address stormwater runoff as described above, in staff’s opinion no additional recommendations are necessary for data centers. However, in general, water quality on industrial sites would benefit from site designs that include green roofs, increased open space and native tree and plant vegetation. Projects subject to rezoning or SE review should be 26 EPA advisory on sodium: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014- 09/documents/support_cc1_sodium_dwreport.pdf
442 of 637

Page 217 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 14 ends

encouraged to exceed minimum requirements for open space, tree preservation and planting, and stormwater treatment.

5. Air Quality
Current Regulations and Guidelines
The Zoning Ordinance does not directly regulate air quality. Through the Comprehensive Plan, the County seeks to preserve and improve air quality and expects that state-of-the-art technologies will be applied to minimize emissions from stationary sources of air pollution.27 For data centers, backup generators are the source of air pollutants that are a concern, and these emissions are regulated by DEQ. DEQ monitors criteria air pollutants across the state, in accordance with the Clean Air Act, a federal law that provides for the protection of human health and the environment. Data center projects require Minor New Source Review (NSR) permits from DEQ for their backup generators, which are powered by diesel fuel. Minor NSR permits in Northern Virginia receive stricter scrutiny due to non-attainment of air quality standards in the Washington, DC region. Over the past decades, the EPA has developed a tiered regulatory system that applies to backup generators (non-road diesel engines):28 o Tier I – phased in from 1994 to 1997
o Tier II – phased in from 2000 to 2005
o Tier III – phased in from 2006 to 2008 for smaller engines with 50 to 750 hp o Tier IV – phased in from 2008 to 2015 and requires a 90% reduction of certain emissions with reductions made possible through newer control technologies.

Research and Recommendations
Potential pollutants released into the air from generator use include nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and sulfur dioxide (SO2), all of which are regulated by DEQ. DEQ maintains 36 monitoring sites across the Commonwealth to measure air pollutants. One air quality monitoring station is located in Loudoun County and two are located in Fairfax County:
o Broad Run High School: Ashburn, Loudoun County, Virginia - Pollutants measured: O3, NO2, and PM2.5
o Franconia District Park: Franconia, Fairfax County, Virginia - Pollutants measured: SO2, O3, PM2.5, and PM10
o 6831 Backlick Road: Springfield, Fairfax County, Virginia - Pollutants measured: CO, NO2, and PM2.5
27 Objective 1: Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 2017 Edition, Policy Plan, Environment, Amended through 6 - 28-2022, Pages 2-5
28 EPA: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/regulations-emissions-heavy-equipment- compression
443 of 637

Page 218 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 15 ends

Due to the current and expected growth of the data center industry in Northern Virginia, additional monitoring may be beneficial in tracking air quality near large numbers of data centers.

Along with lower emissions, Tier IV generators provide increased fuel efficiencies, incorporate modern pollution-control technologies, require less maintenance, and reduce operating costs. These emission reductions are typically achieved by using advanced exhaust gas after-treatment technologies, with most Tier IV engine families using urea-selective catalyst reduction filters (SCR) for emissions control. The use of diesel generators for backup is the current industry standard. Until cleaner alternatives become more available, staff recommends that the Comprehensive Plan encourage the use of Tier IV generators and state- of-the-art technology to reduce GHG emissions.

Renewables: As energy providers are able to produce more power from renewable sources, air pollutants and GHG emissions from non-renewable sources will decrease over time.

Dominion does not allow commercial consumers to choose the generating source for the power they consume, since all types of energy sources are placed into the entire grid; however, as noted above under Energy Demand, data center operators should be encouraged to invest in renewable energies to offset their carbon footprint. Through the Virginia Clean Economy Act, Dominion Energy Virginia and Appalachian Power are required to retire electric generating units located in the Commonwealth that emit carbon as a by-product of combusting fuel to generate electricity; the utilities are also required to construct, acquire, or enter into agreements to purchase generating capacity located in the Commonwealth using energy derived from sunlight or onshore wind.29

6. Noise
Current Regulations and Guidelines
The Fairfax County Noise Ordinance (Chapter 108.1 of the County Code) regulates sound generation for all uses, including data centers. Among other standards, the Noise Ordinance limits the maximum sound levels that can be generated when the sound is measured at the property boundary or at any point within another property affected by the sound. The standards in the table below apply according to the use and zoning district of the property impacted by the noise (not the property generating the noise).30 29 Virginia House of Delegates Bill 1526, adopted as the Virginia Clean Economy Act 30 Section 108.1-4-2 of the Noise Ordinance:
https://library.municode.com/va/fairfax_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=THCOCOFAVI1976_CH108.1 NOOR
444 of 637

Page 219 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 16 ends

Maximum Sound Levels
Use and Zoning District
Classification
Time of Day Continuous Sound
(dBA)
Impulse Sound
(dB)
Residential areas in
residential districts
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 60 100
Residential areas in
residential districts
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 55 80
Nonresidential areas in
residential districts
All 60 100
Mixed use area 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 65 100
Mixed use area 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 60 80
Commercial districts All 65 100
Industrial districts 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 72 120
Industrial districts 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 65 100
Table 2: Noise Ordinance Standards
Section 108.1-5-1(g) of the Noise Ordinance exempts the operation of backup generators during power outages from storms or other emergencies as well as the testing and maintenance of generators between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. for up to two hours per day. Separately, DEQ does not allow for generator testing between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. from May 1 to September 30 to minimize impacts on air quality from ozone. Therefore, during those months, generator testing would be limited to the evening hours from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.

To reduce noise impacts, a use standard for data centers in the Zoning Ordinance requires all equipment for cooling and backup generators to be contained within an enclosed building, except in the I-4, I-5, and I-6 Districts.31
The Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Plan currently provides guidance and recommendations only for transportation-related noise, such as motor vehicle and airport-related noise. There are no other policies for non-transportation-related noise uses.

Research and Recommendations
Noise from data centers, which can be significant if not mitigated, is primarily generated by two sources: the cooling systems and the backup generators. The potential impacts vary considerably according to the type of equipment, location (proximity to residential or other noise-sensitive uses), site design, and the mitigation measures employed. Related infrastructure such as electric substations may also generate noise. 31 Subsection 4102.6.A(1) of the Zoning Ordinance: https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fairfaxcounty-va/doc- viewer.aspx#secid-2854
445 of 637

Page 220 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 17 ends

Data centers require substantially more cooling as compared to other uses due to the heat produced from densely packed servers. To provide context, a data center server room might require 100 tons of cooling (per 10,000 square feet, using a median total heat number) as compared to a shopping mall which would require 40 tons, or an office which would need 29 tons. Cooling systems generate a continuous noise, and concerns have also been noted in articles about the low frequency of the noise generated by certain cooling equipment.

Generally, the sound from lower frequencies propagates farther than that from higher frequencies and may be felt, even if it is not audible. As noted above, the use of diesel generators for backup is the current industry standard. To provide for backup in the case of power interruption, data centers have large numbers of generators as compared to other uses.

For example, a hospital would typically have three to five backup generators, while a data center typically has over 20 generators.32 Although the generators are only for emergencies, each one needs to be tested and maintained, requiring a runtime of about five to 15 minutes per generator each month. It appears that in the past, the emergency use of backup generators in Fairfax and surrounding areas has been infrequent. One data center representative indicated that backup generators are typically used for emergency purposes a few hours each year while another stated that the generators are typically used for about 53 total hours per facility per year. Consideration could be given to amending the Noise Ordinance for uses such as data centers with large numbers of backup generators to remove the exemptions for testing and maintenance of generators, as well as the full emergency use of backup generators.

A review of noise studies submitted as part of rezoning or SE applications for data center projects in Fairfax County indicated that measures were consistently needed to reduce the potential noise to comply with the Noise Ordinance. A variety of measures were proposed in those cases, including upgraded equipment, sound-attenuating enclosures for generators, acoustical barriers and louvers, silencers on air handling equipment, attenuators on both the intake and exhaust for generators, and the location of the mechanical yard. Given the need for noise mitigation and the variety of options that may be tailored for each site and facility, consideration could be given to providing guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for the review of noise studies for projects undergoing rezoning or SE review and for amending the Zoning Ordinance to include noise study submission requirements for zoning applications.

Noise studies could be submitted as part of a rezoning or SE application and updated pre- construction (prior to building permit approval) and post-construction (prior to issuance of a Nonresidential Use Permit) to demonstrate compliance with the Noise Ordinance. The noise modeling could address the worst-case scenario, including all cooling equipment at full operational load, as well as the maximum number of generators that may be tested at one time. In addition, the noise modeling could address the emergency use of backup generators 32 The number of generators varies according to the energy demand of the data center. For example, one data center in Fairfax with approximately 400,000 square feet of gross floor area has 20 generators with a total capacity of about 45 MW. Another campus project with over 2 million square feet is planned to have over 100 generators with a total capacity of about 259 MW.
446 of 637

Page 221 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 18 ends

and include the frequency octave band limits. Comprehensive Plan guidance could be considered for noise studies to include particular attention to impacts on residential uses and sensitive habitats. Noise mitigation equipment could be considered to avoid noise impacts to both the human environment and the habitats of local fauna.

As previously noted, the Zoning Ordinance requires all equipment for cooling and backup generators for data centers to be contained within an enclosed building, except in the I-4, I-5, and I-6 Districts.33 The exemption of these industrial districts recognized other industrial uses allowed in those districts. However, given the potential noise impacts from data centers because of their unique cooling requirements and use of generators, consideration could be given to requiring equipment enclosures for all data centers and other similar industrial uses.

As noted above, the maximum sound levels apply to all uses, whether that be the cooling system for an office building, the trucking associated with a freight distribution facility, or a contractor’s storage yard. It has been suggested that lower sound levels should apply to data centers; however, staff does not have information that the dBA for a data center should be regulated differently from that for other uses. On the other hand, further research and consideration could be given to establishing standards for lower frequencies, perhaps measured as dBC.34

7. Building Design
Current Regulations and Guidelines
The Zoning Ordinance does not currently have any regulations regarding the architectural design of data centers. Architectural design standards are included in the Ordinance for large retail sales establishments and goods distribution hubs when approved by SE, to minimize the impacts of building bulk through variations in roof lines and setbacks, landscaping, and enhanced architectural treatments such as windows. Standards are also included for self- storage facilities in certain zoning districts to require that storage bay doors or lighted hallways not be visible from the outside, and the building must be multistory and office-like in appearance. The I-4, I-5, and I-6 Districts limit the maximum building height to 75 feet and the FAR to 0.5, without SE approval. For projects undergoing rezoning or SE review, Appendix 12 of the Policy Plan specifies criteria for building design, including the need for high-quality design and materials that complement the architecture of surrounding uses.

Loading areas should be screened, and visual impacts should be minimized by avoiding undifferentiated facades and providing variation in height, fenestration, materials, patterns, textures, colors, and accent materials.
33 Subsection 4102.6.A(1) of the Zoning Ordinance: https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fairfaxcounty-va/doc- viewer.aspx#secid-2854
34 Generally, dBA is intended to match typical human hearing; dBC does not have the weighting applied for dBA and may be more appropriate for consideration of low frequencies. 447 of 637

Page 222 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 19 ends

Research and Recommendations
The development of large data centers raises concerns regarding building design and aesthetics because of their bulk and height. They are typically constructed of concrete with minimal fenestration. Larger data centers are often 75 feet in height or more. Also, data centers have related equipment, which, in addition to backup generators, may include water towers and electrical substations.

As identified in the attached report from Clarion Associates, certain other jurisdictions have or are in the process of adopting zoning standards for building design, including Prince William and Loudoun Counties, and Atlanta, Georgia. Similar to the Comprehensive Plan guidance, the standards are intended to provide for variation and interest in design, such as requiring façade changes for height, recesses, fenestration, building and accent materials, and a defined main entrance, as well as mechanical screening.

Given the potential impacts of the bulk of larger data centers, the current guidelines for building design in Appendix 12 of the Policy Plan could be reviewed and considered for all data centers undergoing rezoning or SE review to improve the view of the data center and related equipment from public roads and nearby residential uses. Additionally, submission requirements for rezoning or SE applications could be added to the Zoning Ordinance for architectural elevations (for consideration of the large massing and scale impacts), proposed materials and color palette, and provision of sight line studies with renderings or perspectives from surrounding roads and residential areas.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS Below is a summary of the recommendations included in the text of this report. These recommendations are presented for Comprehensive Plan guidelines and Zoning Ordinance standards that could be established for data centers to be approved by SE in conventional zoning districts and rezoning/development plan approval in planned districts, where permitted. As previously noted, data centers could continue to be allowed by right; however, some of the recommendations, such as a review of noise studies and building design and encouraging increased open space, tree planting, and stormwater treatment, may be more effectively implemented through an SE review. The SE review process would ensure a robust County review with careful consideration of potential impacts and allow for public hearings to solicit community feedback.

1. Land Use and Site Design
Zoning Ordinance:
• Consider revising permissions to require SE approval for data centers, regardless of size, in the C-3, C-4, and I-2 through I-6 Districts. In addition to recommendations included below under other topic areas, standards for special exception review should include the 448 of 637

Page 223 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 20 ends

consideration of the size of a proposed data center and its distance (buildings and generators) from surrounding existing and planned residential development. • Where data centers are allowed in the Planned Districts, add a standard to clarify that the use must be specifically identified on the approved development plan, including the location, size, height, and setbacks.

Comprehensive Plan:
• Create a new appendix to the Land Use Element of the Policy Plan for data centers with updated performance criteria. The new appendix should include guidelines that would be utilized in the review of all data centers through the rezoning or special exception process, not just those seeking additional intensity in industrial areas. The guidelines could include consideration of compatibility with future planned uses for the property and surrounding properties.
• Consider recommendations for enhanced buffering for data centers located near residential, noise sensitive uses, and environmentally sensitive areas. • Consider guidelines for distances from existing or planned substations or transmission lines that can service the data center.

2. Energy Demand
Zoning Ordinance:
• Add zoning application submission requirements for rezoning and SE applications for assessments of future energy needs that will be used in staff’s review in accordance with Comprehensive Plan guidelines.

Comprehensive Plan:
• Consider adding an energy performance standard like PUE to promote energy efficiency data centers undergoing rezoning or SE review.
• Encourage LEED-Data Center Silver certification or greater for data centers undergoing rezoning or SE review.
• Encourage data centers to install onsite solar and invest in offsite renewable energy to offset their energy demand and carbon footprint for data centers undergoing rezoning or SE review.

Other Recommendations:
• Establish a new process for coordination with Dominion and NOVEC about proposed data centers during the review of zoning applications, which may include assessments of future energy needs as it relates to existing and planned power infrastructure. • Pursue partnerships with data center operators for the voluntary sharing of facility energy consumption to assist the County in measuring the achievement of CECAP goals. 449 of 637

Page 224 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 21 ends

3. Water Quality
Zoning Ordinance:
• Consider adding SE standards in the Zoning Ordinance (or amending another chapter of the County Code) for fuel tanks smaller than 25,000 gallons for proper surface grading, berms, or other additional containment practices to protect surface water and ground water by ensuring that if the tank were to fail or if a spill were to occur during filling, the fuel does not enter the stormwater system or open space areas.

Comprehensive Plan:
• Encourage data centers to address potential water quality concerns through the monitoring of cooling system discharge into the wastewater system and, if needed, providing pre-treatment.
• To avoid potential impacts on potable water, within the UOSA service area, encourage the use of cooling systems that do not discharge to the wastewater or stormwater systems, or non-chemical and non-water-based cooling systems.
• Encourage projects subject to rezoning or SE review to exceed minimum requirements for open space and tree preservation and planting.

4. Air Quality
Comprehensive Plan:
• Encourage data centers undergoing rezoning or SE review to minimize air quality impacts through a variety of approaches:
o Apply state of the art technology to minimize air pollution from backup generators. o Encourage the use of Tier IV backup generators, and replacement of existing Tier II generators with Tier IV generators.

Other Recommendations:
• Request DEQ to install additional air quality monitoring stations in Fairfax County.

5. Noise
Zoning Ordinance:
• Consider adding zoning application submission requirements for data centers undergoing rezoning or SE review to quantify the increase in noise on adjacent uses, support review in accordance with Comprehensive Plan guidelines, and demonstrate compliance with the Noise Ordinance.
• Consider expanding the current Zoning Ordinance equipment enclosure requirement to apply in all zoning districts where data centers and other similar industrial uses are allowed.
450 of 637

Page 225 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 22 ends

Noise Ordinance:
• Consider amending the Noise Ordinance to remove exemptions for uses with large numbers of backup generators and require the testing and maintenance as well as the full emergency use of backup generators to comply with the Noise Ordinance standards.

Comprehensive Plan:
• Noise studies for projects undergoing rezoning or SE review could include an evaluation of impacts on residential uses and sensitive habitats. Noise mitigation equipment should be considered to avoid noise impacts to both the human environment and the habitats of local fauna.
• Consider amending the Plan to recommend that data center proposals evaluate and mitigate potential noise impacts:
o Noise studies could be submitted as part of a rezoning or SE application, for pre- construction (prior to building permit approval) and post-construction (prior to issuance of a Nonresidential Use Permit) to quantify the increase in noise on adjacent uses and demonstrate compliance with the Noise Ordinance. o Noise modeling could address the worst-case scenario, including all cooling equipment at full operational load, as well as the maximum number of generators that may be tested at one time.
o Noise modeling could also address the backup use of backup generators. o Noise modeling could include the frequency octave band limits.

Other Recommendations:
• Conduct additional research on establishing standards for lower frequencies in the Noise Ordinance.

6. Building Design
Zoning Ordinance:
• Consider adding submission requirements for rezoning and SE applications to include:
o Architectural elevations (to address the large massing and scale of data centers) o Materials and color palette
o Sight line studies, including renderings or perspectives from the right-of-way and nearby residential uses.

Comprehensive Plan:
• Review the current guidelines for Building Design in Appendix 12 and consider applying them to projects undergoing rezoning or SE review, including consideration of façade variation, a defined entrance feature, screening of equipment, and other techniques to improve the view of the building from public roads and nearby residential uses. 451 of 637

Page 226 of 330 ends

Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 23 ends

NEXT STEPS
Data centers are important facilities to support the modern, digital world – particularly in the Northern Virginia region where data center infrastructure is significant. Given their unique characteristics, careful consideration of their location, design, and impacts (including potential mitigation measures) is needed to ensure that data centers are compatible with the surrounding community. This report presents research and related recommendations for possible amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Noise Ordinance, and potentially other chapters of the County Code. While staff will use these considerations in the review of any data center entitlement applications in the context of our current guidelines and regulations, staff recommends that the Board direct staff to begin work on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other chapters of the County Code to facilitate implementation of the recommendations as outlined above and any others the Board might recommend.

Additionally, staff would support future direction from the Board on a closer evaluation of legislative authority for related topics in which the County currently lacks sufficient regulatory authority. Examples of this could include addressing energy efficiency (e.g., PUE), salinity in water discharges, and air quality.

The County’s One Fairfax policy would provide the framework to consider equity in the development of any future amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, or other chapters of the County Code. This could include enhanced outreach to ensure diverse perspectives are heard and respected. An equity impact analysis could include consideration of the location of vulnerable areas within the County and their relationship to potential data center locations.

If requested, staff is available to present these recommendations at an upcoming Land Use Policy Committee meeting. Questions and comments can be directed to Carmen Bishop at 703-324-1314, and Katie Hermann at 703-324-1280, or by email to ffx-data- [email protected].

ATTACHMENTS

1. Data Center Maps

2. Fairfax Water Comments

3. Clarion Report
452 of 637

Page 227 of 330 ends

1 Attachment 1: Data Center Maps
453 of 637

Page 228 of 330 ends

Fairfax Data Centers
Name Address Tax Map Zoning
District
Square Feet of
Gross Floor Area
Zoning Case or By Right
Existing
11 Coresite VA3 12379A Sunrise Valley 17-3 ((1)) 32A I-5 332,957 (existing) 943,600 (total
approved by SE)
RZ 2017-HM-032 & SE 2017-HM-030;
Rezoning & increase in FAR
2 Coresite 12100 SV &
12098 SV
12098 Sunrise Valley 17-3 ((8))(3A) 1A I-4 423,341 (existing) SE 2011-HM-019 for increase in FAR 3 Faraday Building 1807 Michael Faraday 18-3 ((5)) 10 I-5 30,609 (existing By right 4 Digital Realty/Lemur
Properties
1780 Business Center 18-3 ((8)) 9A I-3/I-4 264,888 (existing) By right 5 Elias DC Assets 1764A Old Meadow 29-4 ((6)) 97F PTC 69,089 (existing) Pre-existing use before rezoning to PTC under RZ -2014-PR-021
6 Roosevelt Building 1755 Old Meadow 29-4 ((6)) 105 PTC 72,546 (existing) Pre-existing use before rezoning to PTC under RZ -2014-PR-021
7 Lafayette Business
Data Center
4030 Lafayette Center 33-2 ((1)) 10D I-4 145,409 (existing) By right 8 AWS Virginia Mallory 3980 Virginia Mallory /
14501 Avion
34-1 ((3)) 13 I-5 542,942 (existing)
768,392 (approved by
site plan)
By right
9 AWS Westfax B 4100 Westfax 34-3 ((9)) 3A I-5 95,000 (existing) By right 10 AWS Westfax A 4101 Westfax 34-3 ((9)) 4 I-5 95,000 (existing) By right 11 Equinix 7990 Quantum 39-2 ((1)) 13D I-3 202,500 (existing) By right In Progress2
12 Renaissance
Technology Park
13860 Redskin 24-2 ((14)) 1 - 6 I-5 2,136,040 (approved by SE)
2,130,000 (approved
by site plan)
SE-2021-SU-00017 for increase in height
13 Perspecta Datacenter
Campus/AWS
13600 EDS 24-4 ((1)) 6B7,
6B8
I-5 1,046,632 (approved
by site plan)
By right
1 Numbers correspond to maps
2 In progress includes projects where any necessary zoning entitlement has been approved, or for by right projects, a site plan has been approved, but a certificate of occupancy has not been issued.
454 of 637

Page 229 of 330 ends

Name Address Tax Map Zoning
District
Square Feet of
Gross Floor Area
Zoning Case or By Right
14 Parkstone Tech Park 5140 Parkstone 43-4 ((6)) 37B PDC 500,000 (approved by RZ)
419,410 (approved by
site plan)
RZ-2021-SU-003
15 AWS Loisdale Station 7951 and 7961 Loisdale 99-2 ((1)) 8A I-5 240,000 (approved by RZ/SE)
235,422 (approved by
site plan)
RZ-2021-LE-015 & SE-2021-LE-010;
Rezone & increase in height
Proposed
16 Chantilly Premier None 33-2 ((1)) 6 pt I-5
(proposed)
402,000 (proposed) RZ-2022-SU-00019 & SE-2022-SU-00038; Rezone & increase in height
455 of 637

Page 230 of 330 ends

4 (1)
(4)
(11)
Electric Lines
Data Centers:
7, 8, 9, 10, 14,
16 Data Centers:
1, 2, 3, 4
Data Centers:
12, 13
Data Centers:
5, 6, 11
Data Center:
15 456 of 637

Page 231 of 330 ends

5 Dulles
International
Airport
457 of 637

Page 232 of 330 ends

6 Dulles
International
Airport
458 of 637

Page 233 of 330 ends

7 459 of 637

Page 234 of 330 ends

8 460 of 637

Page 235 of 330 ends

9 461 of 637

Page 236 of 330 ends

462 of 637

Page 237 of 330 ends

463 of 637

Page 238 of 330 ends

464 of 637

Page 239 of 330 ends

465 of 637

Page 240 of 330 ends

Staff Report
November 6, 2024
ATTACHMENT 4.b
Article – As Data Centers Zap Power, Some
Pols Ponder The Unthinkable: Pulling The
Plug, dated October 9, 2024

466 of 637

Page 241 of 330 ends

October 9, 2024 By Dan Rabb and Maddy McCarty
It isn’t every day that Texas legislators liken an industry to pigs at the trough or accuse it of “crashing our grid and turning the lights off.”
But it is happening in the famously business-friendly Lone Star State as lawmakers turn increasingly hostile toward a real estate asset class playing an outsized role in nearly doubling (https://apnews.com/us-news/texas-state-government-texas-general-news- d8f648128b1661d0c86865eab788b4e5) statewide demand on its mostly self-contained power grid (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/power-grid) over the next six years.

As Data Centers Zap Power, Some Pols Ponder The
Unthinkable: Pulling The Plug
467 of 637

Page 242 of 330 ends

Data centers (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/data-centers), which house thousands of servers providing the computing power for major corporations, are a booming industry in Texas. Much of the growth is fueled by demand from the world’s largest tech companies — Amazon (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/amazon), Microsoft
(https://www.bisnow.com/tags/microsoft), Google (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/google) and Meta (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/meta) — which need facilities to support their massive cloud (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/cloud) businesses and, increasingly, artificial intelligence (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/artificial-intelligence).

Texas has also emerged as the undisputed U.S. capital for bitcoin (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/bitcoin) mines, specialty data centers devoted to processing cryptocurrency (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/cryptocurrency) transactions.

All that growth is expected to account for more than half of a projected power demand spike that hit legislators like a ton of bricks this summer when the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas presented new and startlingly higher numbers.

And it came as the state was making progress toward shoring up its grid after a catastrophic 2021 winter storm shut it down, killing hundreds and wreaking billions (https://www.bisnow.com/houston/news/infrastructure/project-eyes-a-link-of-ercot-grid- with-other-southeastern-states-122278) in property damage.

Texas isn’t alone in worrying about energy stability. National projections show usage from data centers will double by the end of the decade and rise even further in industry hot spots like Dallas-Fort Worth. Some jurisdictions have imposed limits (https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/data-center/loudoun-countys-new-data-center- rules-leaving-some-developers-in-limbo-115766), and the Biden administration made developing new solutions to the industry’s increasingly acute energy crisis (https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/data-center/were-not-even-close-data-center- power-crunch-gets-worse-with-no-end-in-sight-122415) a national priority.

Yet the unexpected surge has Texas lawmakers reeling, asking questions about the worth of huge power consumers to the economy and calling for ways to put the brakes on an industry speeding ahead faster than anywhere else in the U.S. outside of Northern Virginia. “I’m more interested in building the grid to service customers in their homes, apartments, and normal businesses and keeping costs as low as possible for them instead of for very niche industries that have massive power demands and produce few jobs,” Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/lt.-gov.-dan-patrick) said on social media platform X (https://x.com/LtGovTX/status/1800968003636408657?lang=en) after ERCOT (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/ercot) presented the new projections. “We want data centers, but it can’t be the Wild Wild West of data centers and crypto miners crashing our grid and turning the lights off.”
The debate has refocused attention on the state’s fragile grid and limited energy infrastructure.

And the avalanche of new demand is spiking fears of massive bills ahead for residents and businesses.
468 of 637

Page 243 of 330 ends

“It has huge policy implications,” Texas Sen. Nathan Johnson, a Democrat from Dallas, said at a June hearing. “And every assumption that we've made over the past four years is now called into question.”
From Dozens Of Megawatts To Hundreds
Dallas is the country's second-largest data center market and one of the industry’s traditional hubs. More data center firms are headquartered in Dallas than any other city.

At the end of the second quarter, there were 966 megawatts of total inventory, with 339 MW under construction and 3,091 MW planned in DFW, according to JLL (https://www.us.jll.com/en/trends-and-insights/research/na-data-center-report). The total number of megawatts in use by data centers in the Dallas market is up 77% since 2020, according to CBRE (https://www.cbre.com/insights/reports/north-america-data-center- trends-h1-2024).

Meanwhile, the Austin-San Antonio region is considered the largest of the nation’s “secondary” data center markets. It was the fastest-growing data center market through the first half of this year, the CBRE report says, and its combined under-construction activity more than quadrupled from a year earlier.

Data centers are attracted to sites with low power costs, targeted tax incentives and robust optical fiber network infrastructure nearby. Many parts of Texas hit all these marks. 469 of 637

Page 244 of 330 ends

But the new wave of data center demand caught ERCOT and utilities across the nation (https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/data-center/more-skin-in-the-game-power-utilities- say-data-centers-must-foot-the-bill-for-billions-in-grid-upgrades-124385) by surprise.

Data centers will represent 6.6% of electricity (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/electricity) consumption in the U.S. by 2028, up from just 1.5% in 2018, according to TD Cowen (https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/data-center/td-cowen-data-centers-share-of-us- energy-use-to-quadruple-124474). Other studies (https://carboncredits.com/us-data-centers- power-requirement-will-double-by-2030/) predict the industry’s share of power use will be as high as 9.1%.

In Texas, 60% of the 40 GW of new load expected in the months ahead consists of new data centers and bitcoin mining (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/bitcoin-mining), according to Texas Public Utility Commissioner Lori Cobos. But what is catching providers most off guard is that each new facility is using far more power than ever before.

The size of data center campuses, measured in the amount of energy they consume, has shot up over the past four years from dozens of megawatts to hundreds, with major tech companies now looking to deploy more than a gigawatt of capacity at a time.

The reason is AI (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/ai). High-performance computing equipment, such as the graphics processing units made by companies like Nvidia (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/nvidia), use far more power than traditional data center servers. A Google search using AI computing consumes around 10 times more energy (https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/AI-poised-to-drive-160-increase-in-power- demand)
than a traditional search.
“We're not talking about 50-MW data centers anymore,” said Enchanted Rock Chief Commercial Officer Allan Schurr, whose firm partners with large energy users to locate on-site power generation. “We're talking about 500-MW or gigawatt-scale data centers.” ‘Too Many Pigs At The Table’
“Five years ago, we didn't see AI-type data centers coming on the grid. No one was talking about that,” ERCOT Chief Operating Officer Woody Rickerson told lawmakers at a June Senate Business and Commerce Committee hearing when lawmakers first learned expectations about future power demand had been upended.
“Those are extremely large. Just for comparison's sake, the city of Lubbock is about 700 MW, and some of these AI data centers are over 2,000 MW, so we're talking about putting three Lubbocks in 24 months at a site.”
When Texas demand hit a new high of 85 gigawatts in 2023, the hottest year recorded in the state, ERCOT expected demand to rise to 110 GW by 2030. After changing its projection methodology (https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/texas/ercot-long-term-planning- procress/269-adf87150-d459-42cb-b826-029b506bcb20)
in April, it raised that number to 150
GW.
470 of 637

Page 245 of 330 ends

The new projection brought worries about the health of the Texas grid to a head, seemingly sending some lawmakers into panic mode. Some wondered aloud whether the state could stop data centers and bitcoin mines from coming at all.
“AI’s just come on the scene, but who knows what’s next, even after that, that will consume even more?” said Sen. Donna Campbell, a Republican whose district includes parts of Austin and San Antonio. “Can we just say, ‘No, you can’t come’? Can we just say no? Too many pigs at the table just run out of food if they don’t come with their own trough full of food.” Much of the concern stems from 2021's Winter Storm Uri
(https://www.bisnow.com/tags/winter-storm-uri), which laid bare the Texas grid's vulnerability. More than 4 million homes and businesses were left without power amid freezing temperatures.

Power demand before Uri-related blackouts began was 69 gigawatt-hours (https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/cc48fcfebfae414b99b3d18f86c72c27/page/Power- Demand-During-Uri/), a new winter high. The Texas grid can typically handle 70 GWh, but 14 GW of natural gas and coal-fired power plants were offline for maintenance (https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/cc48fcfebfae414b99b3d18f86c72c27/page/Power- Supply-During-Uri/), a common practice during winter months.

But this time, disaster ensued. In addition to loss of life, by March 2022 (https://www.tdi.texas.gov/reports/documents/feb2021-tx-winter-weather-summary- mar2022.pdf), the Texas Department of Insurance had tallied 510,772 freeze-related insurance claims, with an expected payout total of $11.2B. The average incurred loss for commercial property was about $149K.
471 of 637

Page 246 of 330 ends

ERCOT, the Public Utilities Commission and lawmakers responded by going all out to ensure adequate generation resources would become available when the system is under stress. But with the gears of that fraught process in motion, the unexpected wave of electrical demand from data centers and bitcoin mines tossed a new wrench in the works.

There is a chance the state is “building a system that won’t fit,” said state Sen. Robert Nichols, a Republican from Jacksonville.
“This is so far different from anything we’ve ever seen.” Fear And Black Swans
But is the influx of data centers actually increasing the risk of catastrophic blackouts across Texas? The answer is complicated.

On one hand, experts refute the notion that a data center with the power consumption of a small city could suddenly switch on and take grid operators by surprise, plunging large swaths of Texas into darkness. Connecting a data center to the ERCOT grid isn't a free-for-all — it requires an extensive approval process, and permission is only granted once sufficient infrastructure is in place.

Still, energy experts like Enchanted Rock’s Schurr acknowledge that the ERCOT grid becomes more vulnerable as the addition of data centers and other large industrial power loads keeps demand on the grid in the upper range of its capacity. Grid operators must make sure there is always enough capacity operating or ready to operate for anticipated power demand, with extra in reserve in case of plant failures or other unforeseen events.

The problems come when an event like Uri reduces grid capacity, but data centers are already encroaching on the reserve margins of extra power, Shurr said. “We have to plan for the extreme events, the black swans,” he said. “If data centers are the cause of squeezing that reserve margin, then the reliability during those extreme events can be at risk.”
Many in the industry are quick to point out that data centers have their own backup electricity sources on-site, typically in the form of diesel or natural gas generators, allowing facilities to remain fully operational off grid. Nearly every data center in Texas remained online (https://www.bisnow.com/dallas-ft-worth/news/data-center/despite-arctic-inspired-panic- texas-data-centers-are-doing-alright-107802) during Winter Storm Uri, and their on-site power meant they didn’t contribute stress on the already overmatched ERCOT system.

But much of the concern around data centers’ impact on the Texas power grid has focused on one contentious corner of the broader data center ecosystem: bitcoin mines.

Unlike traditional data centers, bitcoin mining facilities don’t use the same amount of power all the time. As long as a miner’s power costs are less than the price of bitcoin, a facility will run at full tilt. But during times of energy scarcity, when the price of power goes up, bitcoin miners typically shut down entirely, pulling potentially hundreds of megawatts off the grid. 472 of 637

Page 247 of 330 ends

This pattern of electricity usage aligns with what ERCOT’s operators want. Yet it can also raise the risk of catastrophic grid failures. ERCOT and utilities have little transparency into bitcoin miners’ operations, making real-time predictions about energy demand challenging.

And if grid operators don’t correctly anticipate when bitcoin miners will shut down during periods of high demand, disaster can follow.
“It's a little bit of a hold-your-breath moment when we go into scarcity, not knowing for sure what that demand response is going to look like from one day to the next,” ERCOT’s Rickerson told lawmakers in June.

However, the characterization of bitcoin mining as an inherently destabilizing force on the state’s energy infrastructure has also received pushback from miners and ERCOT leadership, who say bitcoin miners can be part of the solution.

ERCOT has implemented demand response programs, in which major power consumers agree to effectively give their allotted power back to the grid by dramatically reducing electricity consumption during times of peak demand — for a price. Bitcoin mines are a natural fit for demand response.

But only about a third of Texas bitcoin mining operations are in such a program, according to Texas Blockchain Council President Lee Bratcher.

ERCOT leadership and mining groups like Bratcher’s are aligned in wanting to see all miners become so-called controllable load resources, giving ERCOT transparency into their operations and a say in when they disconnect during periods of high demand. These facilities could become an important stability resource, effectively adding gigawatts of emergency capacity to the grid. 473 of 637

Page 248 of 330 ends

Who’s Stuck With The Bill?
Texas lawmakers aren’t just worried about data centers and crypto mines making the state’s electricity less reliable. They’re also worried about them making it more expensive.

The flood of massive data centers and bitcoin mining developments seeking connections to the ERCOT grid far exceeds the capacity of Texas’ existing power infrastructure, particularly the transmission lines and substations needed to deliver power to these projects. ERCOT and its associated utilities, like all U.S. power providers, are legally obligated to fulfill these requests.

That means spending billions to expand grid capacity.

ERCOT already has $14B worth of transmission projects in some stage of preconstruction or development, and a significant increase in spending is needed to meet the wave of demand projected to be just around the corner, ERCOT’s leadership told lawmakers. In theory, the cost of these capital projects will be covered by data centers paying for the power they use.

But if billions of dollars are spent building transmission lines for a data center campus that never ends up being built or uses just a fraction of the electricity its developers asked for, the huge cost of these projects would be borne by all Texans in their power bills.

State lawmakers were quick to raise concerns about the potential for higher power rates, which they said would have the greatest impact on the state’s most vulnerable households. “I want to make sure that we don't increase the cost of everybody who can least afford it for a specialized project that’s for industries that are very profitable,” Sen. Jose Menendez, a San Antonio Democrat, told ERCOT leadership at the hearing.

Clouding the issue, ERCOT has little insight into how much of its record interconnection queue will materialize. In the data center industry and among utilities, there is broad consensus that much of the projected increase will never come to fruition — as much as 80% of ERCOT’s projection, Bratcher said.

A data center developer might apply for interconnections for 100 MW in five potential locations but only plan on building at one of them. That looks like 500 MW to ERCOT, but in reality it would only be 100 MW, Bratcher said.

Adding to this “phantom load,” landowners or developers with no relevant experience have made large connection requests for properties to boost land values and potentially flip the parcels to data center firms.
“In every single market, we've seen a flood of private equity guys and landowners who go to the utility and get a power study for 500 MW for a farm just so that land’s worth six times as much,” JLL U.S. Data Center Managing Director Andy Cvengros (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/andy- cvengros) said. “Utilities are looking at us to help them understand who's real and who’s not.” 474 of 637

Page 249 of 330 ends

Some steps are already being taken to help ERCOT make more accurate demand projections and separate the wheat from the chaff, hoping to lower the risk Texans will be stuck with the bill for billions in unneeded transmission infrastructure.

Oncor (https://www.bisnow.com/dallas-ft-worth/news/data-center/data-center-demand- continues-to-boom-in-dfw-even-as-other-assets-falter-119757), which transmits and delivers electricity to much of the Dallas-Fort Worth region and parts of the Permian Basin (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/permian-basin), started taking advantage of a law passed last year allowing transmission providers to give input on which loads they felt were likely to connect, Oncor Vice President Ellen Buck said during the Senate hearing.

Oncor determined that only 25 GW of the 47 GW seeking connections were likely to move forward after examining whether the requesting entity was legitimate, like a major tech firm or known developer, and whether they had started making financial commitments toward their projects, such as securing property or ordering equipment. “What we're looking at is, what's the customer's evidence of skin in the game?” Buck told the committee.

There is also support for charging potential connectors (https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/data-center/the-machete-approach-a-fight-between- data-centers-and-an-ohio-utility-may-preview-more-turmoil-ahead-125992) large fees, securing another form of collateral or requiring expensive studies as part of the application to request a connection. Those measures, widely used in other markets, could make speculative requests less likely.
475 of 637

Page 250 of 330 ends

“As a data center industry, as a bitcoin mining industry, we are all supportive of ERCOT charging fees for loads to be in the interconnection queue because we understand how important it is for them to have an accurate picture of what load is coming,” Bratcher said. “If that hurts our bottom line, then so be it.”
Reaching A ‘Tipping Point’
The increasingly hostile rhetoric from Texas lawmakers may signal a changing political landscape for the data center and bitcoin mining industries, which until recently were welcomed with open arms.

The severest suggestions floated by elected officials, banning bitcoin mining or new grid connections for data centers, have yet to manifest as concrete legislative proposals. But more limited bills were introduced, including a measure to limit bitcoin miners’ participation in demand response programs (https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/05/30/texas-bill-that- would-limit-miners-participation-in-cost-saving-grid-programs-stopped-in-house- committee/)
.

Meanwhile, there is a sense that the tone of the conversation around data centers and crypto mining in Austin is taking a rapid turn toward the negative. “Suddenly they flipped on crypto a few months ago,” said University of Houston (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/university-of-houston) energy fellow Ed Hirs, who predicted in 2013 (https://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/texas-suffers-from-soviet-style- electricity-4301693.php)
that ERCOT’s deregulated grid would result in power generation and distribution shortfalls. “I guess they read the pieces I've been putting out.” Texas would hardly be the first place where data centers have worn out their welcome. That pattern has played out (https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/data-center/an-expensive- lesson-facing-growing-local-hostility-data-center-developers-are-finally-trying-to-win-hearts- and-minds-122476) in a growing number of development hotbeds, where a data center building boom has sparked political efforts (https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/data- center/virginia-lawmakers-look-to-eliminate-data-centers-as-by-right-use-125001) to control or limit the industry’s growth.

While specific grievances driving opposition vary by market, concerns over the impact of skyrocketing electricity demand have led government officials and utilities in places like Columbus, Ohio (https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/data-center/the-machete-approach- a-fight-between-data-centers-and-an-ohio-utility-may-preview-more-turmoil-ahead- 125992)
, and Dublin (https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2023/11/27/data-centre- moratorium-could-strangle-digital-growth-and-impact-carbon-targets/) to pursue what are effectively moratoriums on new data center development (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/data- center-development).

The risks data centers pose to the reliability and price of electricity in Texas may be solvable through policy and regulatory changes. But industry players like Bill Thomas, chief energy officer at data center campus developer CleanArc (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/cleanarc- data-centers), caution that lawmakers and ERCOT could follow other jurisdictions' lead and decide that data centers just aren’t worth the trouble. 476 of 637

Page 251 of 330 ends

“I don't know what that tipping point is,” Thomas said. “Everything's bigger in Texas, but I think they've probably reached it.”
Check out Bisnow early next week when Data Centers Reporter Dan Rabb takes a closer look at crypto mining. The industry has been maligned by some politicians, but industry leaders say they can be part of the state's energy solution.

Contact Maddy McCarty at [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) See Also: Europe’s Largest Property Lender To Pull Back From New Ofﬁce Loans (/london/news/capital-markets/europes-largest-property-lender-to-pull-back-from-new-ofﬁce-loans- 126242)
Related Topics: JLL (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/jll), University of Houston (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/university-of- houston), Nathan Johnson (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/nathan-johnson), Ed Hirs (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/ed-hirs), Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/lt.-gov.-dan-patrick), Andy Cvengros (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/andy- cvengros), ERCOT (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/ercot), Texas grid (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/texas-grid), Enchanted Rock (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/enchanted-rock), Oncor (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/oncor), CleanArc Data Centers (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/cleanarc-data-centers), Woody Rickerson (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/woody-rickerson), Lori Cobos (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/lori-cobos), Sen. Donna Campbell (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/sen.-donna-campbell), Bill Thomas (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/bill-thomas), Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/electricity-reliability-council-of-texas), Allan Schurr (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/allan- schurr), Public Utility Commission of Texas (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/public-utility-commission-of-texas), Robert Nichols (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/robert-nichols), Lee Bratcher (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/lee-bratcher), Texas Blockchain Council (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/texas-blockchain-council), Ellen Buck (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/ellen- buck)
477 of 637

Page 252 of 330 ends

Staff Report
November 6, 2024
ATTACHMENT 4.c
Article – Recommendations for Proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data
Center Impacts in Fairfax County, dated
May 20, 2024

478 of 637

Page 253 of 330 ends


(https:/ /www.facebook.com/GreatFallsVaSierraClubChapter) 
(https:/ /www.meetup.com/Sierra-
Club-
GFG-
Meetup/)
Recommendations for Proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendment for
Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County

Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County
May 20, 2024
Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commissioners, We are writing to share our recommendations to address the impacts of accelerated growth of the data center industry in Fairfax County. We appreciate that the county has studied and issued “Data Centers – Report and Recommendations.” At the same time, the public deser
ves stronger protections than those that have been proposed in the Staff Summary dated April 23, 2024 with draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) language and the May 17, 2024 Staff Report in order to ensure that county policies adequately mitigate the myriad of negative environmental and public health impacts of this use.

Our concerns about the magnitude of future data center development focus particularly on the massive energy demand, water consumption and resu lting increases
in carbon emissions. In addition to the few standards offered in this draft ZOA in order to obviate the significant environmental impacts, it is essential that the county require:
9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 1/12 479 of 637

Page 254 of 330 ends

comprehensive building energy efficiency; procurement of new renewable energy by companies; the use of sustainable building materials, avoiding highly toxic diesel generator pollution and other natural resources protections.

In order to try to meet the unique set of impacts associated with data centers, we recommend that:

1. The county take a comprehensive regulation approach to the data center “use” and also expand “use-specific stand
ards” as part of this effort.

2. Data centers be regulated so that environmental and health mitigations are proportional to harmful impacts.

3. All data center proposed developments be subject to a Special Exception (SE).

Impacts of Virginia’s Data Centers
With the acceleration of computing and cooling demands from artificial intelligence and other rapidly- changing technologies, data centers now require far more energy and water to run. Today, the industry seeks data cente
rs that are larger and often taller to
pack in more servers to run more energy and water intensive applications. Yesterday’s data centers use far fewer resources compared to those planned to host artificial intelligence and other new applications, which could require at least 10 times the power to run.

Fairfax County has recently begun to approve larger facilities in tandem with market deman
d and their impacts won’t be fully understood until they come online. Those facilities (such as Chantilly Premier and Renaissance) are not in operation but appear to be more in line with data centers built in neighboring jurisdictions, giving us a reasonable basis for predicting impact.

We are deeply concerned about the projected total demand of energy to service data centers. With revised forecasts from PJM, the region’s grid pr ovider, the data center
industry in Virginia is now expected

Page 2 ends

9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 2/12 480 of 637

Page 255 of 330 ends

to need over 25,000 MW (25 GW) just to service Virginia’s data centers by 20391.

This would be the equivalent of 28 coal plants (the size of Clover Power Plant in Hallifax County, still in operation at 877 MW.) Newly approved transmission lines are expected to bring coal to Virginia already delaying coal plant closures.2 Dominion has also
revived pre-pandemic plans to build a natural gas peaker plant in Chesterfield County to meet growing grid demand in the coming years, due to data center growth. Data center developers, rather than the ratepayer or taxpayer, should bear the expense of infrastructure needed to operate their facilities so that Fairfax County residents do not shoulder the burden.

Because the
data center growth is driving Dominion’s reliance on fossil-fueled generation,3 Dominion has projected to double greenhouse gas emissions to 36,000,000 metric tons by 2048.4 That Loudoun County’s GHG emissions have increased by over 50% due to data centers5 is a serious concern for the region and the state and foreshadows what will happen in other jurisdictions if mitigating protective measures aren’t enacted. The energy trajectory created with this unprecedented industrial build out could reverse the ongoing work to deliver a cleaner grid, which will also undermine the county’s ability to meet its Community-wide Energy an d Climate
Action Plan (CECAP) goals. All of this is to say that the increases in carbon we are seeing makes clear that effective local policies to mitigate these impacts are imperative.

Recommendations for Data Center Use Standards
Screening/Enclosures:

We support requiring equipment enclosures. Does this include enclosing diesel generators? Is that considered “mechanically feasible” or would we expect a waiver on those? We recommend that generators and
HVAC equipment be located away from
(not adjacent to) residential, public and commercial uses, in order to reduce pollution, noise and aesthetic impacts to adjacent properties.

Maximum Size:

Data Centers are rapidly growing in size and server capacity. For instance, newly built or proposed data centers in Loudoun County are generally over 200,000 square feet and increas
ingly as much as 1,000,000 square feet. Demand for hyperscale size buildings reflect market conditions post 2023, thereby precluding the need for by right 9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 3/12 481 of 637

Page 256 of 330 ends

standards under 80,000 square feet. (The currently under review by right Plaza 500 Bren Mar proposal is for 461,244 sf and Chantilly Premier was approved at 402,000 sf and other recent projects are over 1 million sf)
Likewise, we believe that the demand for and speculation around data center development does not warr
ant a credit for repurposing under a by right standard.

Repurposing of underperforming commercial properties for data centers is already underway at an accelerated pace in other jurisdictions, so the incentivizing redevelopment for data centers is unnecessary. Further, a possible 200,000 square foot addition is a substantial 2.5 times the s
quare footage that is proposed as a by right
maximum. Either way, our strong recommendation is to require the data center use to be subject to a Special Exception across the board so that proffers can be offered to mitigate impacts.

While there are some similarities in transportation, freight, warehouse and distribution- related industrial facilities, the data center use differs significantly fr om other industrial
uses in the sheer magnitude of its impact on land, energy and water resources. The possibility that under certain conditions it could
1 https:/ /www.pjm.com/-/media/planning/res-adeq/load-forecast/load-forecast- supplement.ashx
2 https:/ /www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2024/data-centers- internet-power-source-coal/
3 (https:/ /www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2023/05/dominion-announces-future- energy-production-customers- and-its-bleak)
4 Dominion Energy’s 2023 IRP, page 7, preferred plans B and C summary. https:/ /www.dominionenergy.com/- /media/pdfs/global/company/desc- 2023-integrated-resource-plan.pdf
5Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

Page 3 ends

function as a power plant must also be taken into consideration. This concept, to provide an air quality variance for diesel generators in Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William Counties, was floated last year by the Department of Environmental 9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 4/12 482 of 637

Page 257 of 330 ends

Quality.6 And while it was later withdrawn, it could be revived due to energy and transmission constraints. One must consider that Fairfax County is highly populated and quickly urbanizing, and with the majority of I-5 districts residing directly adjacent to residential areas, the health hazards to adding thousands of diesel generators near population centers cou
ld be harmful to far larger numbers of residents based on proximity.

Further, since the county’s Policy Plan does not currently have adequate standards for data centers, a Special Exception gives the board flexibility to address issues such as green building and renewable energy, stormwater, water use that also cannot adequately be regulated under by right conditions
.

Noise Impacts:

We support pre and post construction studies with adequate standards to protect adjacent properties 24/7. Further, we believe data center noise should not be audible over the property line and the ZOA and/or county Noise Ordinance should provide for this. This measure would protect neighbors from the continuous low humming noi ses
as well as noise from generators. Generators should not run from 8 pm to 8 am. This is a health issue, as well as a comfort issue for residents.

Setbacks:

Setbacks should not only be from residential areas, they also should be from schools, hospitals, parks and other public amenities. We generally suggest a buffer of 500 feet.

In terms
of noise and disturbance, the usefulness of a protective buffer adjacent neighbors and uses is also predicated on the efficacy of the noise ordinance and/or noise mitigations required by the county and provided by the developer for the combined impacts of the building, cooling systems and generators. In order the achieve the property line measurement under “noise impacts,” buffers may have to be expanded and
natural barriers, such as mature trees planted.

It was shocking to learn that a new substation for the Plaza 500 by right data centers, currently under review by the county, is proposed a very short distance of 80 feet from residential townhomes. While the state plays a large role in approving substations, localities must have protections in place so that major energy infrastructure is far from
homes, schools, hospitals and other public spaces. There is no way such placement could “minimize adverse visual impacts” as well. On the other side of this proposed development, transmission lines are planned to be constructed in the Resource 9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 5/12 483 of 637

Page 258 of 330 ends

Protection Area of Turkeycock Run. In this current situation, a small buffer of 200 feet would be wholly inadequate to protect adjacent properties. We suggest that additional protective language be included in this ZOA to avoid these situations.

Distance from Metro:

Data Centers should be sited at least 1 mile from TSAs and major transit hubs such as Metro stations. Siting Data centers within walking di
stance of 15-20 minutes of transit
undermines the County’s smart growth goals to populate residential, employment centers and mixed-use residential near transit. Data Centers employ few people and if near transit, take up valuable space, reducing the utility of critical county transit infrastructure. Current data centers near the Reston Town Center and Loudoun Station Metros are example
s of this. For the same reason, even under an SE, at least a 1-mile standard should be in force. Further, the SE process would allow the county to ensure that data centers are not sited in industrial zones a mile or more from major transit near incompatible development. For instance, the Mosaic District is a mile or more from the Dunn Loring Metro and there are similar areas nea
r the Springfield Metro where
existing industrial areas or commercial areas that would qualify for larger data center development by repositioning under this proposed ZOA would be incompatible with other uses
6 https:/ /www.deq.virginia.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/971/17

Page 4 ends

and/or would reduce the potential to build for transit use. So, instead of a (5) “lesser” distance, a holistic look at a transit area might call for a greater distance.

Zoning Districts:

We support the option to remove permission for data centers in the PRC District. This use seems incompatible with the PRC focus on green open space.

Use-Specific Standards addressed in the Study, but not in the draft ZOA Several significant issues wer
e addressed in the January 9, 2024 Data Center Study
that are excluded from the draft ZOA language. Deferring the implementation of use- specific standards contributes risk to the power grid, increases in carbon emissions, 9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 6/12 484 of 637

Page 259 of 330 ends

depletion of local water resources and public health. The county should be prepared now to address the emerging and more intense resource demands and environmental impacts of any proposed development. There should be a pause in approvals of the data center use until the following critical issues are adequately addressed.

Diesel Generator Impacts:

We ask that you avoid the use of
unhealthy diesel fuel or natural gas for back-up
generators. Alternatively, we ask that you require on-site microgrids for back up for each building with solar and battery storage. We recommend that if diesel is allowed, a requirement be established for Tier IV generators or the best available/highest standard technology that is the least pollu
ting. These generators should be treated as
having the potential to be used as power plants (see above), so their cumulative effects to public health should be well understood.

One Fairfax/Equity Protections
We urge the county to protect vulnerable populations under One Fairfax from health and pollution harms. Has DPD or other agencies conducted a formal analysis of the potential impact on neighborhoods likely to see data center development? Low-income a
reas which already suffer or may suffer from neighborhood conditions that challenge public health should be protected from the polluting effects of data centers and not located near them. Such protections should be integrated into this ZOA.

Energy Impacts:

We must require state-of-the-art building and cooling efficiency to address the massive energy demand associated with this use. Given the extent of potential use for the purpo
se, Fairfax County data centers should be at least in the top 10% nationwide for efficiency and water use. As mentioned in the Study, a Power Utilization Standard (PUE) performance metric should be required to promote energy efficiency. We suggest a PUE of 1.12 or less with a method of third-party certification be required under a Special Exception.

It is our understanding that LEE
D-silver does not ensure that the building will deliver the needed level of energy efficiency. LEED-DC Gold or stronger certification with ASHRAE 90.4 is needed. All buildings must be constructed and operated using best practices or better in the industry with respect to building construction, noise attenuation, and cooling technologies. We suggest that third party certification be 9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 7/12 485 of 637

Page 260 of 330 ends

required of the building’s design and construction according to the standards which are utilized. We ask that you benchmark renewable and total energy use for data center reporting requirements and make the information public. We recommend the following best practices language for energy efficiency in any data center application:

Best Practices for Energy Efficiency: All buildings on the Property must be constructed and operated using best practices or better in the industry with respect to building construction, noise attenuation, and cooling technologies. All data center buildings must be constructed to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) “Gold” standards for Building Design and

Page 5 ends

Construction, achieving at least 16 of the 18 points available in the Optimize Energy Performance section of the Energy and Atmosphere category or a recognized industry equivalent such as EnergyStar certification, with a certification score of at least 90 points. Prior to the issuance of the permanent certificate of occupancy for such building, a licensed engineer or architect must provide the Planning Department with certification that such building was
constructed according to the standards specified under LEED Gold or EnergyStar certification at the 90-point scoring level. Any other recognized building industry equivalent that may be used for the building design and construction must produce equal or better energy efficiency performance than the two standards mentioned above. The operation and maintenance of all data center buildings must be consistent
with generally recognized industry energy efficiency standards and guidelines for data centers (i.e. ASHRAE Standard 90.4), to the maximum extent possible.

Carbon Costs:

Data Centers are a climate issue. Strong proffers could also reduce future climate mitigation costs resulting from emissions associated with data centers. Projects of this magnitude should require thorou
gh impact analyses of its impact on the county's
carbon footprint. Since we know that emissions increases are associated with the data center use, and it will increasingly depend on going “back to coal” to meet energy demand, what will the county do to ensure that its carbon emissions do not increase if new and data centers come online?
9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 8/12 486 of 637

Page 261 of 330 ends

Water Impacts:

It is imperative to have a solid understanding of the water quantity needed for operation of the centers, as well as water quality issues presented. When data centers are serviced by public water sources, the public should have an understanding of water demand and quality impact.

Jurisdictions servicing data centers with AI applications have seen huge increases in
water consumption. This is an emerging area of concern and discussion by the industry and in many local communities. Based on limitations of air cooling for AI applications and what might have been an industry standard in the past, the use of liquid cooling is increasing by necess
ity.7 The experience of Des Moines, Iowa gives us a peek into water usage8 and the additional strain that can be placed on the region’s drinking water supply.

Therefore, water impact studies should be performed before any approvals and the data should be made publicly available sufficiently in advance to allow for public consideration and comment; water pollution prevention measures should protect soils and capture chemical residue; outflows should protect fr om residue such as bromine
and salt; a significant percentage of water should be recycled or reclaimed and should neither deplete nor imperil surface or groundwater sources needed for drinking water; and drinking water for residents should be designated as a priority use during drought con
ditions.

Transportation Impacts:

The traffic analysis and plan should take into consideration the impact on transportation and imperative of safe delivery of diesel fuel and that the time of delivery should not impact nearby neighborhoods.
7 https:/ /www.datacenterknowledge.com/industry-perspectives/data-center-liquid- cooling-moving-niche- mainstream#close-modal
8 https:/ /apnews.com/article/chatgpt-gpt4-iowa-ai-water-consumption-microsoft- f551fde98083d17a7e8d904f8be822c4

Page 6 ends

Conclusion
9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 9/12 487 of 637

Page 262 of 330 ends

Last year (2023) was the hottest year in 170 years of record keeping, even exceeding scientists' predictions. The fact that climate change is an existential threat to all of us requiring swift action of every level of government has been repeated so often that scientists sound like a broken record. And yet, this is an existential issue and so their warnings must be heeded.

The land use regulatory power at the local level is foundational to ensuring data center developers are held accountable for short and long-term impacts and therefore are pr
otecting ratepayers and Fairfax County residents from the long-term costs for carbon mitigation, and the impacts on air quality, and energy and water bills.

As always, we are happy to discuss these recommendations at any time.

Thanks,
Ann Bennett
Land Use Chair, Sierra Club Great Falls Group Virginia Chapter Data Center Issues Chair
Susan Bonney
Chair, Sierra Club Great Falls Group
CC: John Morrill OEEC, Rachel Flynn, DCE
Carmen Bishop, DZA Katherine Hermann, DPD

9 https:/ /www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/04/20/upshot/carbon-dioxide- growth.html

Sign Up for Email Updates from the Great Falls Group.
9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 10/12 488 of 637

Page 263 of 330 ends

first name
last name
email
zip
By signing up, you are opting in to receive periodic communications from the Sierra Club.

Sierra Club News
Orphaned Oil and Gas Wells Are a Huge Source of Greenhouse Gases (/sierra/2024-3- fall/notes-here-there/orphaned-oil-and-gas-wells-are-huge-source-greenhouse-gases) This company is racing to fix Pennsyvania's leaking wells Meet the Mainers at the Bleeding Edge of the Home Electrification Revolution (/sierra/2024- 3-fall/notes-here-there/meet-mainers-bleeding-edge-home-electrification-revolution) Progressive state incentives, plus the IRA, allow Maine to install heat pumps faster than any other state
Electrify Your Wheels: Check Out the New Range of E-Bikes (/sierra/2024-3-
fall/feature/electrify-your-wheels-check-out-new-range-e-bikes) What kind of cyclist are you?
Electrify Your Wheels: Here Are the Latest EVs for Bargain Hunters (/sierra/2024-3- fall/feature/electrify-your-wheels-here-are-latest-evs-bargain-hunters) There are more affordable EVs than ever before
How to Navigate the Clean Energy Transition (/sierra/2024-3-fall/feature/how-navigate- clean-energy-transition)
Some tips for electrifying your home and transportation More Sierra Club news (/articles)
Sign Up
9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 11/12 489 of 637

Page 264 of 330 ends

Page 265 of 330 ends

Staff Report
November 6, 2024
ATTACHMENT 5
Notice of Determination

491 of 637

Page 266 of 330 ends

Notice of Exemption From: City of Monterey Park Planning 320 W. Newmark Avenue
To: Monterey Park, CA 91754
x Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
 Los Angeles, County Clerk
Environmental Filings
12400 Imperial Highway #1201
Norwalk, CA 90650
Attn: Business Filings and Registration

Project Title: Data Center Regulations
Project Location - Specific: Citywide
Project Location - City: Monterey Park
Project Location - County: Los Angeles

Description of Project:

Adopt regulations governing data centers within Saturn Park in accordance with Section 3(A) of Ordinance No. 2198 (adopted by voters as Measure JJ on November 3, 2020).

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Monterey Park Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: City of Monterey Park

Exempt Status: (check one)
 Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268);
 Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
 Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
x Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: § 15060(c)(2), § 15378(b)(5) § 15301 § 15303 and § 15061(b)(3)  Statutory Exemptions. State code number:

Reasons why project is exempt:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. ; “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq.; the “CEQA Guidelines”), the City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed regulations. No additional environmental review is required for these regulations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15060(c)(2), § 15378(b)(5) § 15301 § 15303 and § 15061(b)(3). The se regulations are exempt from additional CEQA review because the regulations would amend existing zoning to govern data centers within Saturn Park in accordance with the voter enacted Land Use Element. This will not have a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA because it will not make physical changes to the environment. Additionally, the regulations are exempt from additional CEQA review under the commonsense exemption that it will not affect the environment. Any future data center project applications will require separate environmental review as required by applicable law.

Lead Agency Contact Person: Jessica Serrano Telephone (626) 307-1463

If filed by applicant:

1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.

2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project?  Yes  No

Signature: _________________________________ Date: 11/6/24 Title: Director of Community Development

 Signed by Lead Agency Date received for filing at OPR:
 Signed by Applicant
492 of 637

Page 267 of 330 ends

City Council Staff Report

Date: March 4, 2026
Agenda Item Number: 12.A.

To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Inez Alvarez, City Manager
Karl Berger , City Attorney
Subject: Consideration and possible action to call for a special election on June 2, 2026 and adding a proposition to the ballot prohibiting data centers citywide

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Adopting Resolution Nos. 2026-R5 through 2026-R8 which, collectively, call for a special election on June 2, 2026, add a proposition to the ballot prohibiting data centers citywide, request an impartial analysis, and establish procedures for ballot arguments;

2. Determining whether the City Council should submit an argument in favor of the ballot proposition;

3. Approving a budget adjustment and appropriation of $210,000 to pay for the special election costs;

4. Approving a budget adjustment and appropriation of $100,000 to pay for anticipated litigation costs; and

5. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The City Council is required to conduct environmental review of matters it places onto the ballot pursuant to Elections Code § 9222. Placing this matter onto the June 2, 2026 ballot is not subject to further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.) for the reasons stated in Section 4 of the draft Proposition. The City Manager, or designee, is directed to file a notice of determination.

Executive Summary:

Pursuant to City Council direction, the proposed actions would call a June 2, 2026 special election and place a citywide prohibition on data centers on the ballot. These proposed actions are protected legislative activities that are not directed toward any particular property or applicant. If approved by voters, the Proposition would amend the voter-approved Land Use and Urban Design Element to prohibit data centers in every zone. It is not recommended that the City Council undertake its own zoning amendments until after the June 2nd election date.

Background:

Page 268 of 330 ends

On February 4, 2026, the City Council directed the City Manager and City Attorney to draft a proposed ballot measure prohibiting data centers within the City. If adopted by the City Council, the draft resolutions included with this staff report would (1) call a special election for June 2, 2026; (2) place a proposition onto the ballot for that election; and (3) take all of the ancillary actions needed to effectuate voter consideration of that ballot proposition.

While the City Council already made it plain that it supports a citywide prohibition on data centers, it seems prudent to also discuss litigation threats challenging the City Council’s potential actions.
• Data Centers in Saturn Park

As discussed on multiple occasions, there is a pending application for a data center at 1977 Saturn. That matter is not on this agenda. While that project was scheduled for public hearing in November, the applicant requested that it be continued to a date uncertain. The attached letter from February 4, 2026, responds to the litigation threats made by that applicant.

There is no change in the facts regarding that application since then.

What is on tonight’s agenda are (1) an item regarding extending the existing moratorium on data centers; and (2) this item. Both are related: were the City Council to extend the moratorium, part of the basis for that decision would be whether to place the draft Proposition on the June 2, 2026 ballot. If the Proposition is approved by voters, then the moratorium would become moot as data centers would then be prohibited on a citywide basis. A voter-approved prohibition on data centers offers the strongest legal protection for the City against litigation threats.
• Public Comment regarding Ordinance No. 2253

Some public commentators urged the City Council to repeal Ordinance No. 2253. Their argument is that repealing this Ordinance would result in data centers being a prohibited land use within Saturn Park. Repealing Ordinance No. 2253, however, would significantly weaken the City’s ability to defend against potential legal challenges.

A. Environmental Argument
Part of the argument is that the City now has “new evidence” regarding data centers that require an update to Ordinance No. 2253’s CEQA findings. There are two issues with this argument: (1) all the data cited by the public commentators was referenced after Ordinance No. 2253 became effective; and (2) any CEQA challenge to the Ordinance needed filing by May 19, 2025. That did not occur and is now time barred.

Ordinance No. 2253 did not approve any data center project; it is a legislative decision made by the City Council establishing rules that apply to future projects. Any such future data center project is subject to individual CEQA review and must stand on its own merits.

B. Differentiating between a data processing facility and a data center Another part of the argument is that the City Council added a “new” land use to Saturn Park, i.e., a data center land use category. Arguably, this is accurate. However, clarifying the

Page 269 of 330 ends

difference between a data processing facility and a data center is a crucial element of Ordinance No. 2253. A data center project requires City Council approval via a development agreement; a data processing facility project does not. The latter may be approved ministerially, i.e., there are no public hearings associated with the project and it must be approved if it meets objective legal standards.

In contrast, a data center project cannot be approved without a development agreement. A development agreement may only be approved by adopting an ordinance. Deciding to adopt an ordinance requires the City Council to exercise its legislative discretion and ensures each project under consideration undergoes environmental review. The City and City Council have legislative immunity when making such decisions, i.e., it is highly unlikely that the City could be held liable for the City Council’s reasonable decision-making.

C. A data center is not heavy manufacturing
The argument that a data center constitutes “heavy manufacturing” and is therefore prohibited within Saturn Park also misses important considerations. A data center does not meet the definition of “heavy manufacturing” in either the General Plan or the Monterey Park Municipal Code, since it involves neither the transformation of raw materials into finished goods nor constitutes a manufacturing use.

D. Ordinance No. 2253 regulates Saturn Park, not the entire City The argument assumes that data centers are a permitted use only in Saturn Park. That is incorrect. Data centers are also an allowed use within the Market Place Specific Plan (adopted in 2023). That means data center projects proposed for the Market Place – like data processing facilities in Saturn Park – may be processed ministerially without public hearings.

Even if repealing the Ordinance would make data centers a prohibited use within Saturn Park (which is incorrect), therefore, such action would not affect zoning regulations in other areas of the City. The City Council’s desire is to prohibit data centers citywide.This necessarily means that all zoning regulations would need amending to also prohibit data centers. • Legislative Decisions are Protected

In California, legislative actions by elected officials are exercises of the right of petition and free speech on matters of public concern under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16. Legislative acts such as introducing, debating, and voting on ordinances or resolutions, participating in public hearings, or making official statements in the course of lawmaking are generally considered “official proceedings” or speech made in connection with such proceedings, which falls squarely within the categories of protected activity set out in the statute. When a lawsuit targets an official for these kinds of legislative decisions or statements – for example, claiming damages based on how they voted or what they said in a council meeting – the official can move to strike the claims through an anti-SLAPP motion. If the court grants the motion, the challenged claims are thrown out, the case is stopped as to those claims, and the defendant is generally entitled to recover their attorney’s fees and court costs from the plaintiff, with only narrow exceptions written into the statute.

Here, the record is plain – despite written and public complaints from the data center applicant for 1977 Saturn – that the City Council’s discussions, debates, and actions are all legislative.

Page 270 of 330 ends

Moreover, any decision regarding 1977 Saturn – had the City Council ever considered that project – would also be legislative (for the reasons noted above). Every public discussion regarding data centers focused on the “big picture” impact of data centers in Monterey Park.

These are squarely legislative decisions constituting mainly political activity where the City Council “declare[s] a public purpose and make[s] provisions for the ways and means of its accomplishment.” The City Council’s ability to engage in such action is presumptively protected.
• Ballot Proposition

The City Council’s direction regarding the draft Proposition is clear: a prohibition on data centers citywide. This direction is reflected in the Proposition included with this staff report.

To ensure that the prohibition would be effective citywide – not just in Saturn Park – the Proposition (if approved by voters) would amend the Monterey Park Land Use and Urban Design Element (approved by voters as Measure JJ on November 3, 2020) to prohibit data centers in every zone within the City. The Proposition also directs the City Council to adopt zoning regulations to implement this prohibition within the Monterey Park Municipal Code.

The City Council has the authority to place a measure on the ballot up until 88 days before the election (Elections Code § 9222). For the June 2, 2026 election, the last date for placing something on the ballot is March 6, 2026.

Pursuant to Elections Code § 9280, the City Council has the discretion to direct the City Clerk to transmit the measure to the City Attorney, and per that same section the City Attorney may be directed to prepare impartial analyses of the measure for inclusion in the Sample Ballot and Voters Information Pamphlet. A proposed resolution directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis is included.

The City Council also has the discretion of authorizing its membership, by majority vote, to file written argument(s) regarding the measure and to adopt provisions to provide for the filing of rebuttal arguments. The following persons may write an argument, not exceeding 300 words, for or against the measure:

1. The City Council;

2. Councilmembers authorized by the City Council;

3. Voters eligible to vote on the measure (i.e., a registered voter in the city);

4. A bona fide citizens' association; or

5. Any combination of voters and associations.

An argument cannot be accepted unless it is accompanied by the name(s) of the person(s) submitting it. If an organization submits an argument, it must include the organization's name and the name of at least one principal officer. Only the first five signatures appearing with an argument will be printed on the sample ballot.

The City Clerk must select a reasonable deadline for submitting arguments, taking into account that voters must be allowed to examine the elections material for at least 10 calendar days

Page 271 of 330 ends

before printing.

When submitted, one argument for the measure and one argument against the measure must be printed on the sample ballot. If there is more than one argument submitted, the City Clerk must select from among them. The City Clerk must give preference and priority to arguments in the following order:

1. The City Council, or Councilmembers authorized by the City Council.

2. A bona fide association of citizens.

3. Individual voters eligible to vote on the measure.

If the City Council adopts the provisions in Elections Code § 9285(a) by majority vote before the election, rebuttal arguments may be included on the sample ballot. If the Council adopts provisions of that section, the following rules apply:
• The City Clerk must send copies of the argument supporting the measure to opponents of the measure, and must send copies of the argument against the measure to measure proponents. Each side is then entitled to submit a rebuttal argument, not exceeding 250 words.
• Rebuttal arguments must be submitted within 10 days after the deadline for filing direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument must be printed immediately following the direct argument it seeks to rebut.

Proposed Timeline and Los Angeles County Election Deadlines

If the City Council places the Proposition on the June 2, 2026 ballot, the following timeline applies:

March 4, 2026 Approve adding measure to the June 2, 2026, ballot March 5, 2026 Post Notice of Deadline for Filing Arguments March 6, 2026 Last day to file a resolution with Board of Supervisors and County elections official requesting consolidation for a ballot measure
March 6, 2026 Last day to file a resolution with the County elections official and the Board of Supervisors to amend/withdraw a measure previously submitted for placement on the ballot
March 13, 2026 Last day to file Arguments and City Attorney's Impartial Analyses
Mar. 14-23, 2026 10-calendar-day public examination period Mar. 23, 2026 Last day to file Rebuttal Arguments
Mar. 24-April 2, 2026 10-calendar-day public examination period June 2, 2026 Election Day

Page 272 of 330 ends

Strategic Plan Goal:

N/A

Fiscal Impact:

The estimated cost charged by the County of Los Angeles to add the proposition to the ballot for the June 2, 2026 election is $193,267.24. The cost includes a city-wide reach of voters. A ballot measure will also require more printed materials in the Official Sample Ballot, which may increase the cost. A budget amendment and appropriation of $210,000 for election costs is proposed. Additionally, the City expects potential litigation regarding this topic; a budget amendment and appropriation of $100,000 is requested for these costs. Combined, the total budget amendment and appropriation is $310,000.

Attachments:

1. February 4, 2026 Response to HMC/ Sheppard Mullin from City Attorney

2. Draft Resolution Calling a Special Election on June 2, 2026 Pursuant to Elections Code § 9222

3. Draft Reso. Adding a Prop. to the Ballot Prohibiting Data Centers for Previously Called June 2, 2026 Special Election Pursuant to Elections Code §9222

4. Draft Resolution Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis of the Proposition Prohibiting Data Centers

5. Draft Reso. Est. Requirements for Ballot Arguments Filed with the City Clerk to be Included with Voter Info for the General Election on June 2, 2026

Page 273 of 330 ends

Staff Report
March 4, 2026
ATTACHMENT 1
February 4, 2026 Response to HMC/
Sheppard Mullin from City Attorney

Page 274 of 330 ends

Pride in the Past • Faith in the Future

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
320 West Newmark Avenue • Monterey Park • California 91754-2896 www.montereypark.ca.gov City Council Henry Lo Vinh Ngo Jose Sanchez Thomas Wong Elizabeth Yang City Clerk Maychelle Yee City Treasurer Amy Lee Mr. James Pugh Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, California 92626-1993 Re: Response to Your February 4, 2026 Letter Regarding Agenda Item 9.A Dear Mr. Pugh: Thank you for your letter dated February 4, 2026. Notably, despite the agenda being posted last week, your correspondence arrived at 3:35 p.m. on the date of the Council meeting. This does not provide the City Council a meaningful opportunity to absorb your letter before considering Council Member Ngo’s agenda item. My review of your correspondence shows that there is nothing new in your misplaced arguments. Your client’s project is not on tonight’s agenda. And, at your client’s request, it is unclear when it will be rescheduled for consideration. Your letter, once again, complains that the City somehow created roadblocks for your client’s application. The administrative record, however, shows the contrary is true. On November 14, 2025, your correspondence requested a continuance:

On December 3, 2025, your correspondence again requested a continuance and committed your client to “informing the community regarding the reality and facts of the Project”:

Page 275 of 330 ends

February 4, 2026 Page 2
On December 20, 2025, your correspondence again committed your client to community outreach and voluntarily agreed to prepare an EIR:

Contrary to your client’s commitment to “share information,” “better understand community concerns,” and “share more updates, online resources, and invite residents to community meetings,” your client did nothing. Instead, your client left the City and its residents guessing regarding what – if anything – would happen with your client’s application. Since your letter characterizes the various threats and misinformation contained therein as “legal,” I remind you that your client’s application is subject to the City Council’s legislative decision-making process. To be approved, your client’s project requires both a development agreement and a zone change. These are legislative decisions made by the City Council. Judicial interference with such decisions is unlikely. Accordingly, if your client chooses to inadvisably take legal action against the City for damages, this office will seek to recover defense costs, including attorney’s fees, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1038.1 Your claims of “hostility,” “bias,” or a “flip” in the City’s position are unfounded. The City Council is entitled to evaluate whether additional policy direction is warranted for a citywide land use category, separate and apart from any particular application. Your efforts to chill the valid exercise of the City’s elected officials associated with the very public issue of data centers in general (not your client’s application in particular) interferes with the City’s and public officials’ constitutional rights.2 1 See Kobzoff v. Los Angeles County Harbor/UCLA Medical Center (1998) 19 Cal.4th 851. 2 Sipple v. Foundation For Nat. Progress (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 226, 235; see Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16

Page 276 of 330 ends

February 4, 2026 Page 3

Finally, your repeated assertions that City actions are “targeted” at the 1977 Saturn project are contradicted by the record. As recently as January 21, 2026, I wrote to you that the agenda item applied to data centers generally. Nothing has changed.

The City will proceed with tonight’s agenda in accordance with law. Nothing in your letter alters the Council’s discretion to adopt, modify, or decline any generally applicable policy measure concerning data centers. When and if your client’s project retur ns for hearing, it will receive a fair process consistent with applicable law and the evidentiary record.

Very truly yours,

Karl H. Berger
City Attorney

c: City Council
City Manager

Page 277 of 330 ends

Staff Report
March 4, 2026
ATTACHMENT 2
Draft Resolution Calling a Special Election on
June 2, 2026 Pursuant to Elections Code § 9222

Page 278 of 330 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION ON JUNE 2, 2026 PURSUANT TO ELECTIONS CODE § 9222

The City Council of the city of Monterey Park resolves as follows:

SECTION 1: Pursuant to Elections Code § 9222, the City Council calls for a Special Election to be held in the City of Monterey Park on Tuesday, June 2, 2026, for the purpose of considering a proposition placed on the ballot by the City Council.

SECTION 2: Pursuant to Elections Code § 320, the City Clerk is the Elections Official and is authorized to take all legal actions to administer the election.

SECTION 3: The City Council authorizes the City Clerk to administer said election and the City will pay all reasonable and actual election expenses upon presentation of a properly submitted invoice.

SECTION 4: The polls for the election will open at seven o’clock a.m. on the day of the election and continuously remain open from that time until eight o’clock p.m. of the same day when the polls will close pursuant to Election Code § 10242 , except as provided in Elections Code § 14401.

SECTION 5: Notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law.

SECTION 6: In all particulars not specifically recited in this Resolution, the election will be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.

SECTION 7: If the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors permits the Special Election to be consolidated with the Statewide Primary Election on June 2, 2026, then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 5, 6, or 7, above, within the City the precincts, polling places, and election officers of the two elections will be the same the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles will canvass the returns of the Special Election and the election will be held in all respects as if there were only one election.

SECTION 8: The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.

SECTION 9: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption.

Page 279 of 330 ends

Resolution No.

Page 2 of 2 ends

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 2026.

_______________________________
Elizabeth Yang, Mayor
ATTEST:

_______________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

Page 280 of 330 ends

Staff Report
March 4, 2026
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Resolution Adding a Proposition to the Ballot
Prohibiting Data Centers for the Previously Called
June 2, 2026 Special Election Pursuant to
Elections Code § 9222

Page 281 of 330 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION ADDING A PROPOSITION TO THE BALLOT

PROHIBITING DATA CENTERS FOR THE PREVIOUSLY CALLED JUNE 2, 2026 SPECIAL ELECTION PURSUANT TO ELECTIONS CODE § 9222

THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council called a Special Election to be held on Tuesday, June 2, 2026, for the purpose of placing a proposition on the ballot for voter consideration.

SECTION 2. Pursuant to Elections Code § 9222, the City Council places a proposition captioned the “Community Act Prohibiting Data Centers” on the ballot for the special election scheduled for Tuesday, June 2, 2026 pursuant to Resolution No. XX, adopted March 4, 2026.

SECTION 3. Pursuant to the requirements of Elections Code § 10403, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles is requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a proposition on the ballot for the General Municipal Election consolidated with the General Election on Tuesday, November 5, 2024.

SECTION 4. Environmental Review. To ensure compliance with all applicable law including, without limitation, Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal.4th 165, the City Council finds and determines that this Proposition is not subject to further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.; “CEQA”) for the following reasons:

A. It will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15060(c)(2)). A prohibition on data centers means they cannot be constructed.

B. There is no possibility that the Proposition may have a significant effect on the environment (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)). A prohibition on data centers means they cannot be constructed.

C. This Proposition, by itself, does not constitute a “project” as defined in the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15378).

D. Additionally, CEQA Guidelines § 15168(c)(2) provides that if a project is proposed which has been the subject of a prior certified EIR, and “[i]f the [City] finds that pursuant to [14 Cal. Code of Regs.] Section 15162, no new effects could occur or new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the … EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.” The City Council finds that it certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for the Monterey Park Land Use and Urban Design Element (as adopted by Ordinance

Page 282 of 330 ends

No. 2198 and approved by voters as Measure JJ on November 3, 2020) which was filed as State Clearing House No. 2001-01-1074. This Proposition will not result in any new environmental impact not already considered in the FEIR and no further environmental review is required.

SECTION 5. A copy of the Proposition to be considered by the voters is attached as Exhibit “A,” and incorporated by reference.

SECTION 6. Pursuant to Elections Code §§ 9222 and 13119, the exact form of the question to be voted on at the election as it should appear on the ballot is as follows:

Proposition to Prohibit Data Centers in Monterey Park

Shall the ordinance amending the City of Monterey Park
General Plan to prohibit data centers citywide to protect air quality, drinking water resources and public health; prevent impacts to electricity and water rates; with the prohibition of data centers continuing until ended by voters, be adopted?

YES

SECTION 7. The vote requirement for the proposed ballot measure to pass is a majority (50% + 1) of the votes cast.

SECTION 8. The County election department is authorized to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election. The election will be held in all respects as if there were only one election and only one form of ballot may be used. The election will be held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the statewide or special election.

SECTION 9. The Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the County election department to take all steps necessary for the holding of the cons olidated election.

SECTION 10. The City of Monterey Park recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for any costs.

SECTION 11. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the County election department of the County of Los Angeles.

SECTION 12. The City Clerk will certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; enter the same in the book of original Resolutions; and make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted.

Page 283 of 330 ends

SECTION 13. Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 14. The City Clerk must certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; enter the same in the book of original Resolutions; and make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted.

SECTION 15. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is hereby authorized to affix a signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park, and the City Clerk, or designee, is directed to attest thereto.

SECTION 16. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK ON THIS 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026.

Elizabeth Yang, Mayor
Attest:

Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

Attachment:

Exhibit A – Full Text of the Ballot Measure

Page 284 of 330 ends

Exhibit A: BALLOT PROPOSITION TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS

The People of the City of Monterey Park do ordain as follows:

SECTION 1: Adoption of Data Center Prohibition. The Monterey Park Land Use and Urban Design Element, as adopted by Ordinance No. 2198 (approved by voters as Measure JJ on November 3, 2020), is amended to add the following prohibition for all land use designations:

“Prohibited Land Use Designations

Prohibited: All data centers are prohibited throughout the City. “Data Center” means a building, dedicated space within a building, or group of structures located on one or more acres of land used to house a large group of networked computer systems used for data storage and processing for off-site and on-site users, to be used for the remote storage, processing, or distribution of large amounts of data.

Such facilities may also include air handlers, power generators, water cooling and storage facilities, utility substations, back -up batteries, fire suppression systems, enhanced security features, and other associated utility infrastructure to support operations. This definition does not apply to smaller data processing facilities that are located on less than one acre of land and where such facilities are accessory or incidental to another primary use.”

SECTION 2: Implementation of this Proposition.

A. Upon the effective date of this Proposition and notwithstanding any limitation on the City Council’s authority set forth in this Proposition, the City Council is authorized and directed pursuant to Elections Code § 9217 to promptly take appropriate actions needed to implement this Proposition including, without limitation, adopting all zoning regulations needed to effectuate this Proposition by ordinance.

B. In the event another ballot measure (a “Competing Proposition”) appears on the same ballot as this Proposition that seeks to adopt, impose, or amend any limitations or restrictions, or other regulations or requirements, including, without limitation, those with respect to the actions authorized by this Proposition, that differ in any respect to or supplement, those contained in this Proposition, the voters declare their intention that, if both the Competing Proposition and this Proposition receive a majority of votes cast, the Competing Proposition and this Proposition be fully adopted except to the extent that specific provisions contained in each measure are deemed to be in direct conflict with each other on a “provision by provision” basis pursuant to Yoshisato v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 978. With respect to any such directly conflicting provisions, the specific provisions of the Proposition receiving the greater number of votes will prevail.

Page 285 of 330 ends

SECTION 3: Interpretation. This Proposition must be interpreted to be consistent with all federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion of this Proposition is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision does not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Proposition. The voters declare that this Proposition, and each section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion thereof, would have been adopted or passed irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, part, or portion is found to be invalid. If any provision of this Proposition is held invalid as applied to any person or circumstance, such invalidity does not affect any application of this Proposition that can be given effect without the invalid application.

SECTION 4: Repeal and Supersession. The People adopt this Proposition with the specific intent of superseding any contrary regulation, including those previously adopted by the People, or administrative policy and procedure. Consequently, all regulations that conflict with this Proposition are repealed or modified to reconcile them with this Proposition.

SECTION 5: Construction. This Proposition must be broadly construed to achieve the purposes stated in this Proposition. It is the People’s intent that the provisions of this Proposition be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Proposition.

SECTION 6: Enforceability. Repeal of any provision of the MPMC does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before this Proposition’s effective date. Any such repealed part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Proposition.

SECTION 7: Validity of Previous Code Sections. If this entire Proposition or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, any repeal or amendment of the MPMC or other ordinance by this Proposition will be rendered void and cause such previous MPMC provision or other the ordinance to remain in full force and effect for all purposes.

SECTION 8: Severability. If any portion of this Proposition is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remainder of the Proposition and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances will not be affected thereby. We the People indicate our strong desire that: (i) the City Council use its best efforts to sustain and reenact that portion, and (ii) the City Council implement this Proposition by taking all steps possible to cure any inadequacies or deficiencies identified by the court in a manner consistent with the express and implied intent of this Proposition, and then adopting or reenacting such portion as necessary or desirable to allow imposition of the tax.

Page 286 of 330 ends

SECTION 9: Effective Date. This Proposition will be submitted to a general election on June 2, 2026 for voter approval. If a majority of voters vote in favor of this Proposition, it will become valid and binding 10 days after the date that the City Council certifies the election results in accordance with Elections Code § 9217. The Mayor will sign this Proposition, and the City Clerk will attest and certify to the passage and adoption of this Proposition.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of June, 2026.

____________________________
Elizabeth Yang, Mayor
ATTEST:

_________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

Page 287 of 330 ends

Staff Report
March 4, 2026
ATTACHMENT 4
Draft Resolution Directing the City Attorney to
Prepare an Impartial Analysis of the Proposition
Prohibiting Data Centers

Page 288 of 330 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL

ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSITION PROHIBITING DATA CENTERS

The City Council of the city of Monterey Park resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. Pursuant to Elections Code § 9280, the City Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of the Community Act Prohibiting data centers (“CAP”) to the City Attorney for an impartial analysis.

SECTION 2. Upon receiving the ballot measure, the City Attorney is directed to prepare an impartial analysis of the proposed ballot measure showing its effect, if any, on existing law and the operation of the measure. Such analysis must not be more than 500 words.

SECTION 3 . The impartial anal ysis must include a statement indicating whether the proposed measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the governing body of the City.

SECTION 4. In the event the entire text of the measure is not printed on the ballot, nor in the voter information portion of the sample ballot, there must be printed immediately below the impartial analysis, in not less than 10 point bold type, the City Clerk should have the following language printed: “The above statement is an impartial analysis of the proposed ballot measure (Resolution No. XXX ). If you desire a copy of the legislation affected by this measure, please call the City Clerk’s office at (626) 307-1359, and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you.”

SECTION 5. The impartial analysis of the proposed ballot measure must be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments.

SECTION 6. Pursuant to 52 U.S.C.A. § 10503, the City Clerk will:

A. Translate the City Attorney’s analysis in accordance with regulations set forth by the Los Angeles County Registrar Recorder's office; and

B. Make copies of the translations of the City Attorney’s analysis publicly available.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk will certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; enter the same in the book of original Resolutions; and make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted.

SECTION 8: Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

Page 289 of 330 ends

Resolution Report

Page 2 of 2 ends

March 4, 2026

SECTION 9: Recordation. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to sign this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, may attest thereto.

SECTION 10: Effective Date. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4
th day of March 2026.

____________________________
Elizabeth Yang, Mayor

ATTEST:

____________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

Page 290 of 330 ends

Staff Report
March 4, 2026
ATTACHMENT 5
Draft Resolution Establishing Requirements for
Ballot Arguments Filed with the City Clerk to be
Included with Voter Information for the General
Election on June 2, 2026

Page 291 of 330 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR BALLOT

ARGUMENTS FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK TO BE INCLUDED WITH VOTER INFORMATION FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION ON JUNE 2, 2026
T
he City Council of the City of Monterey Park resolves as follows:

S
ECTION 1: Pursuant to Elections Code § 9281, qualified voters may submit arguments for and against the ballot measures, in addition to rebuttal arguments, for the June 2, 2026, Special Municipal Election on forms provided by the City Clerk.

S
ECTION 2: Arguments filed in accordance with this Resolution must comply with the following requirements in accordance with Elections Code §§ 9282, 9283, 9285, and 9286:

A. Arguments must be in writing and not exceed three hundred (300) words except for rebuttal argument which may not exceed two hundred and fifty (250) words; B. Arguments may be submitted by the City Council; any councilmember authorized to submit an argument by the City Council; any individual voter eligible to vote on the measur es; any bona fide association of citizens; or any combination of voters and associations;
C. Arguments must be typewritten in at least a 12-point font; D. Arguments may not include underlining, italics, asterisks, or other, similar, type of formatting;
E. Arguments must be accompanied by the printed name and signature or printed names and signatures of the person or persons submitting it, or, if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal offic ers.

F. If more than five (5) signatures accompany an ar gument, only the first five (5) will be printed.

G. Arguments for or against the ballot measures must be received in the City Clerk’s office not later than 9 days after the City Counc il calls for an election.

Rebuttal arguments must be received not later than 10 days after the Arguments submittal deadline.

S
ECTION 3: Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

S
ECTION 4: Recordation. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to sign this

Page 292 of 330 ends

Resolution Report

Page 2 of 2 ends

March 4, 2026

Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, may attest thereto.

SECTION 5: Effective Date . This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4
th day of March, 2026.

____________________________
Elizabeth Yang, Mayor

ATTEST:

____________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

Page 293 of 330 ends

City Council Staff Report

Date: March 4, 2026
Agenda Item Number: 12.B.

To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Diana Garcia, Assistant City Manager
Rebecca Bojorquez, Principal Management Analyst
Subject: Consideration of Letter of Support for California Assembly Bill 1577, California Senate Bills 886, 887 and 978

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. If desirable, sending letters of support for California Assembly Bill 1577, the “Data Center Energy and Water Transparency,” and California Senate Bills 886, the “California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act,” 887, the “Data Centers and CEQA Clarity,” and 978, the “Large-Scale Energy Facilities and Electricity,” on behalf of the City Council; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

Executive Summary:

The City Council has expressed interest in supporting California Legislature bills addressing data center regulation. February 20 was the last day for bills to be introduced. Four bills relevant to this topic have been introduced and are summarized below. Council may direct staff to submit letters of support for any or all of these bills.

These bills were introduced in January 2026 and are currently pending before their respective policy committees in the Legislature; none has yet been approved by both houses or signed into law. If the Council elects to send letters of support at this time, staff will transmit the letters to the authors and relevant committee chairs prior to committee hearings and will monitor the bills’ progress through the legislative process.

Background:

AB 1577 (Bauer-Kahan) would require data center owners to report monthly to the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (“Energy Commission”) on the data center’s power usage effectiveness, water usage effectiveness, total water consumption, and the quantity of fuel consumed by onsite generators or other fuel-based energy systems.

The Energy Commission would be required to annually publish this data in a manner that

Page 294 of 330 ends

anonymizes the information. Similarly, this bill would also require data center developers to disclose this information to local agencies during the permitting process, ensuring local jurisdictions are provided with the information needed to fully understand any potential impacts.

SB 886 (Padilla) would require the Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”), by July 1, 2027, to establish or revise a special tariff for large load customers interconnecting to electrical corporations. The tariff must set eligibility criteria, evaluate impacts on other ratepayers, and prevent stranded costs or cost shifts to nonparticipating customers. It must require participating customers, like large data centers, to pay for transmission upgrades they trigger, disclose duplicate interconnection applications, install onsite zero-carbon energy storage, and pay early termination fees in certain cases, while utilities must publish maps showing feasible interconnection locations. The bill encourages publicly owned utilities to adopt similar tariffs that also prevent cost shifting to nonparticipating customers.

SB 887 (Padilla) clarifies that data center development and operation projects are not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) as ministerial projects and are not eligible for the advanced manufacturing exemption, requiring full CEQA review, where applicable. As a result, public agencies must conduct environmental review for data center projects that might otherwise have been exempt, creating a state-mandated local program.

The bill would also allow qualifying data centers to seek certification under the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2021, making them eligible for CEQA streamlining benefits. Expanding these responsibilities for lead agencies likewise creates a state-mandated local program. Under the California Constitution, local agencies and school districts must be reimbursed for certain state-mandated costs.

SB 978 (Perez) would require the PUC to create a special rate structure for large-scale energy users—defined as customers operating facilities requiring at least 75 megawatts of electricity— to protect other ratepayers and prevent cost shifts. These large users must pay the upfront costs of any transmission or distribution upgrades needed to serve them, and construction of their facilities must meet specified labor standards. The bill also requires the state’s annual clean energy progress report to evaluate how large-scale energy users affect California’s ability to meet its renewable and zero-carbon electricity targets for 2035, 2040, and 2045.

Local agencies and school districts would be reimbursed for certain mandated costs under existing constitutional and statutory procedures.

Strategic Plan Goal:

N/A

Fiscal Impact:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with sending the letters of support.

Attachments:

1. Bill Text AB 1577

2. Bill Text SB 886

3. Bill Text SB 887

4. Bill Text SB 978

5. SB 978 Fact Sheet

Page 295 of 330 ends

6. Letters of Support

Page 296 of 330 ends

Staff Report
March 4, 2026

ATTACHMENT 1
Bill Text – AB 1577

Page 297 of 330 ends

SHARE THIS:

Date Published: 01/12/2026 09:00 PM
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 1577
AB-1577 Data centers: monthly reporting. (2025-2026)
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION
Introduced by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan
January 12, 2026
An act to add Section 25302.10 to the Public Resources Code, relating to energy.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1577, as introduced, Bauer-Kahan. Data centers: monthly reporting.

Existing law establishes the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) and vests the commission with various responsibilities with respect to developing and implementing the state’s energy policies. Existing law requires the commission to biennially adopt an integrated energy policy report, as specified, and to make the reports accessible to state, local, and federal entities and to the general public.

This bill would require the commission to establish a process for the owner of a data center, as defined, to submit specified information to the commission on a monthly basis, including, among other information, the data center’s power usage effectiveness, as defined, water usage effectiveness, as defined, and total water consumption and the quantity of fuel consumed by onsite generators or other fuel-based energy systems, as specified. The bill would require the owner of a data center to submit the required information in the manner and timeframe specified by the commission. The bill would require the commission, as part of the 2029 edition of the integrated energy policy report, to include an assessment of electrical load trends for data centers, as provided.

The bill would require the commission to annually publish the information submitted in an anonymized and aggregated format on its internet website.

The bill would require the owner or developer of a data center, upon applying for a discretionary permit, entitlement, or land use authorization required for the construction or operation of the data center, to submit to the applicable local agency, as defined, the information described above, as provided. By imposing a new duty on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize the local agency to use this information for various purposes, including, but not limited to, land use planning, infrastructure planning, energy and water supply assessment, and environmental review. The bill would further authorize a Home Bill Information California LawPublicationsOther ResourcesMy SubscriptionsMy Favorites 2/23/26, 11:18 AM Bill Text - AB-1577 Data centers: monthly reporting. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1577 1/4

Page 298 of 330 ends

lead local agency to use this information in the preparation of environmental documentation pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

The bill would prohibit the commission or a local agency from disclosing information submitted on a monthly basis or upon applying for a discretionary permit, entitlement, or land use authorization, as described above, in a manner that would result in the disclosure of personally identifiable information or energy consumption data for a specific utility customer.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 25302.10 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:
25302.10. (a) For purposes of this section, all of the following definitions apply:
(1) “Applicable local agency” means a city, county, or city and county that has discretionary land use or permitting authority over the construction or operation of a data center, or a public agency serving as the lead agency for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000)).
(2) (A) “Data center” means a room, or a portion of a room, in a building used primarily to house information technology equipment that serves a total information technology equipment load greater than 10 kilowatts and 20 watts per square foot of conditioned floor area.
(B) “Data center” does not include a facility with an installed information technology equipment electrical capacity of less than 500 kilowatts.
(3) “Power usage effectiveness” means a ratio of the total energy consumption of a data center to the energy specifically used by the information technology equipment housed in that data center. (4) “Water usage effectiveness” means a ratio of the total water consumption of a data center to the water specifically used by the information technology equipment housed in that data center. (b) (1) The commission shall establish a process for the owner of a data center to submit all of the following information to the commission on a monthly basis:
(A) (i) The name of the data center.
(ii) Any physical addresses associated with the operation of the data center. (iii) The name of, and contact information for, the owner and operator of the data center. (iv) The year and month that the data center began operating. (v) The total floor area of the data center, expressed in square feet. (vi) The floor area of the data center occupied by information technology equipment, expressed in square feet.
(B) (i) The total electrical capacity of the data center, expressed in kilowatts. (ii) The installed information technology electrical capacity of the data center, expressed in kilowatts. (iii) The total energy consumption of the data center, expressed in kilowatthours. 2/23/26, 11:18 AM Bill Text - AB-1577 Data centers: monthly reporting. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1577 2/4

Page 299 of 330 ends

(iv) The power usage effectiveness of the data center.
(v) Whether any functions supporting the stability, reliability, and resilience of California’s electrical grid are provided by the data center.
(C) (i) The total water consumption of the data center, expressed in gallons. (ii) The potable water consumption of the data center, expressed in gallons. (iii) The water usage effectiveness of the data center. (D) (i) The quantity of waste heat reused by the data center, expressed in kilowatthours. (ii) The average waste heat temperature of the data center, expressed in degrees Celsius. (iii) The average intake air temperature setpoint for information technology equipment, expressed in degrees Celsius.
(iv) Which types of refrigerants are used to cool information technology equipment. (v) Cooling degree days for the data center, expressed in degree-days. (E) (i) The quantity of electricity generated onsite, separated by generation type, expressed in kilowatthours.
(ii) The quantity of fuel consumed by onsite generators or other fuel-based energy systems, separated by fuel type.
(iii) The quantity of electricity consumed during the reporting month that was derived from renewable and carbon-free sources, separated by each of the following categories and expressed in kilowatthours:
(I) The quantity of renewable or carbon-free energy generated onsite or procured from renewable electrical generation facilities, as defined in Section 25741, and used to directly power the data center. (II) The quantity of electricity generated onsite or procured from hydroelectric generation facilities exceeding 30 megawatts and used to directly power the data center. (III) The quantity of electricity generated onsite or procured from nuclear power plants and used to directly power the data center.
(IV) The quantity of electricity associated with renewable energy credits, identified by portfolio content category pursuant to Section 399.16 of the Public Utilities Code, and not used to directly power the data center.
(2) (A) The owner of a data center shall submit the required information to the commission in a manner and timeframe specified by the commission.
(B) An owner of a data center shall not be required to resubmit information that has previously been submitted to the commission pursuant to this section.
(C) If an owner of a data center has prepared a report or submission containing substantially similar information for the purpose of complying with state, federal, or international law, the owner may satisfy the requirements of this section by submitting that report or submission, if the information meets the requirements of this section.
(c) As part of the 2029 edition of the integrated energy policy report required pursuant to Section 25302, the commission shall include an assessment of electrical load trends for data centers. This assessment shall include all of the following:
(1) A projection of future load trends from data centers. (2) Identification of potential net peak load demands.
(3) Recommendations for mitigating data center electricity consumption impacts on grid capacity, grid reliability, and greenhouse gas emissions, including any recommended energy efficiency and demand response measures.
2/23/26, 11:18 AM Bill Text - AB-1577 Data centers: monthly reporting. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1577 3/4

Page 300 of 330 ends

(d) The commission shall annually publish the information submitted pursuant to subdivision (b) in an anonymized and aggregated format on its internet website. (e) (1) Upon applying for a discretionary permit, entitlement, or land use authorization required for the construction or operation of a data center, the owner or developer of the data center shall submit to the applicable local agency the information described in subdivision (b), to the extent applicable to the proposed facility.
(2) The information submitted pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be based on the best available estimates at the time of submission.
(3) A local agency may use the information submitted pursuant to this subdivision for various purposes, including, but not limited to, land use planning, infrastructure planning, energy and water supply assessment, and environmental review.
(4) Information submitted pursuant to this subdivision may be used by a lead agency in the preparation of environmental documentation under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000)).
(f) The commission or a local agency shall not disclose information submitted pursuant to subdivision (b) or (e) in a manner that would result in the disclosure of personally identifiable information or energy consumption data for a specific utility customer.

SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which adds Section 25302.10 of the Public Resources Code, imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.

Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:

In order to protect the confidential and proprietary information of an entity subject to Section 1 of this act, it is necessary that this act limit the public’s right of access to that information.

SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
2/23/26, 11:18 AM Bill Text - AB-1577 Data centers: monthly reporting. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1577 4/4

Page 301 of 330 ends

Staff Report
March 4, 2026
ATTACHMENT 2
Bill Text – SB 886

Page 302 of 330 ends

SHARE THIS:

Date Published: 01/13/2026 09:00 PM
SENATE BILL NO. 886
SB-886 California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act. (2025-2026) CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION
Introduced by Senator Padilla
January 13, 2026
An act to add Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 8540) to Division 4.1 of the Public Utilities Code, relating to electricity.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 886, as introduced, Padilla. California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act.

Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations, while local publicly owned electric utilities are under the direction of their governing boards. Existing law authorizes the commission to fix the rates and charges for every public utility and requires that those rates and charges be just and reasonable.

This bill, the California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act, would require the commission, on or before July 1, 2027, to establish or modify an electrical corporation tariff for the interconnection of the participating customer facilities and the transmission, distribution, and generation services to participating customers, as specified. The bill would require the commission, as part of establishing or modifying the electrical corporation tariff, to, at a minimum, establish eligibility criteria for large load customers, as defined, and facilities, evaluate the risks and benefits of this tariff to nonparticipating ratepayers, and ensure that the tariff prevents the creation of stranded costs for, or cost shifts, to nonparticipating ratepayers. The bill would require the tariff to require a large load customer that submits an application for interconnection of a facility to an electrical corporation to disclose whether an application for the same facility has been submitted in other electrical corporation service territories or other jurisdictions and to disclose each instance in which an application for the same facility has been submitted. The bill would also require the tariff to, among other things, assign cost responsibility for all transmission facility upgrades triggered by a facility interconnection to the applicable participating customer and to require an early termination fee to be assessed against any participating customer under specified circumstances. The bill would also require each participating customer to install onsite zero-carbon energy storage, as provided, and each electrical corporation to publish and update maps showing locations where large load customers can interconnect without the need for significant, costly, and time- consuming transmission upgrades.

Home Bill Information California LawPublicationsOther ResourcesMy SubscriptionsMy Favorites 2/23/26, 11:26 AM Bill Text - SB-886 California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB886 1/3

Page 303 of 330 ends

This bill would encourage each local publicly owned electric utility to develop a tariff that is similar to the electrical corporation tariff described above and ensures that costs are not shifted from a customer that is subject to the local publicly owned electric utility’s tariff to a customer that is not subject to that tariff, and that the costs of investments in infrastructure made by a large load customer that is subject to the tariff are not recoverable from other nonparticipating ratepayers.

Under existing law, a violation of any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime.

Because a violation of a commission action implementing this bill’s requirements would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 8540) is added to Division 4.1 of the Public Utilities Code, to read:

CHAPTER 14. California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act 8540. This chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act.
8541. For purposes of this chapter, all of the following definitions apply:
(a) “Electrical corporation” has the same meaning as defined in Section 218. (b) “Large load customer” means a customer connecting transmission-level electricity service with an estimated peak demand of at least 75 megawatts. “Large load customer” excludes an existing customer that introduces a new load as a result of switching from fossil fuels to renewable fuels or transportation electrification activities. (c) “Local publicly owned electric utility” has the same meaning as defined in Section 224.3. (d) “Nonparticipating customer” means a customer who does not receive electrical service pursuant to the electrical corporation tariff established or modified pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 8542. (e) “Participating customer” means a customer who receives electrical service pursuant to the electrical corporation tariff established or modified pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 8542. 8542. (a) On or before July 1, 2027, the commission shall establish or modify, in a rulemaking or in an electrical corporation specific application, an electrical corporation tariff for the interconnection of participating customer facilities and the provision of transmission, distribution, and generation services to participating customers. (b) The commission, as part of establishing or modifying the electrical corporation tariff, shall do, at a minimum, all of the following:
(1) Establish eligibility criteria for large load customers and facilities. (2) Evaluate the risks and benefits of this tariff to nonparticipating ratepayers. (3) Ensure that the tariff prevents the creation of stranded costs for, or cost shifts to, nonparticipating ratepayers.
(c) The electrical corporation tariff shall incorporate all of the following criteria:
(1) The electrical corporation tariff shall assign participating customers any unique wholesale energy costs, including ancillary and reliability services costs attributable to rapid fluctuations in demand by the participating customer.
2/23/26, 11:26 AM Bill Text - SB-886 California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB886 2/3

Page 304 of 330 ends

(2) The electrical corporation tariff shall include a reasonable share of the costs relating to wildfire mitigation, wildfire liability, electrification and environmental programs, and other societal cost obligations typically collected from distribution-level ratepayers.
(3) The interconnection provisions of the electrical corporation tariff shall do all of the following:
(A) Require a large load customer that submits an application for interconnection of a facility to an electrical corporation to disclose whether an application for the same facility has been submitted in other electrical corporation service territories or other jurisdictions and to disclose each instance in which an application for the same facility has been submitted.
(B) Assign cost responsibility for all transmission facility upgrades triggered by a facility interconnection to the applicable participating customer. To the extent permitted under federal law, these costs should include shared transmission grid network upgrades needed to accommodate the interconnection of the participating customer’s facility or increase the flow of electricity across the electrical grid. (C) Allow a participating customer to receive refunds of a portion of its initial nominal dollar contributions to interconnection costs only to the extent that actual annual net revenues cover the costs of energization, the costs of providing electric service, and other costs allocated by the commission to the participating customer.
(D) Require an early termination fee to be assessed against any participating customer that departs the electrical system within 15 years of the initial interconnection of the facility or fails to achieve full load ramp up. The early termination fee should not be less than the revenue gap associated with the originally projected demand and energy consumption of the facility over the minimum 15-year term. (4) Each participating customer shall be required to install onsite zero-carbon energy storage with at least four hours of capacity at no less than 50 percent of forecasted peak demand. Storage capacity shall be dispatchable by the electrical corporation or Independent System Operator to address emergency conditions on the electrical grid.
(5) Each participating customer shall participate in demand response programs as determined by the commission.
(d) Each electrical corporation shall be required to publish and update maps showing locations where large load customers can interconnect without the need for significant, costly, and time-consuming transmission upgrades. 8543. A local publicly owned electric utility is encouraged, before connecting a facility to the electrical grid, to develop a tariff that is similar to the electrical corporation tariff established or modified pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 8542 and ensures both of the following:
(a) The costs are not shifted from a large load customer that is subject to the tariff to a large load customer that is not subject to the tariff.
(b) The costs of investments in infrastructure made by a large load customer that is subject to the tariff are not recoverable from other nonparticipating ratepayers.

SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution. 2/23/26, 11:26 AM Bill Text - SB-886 California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB886 3/3

Page 305 of 330 ends

Staff Report
March 4, 2026
ATTACHMENT 3
Bill Text – SB 887

Page 306 of 330 ends

SHARE THIS:

Date Published: 01/13/2026 09:00 PM
SENATE BILL NO. 887
SB-887 California Environmental Quality Act: environmental leadership development projects: data centers. (2025-2026)

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION
Introduced by Senator Padilla
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Connolly)
January 13, 2026
An act to amend Sections 21080, 21080.69, and 21180 of the Public Resources Code, relating to environmental quality.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 887, as introduced, Padilla. California Environmental Quality Act: environmental leadership development projects: data centers.
(1) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA exempts ministerial projects from its requirements. CEQA also exempts from its requirements a project that consists exclusively of a facility for advanced manufacturing, as specified.

This bill would specify that projects proposed to be carried out or approved by a public agency for the development and operation of a data center, as defined, are not ministerial projects exempt from CEQA. Because the bill would require the public agency to comply with CEQA for those data center projects that would otherwise be exempt from CEQA as ministerial projects, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would specify that the CEQA exemption for an advanced manufacturing facility does not apply to a data center, as defined.

Home Bill Information California LawPublicationsOther ResourcesMy SubscriptionsMy Favorites 2/23/26, 11:26 AM Bill Text - SB-887 California Environmental Quality Act: environmental leadership development projects: data centers. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB887 1/7

Page 307 of 330 ends

(2) The Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2021 authorizes the Governor, until January 1, 2032, to certify environmental leadership development projects that meet specified requirements for certain streamlining benefits related to CEQA. The act, among other things, requires a lead agency to prepare the record of proceedings for an environmental leadership development project concurrent with the administrative process and to provide a specified notice within 10 days of the Governor certifying the project. The act is repealed by its own terms on January 1, 2034.

This bill would extend the application of the act to a data center, as defined, that is certified by the lead agency to meet specified conditions. By increasing the duties of a lead agency, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) California drives worldwide technological innovation, and that innovation is an important component of the state’s economy, which is the fifth largest economy in the world. (b) California supports technological innovation with a world-class university system that provides a highly skilled workforce, and research and development tax incentives and other tools to facilitate the development and expansion of the state’s technology economy.
(c) California is the home of the third largest number of data centers in the country behind Virginia and Texas. (d) The quickly evolving development of artificial intelligence requires large-format data centers that currently require extremely large loads of electricity and water. While that expanded energy demand can help support the larger electrical grid and ordinary ratepayers, if managed incorrectly, it could pose a serious threat to California’s climate goals and, more importantly, can result in significant cost shifts to ordinary ratepayers and risks of costly stranded assets if projects do not meet projected energy estimates. (e) Ordinary ratepayers in many states are already experiencing significant rate increases for both energy and water as utilities race to build out the necessary infrastructure and meet the energy and water demands of an exploding number of data centers across the country.
(f) According to recent research, data centers have significantly increased electrical and water demand in California between 2019 and 2023 and that explosive growth is expected to increase through the rest of the decade.
(g) On the current trajectory, demand for electricity and water could rise over 350 percent in just five years between 2023 and 2028, creating significant cost pressures on electricity and access to clean water across the state of California.
(h) As the nation’s technology, innovation, and environmental leader, it is critical that the Legislature develop standards to encourage continued technology development while protecting California residents from shouldering the cost of data center development and ensuring that development does not come at the cost of Californians’ clean air and water.

SEC. 2. Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:
21080. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this division, this division shall apply to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but not limited to, the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of zoning variances, the issuance of conditional use permits, and the approval of tentative subdivision maps unless the project is exempt from this division. (b) This division does not apply to any of the following activities:
(1) (A) Ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies. 2/23/26, 11:26 AM Bill Text - SB-887 California Environmental Quality Act: environmental leadership development projects: data centers. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB887 2/7

Page 308 of 330 ends

(B) Subparagraph(A) does not apply to a project proposed to be carried out or approved by a public agency for the development and operation of a data center. For purposes of this paragraph, “data center” means a large-scale energy consumer that requires uninterruptible electricity to serve a facility housing servers and related data center equipment and software for the processing, storage, and distribution of data. (2) Emergency repairs to public service facilities necessary to maintain service. (3) Projects undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public agency to maintain, repair, restore, demolish, or replace property or facilities damaged or destroyed as a result of a disaster in a disaster-stricken area in which a state of emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(4) Specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency. (5) Projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves. (6) Actions undertaken by a public agency relating to any thermal powerplant site or facility, including the expenditure, obligation, or encumbrance of funds by a public agency for planning, engineering, or design purposes, or for the conditional sale or purchase of equipment, fuel, water (except groundwater), steam, or power for a thermal powerplant, if the powerplant site and related facility will be the subject of an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or other document, prepared pursuant to a regulatory program certified pursuant to Section 21080.5, which will be prepared by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, by the Public Utilities Commission, or by the city or county in which the powerplant and related facility would be located if the environmental impact report, negative declaration, or document includes the environmental impact, if any, of the action described in this paragraph. (7) (A) Activities or approvals for the bidding, hosting or staging of, and funding of, an Olympic Games and a Paralympic Games under the authority of the International Olympic Committee or the International Paralympic Committee, except for the construction of facilities necessary for the Olympic Games or Paralympic Games. (B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the division does not apply to the construction of temporary facilities for the 2028 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. For purposes of this subparagraph, “temporary facility” means a facility that will be completely removed and the area restored to a clean and safe condition within six months after the end of the 2028 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. (C) Any confirmed changes to the locations of the competition venues of the 2028 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games venue plan, pursuant to the host city contract and games agreement with the City of Los Angeles, shall be noticed publicly on the organizing committee’s official internet website and shall be noticed in a newspaper or other medium of general circulation in the local jurisdiction notifying the public of the change in location of the venue.
(D) This paragraph does not limit any other applicable statute or regulation governing impacts from temporary facilities to, among others, sensitive wildlife habitats, including, but not limited to, riparian lands, wetlands, bays, estuaries, marshes, and habitats for endangered, rare, and threatened species. (8) The establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, or other charges by public agencies that the public agency finds are for the purpose of: (A) meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits; (B) purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials; (C) meeting financial reserve needs and requirements; (D) obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas; or (E) obtaining funds necessary to maintain those intracity transfers as are authorized by city charter. The public agency shall incorporate written findings in the record of any proceeding in which an exemption under this paragraph is claimed setting forth with specificity the basis for the claim of exemption.
(9) All classes of projects designated pursuant to Section 21084. (10) A project for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter services on rail or highway rights-of- way already in use, including modernization of existing stations and parking facilities. For purposes of this paragraph, “highway” has the same meaning as defined in Section 360 of the Vehicle Code. (11) A project for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter service on high-occupancy vehicle lanes already in use, including the modernization of existing stations and parking facilities. 2/23/26, 11:26 AM Bill Text - SB-887 California Environmental Quality Act: environmental leadership development projects: data centers. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB887 3/7

Page 309 of 330 ends

(12) Facility extensions not to exceed four miles in length that are required for the transfer of passengers from or to exclusive public mass transit guideway or busway public transit services. (13) A project for the development of a regional transportation improvement program, the state transportation improvement program, or a congestion management program prepared pursuant to Section 65089 of the Government Code.
(14) A project or portion of a project located in another state that will be subject to environmental impact review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.) or similar state laws of that state. Any emissions or discharges that would have a significant effect on the environment in this state are subject to this division.
(15) Projects undertaken by a local agency to implement a rule or regulation imposed by a state agency, board, or commission under a certified regulatory program pursuant to Section 21080.5. Any site-specific effect of the project that was not analyzed as a significant effect on the environment in the plan or other written documentation required by Section 21080.5 is subject to this division. (16) Approval by the Department of Pesticide Regulation of a pesticide emergency exemption pursuant to Section 136p of Title 7 of the United States Code.
(c) If a lead agency determines that a proposed project, not otherwise exempt from this division, would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall adopt a negative declaration to that effect. The negative declaration shall be prepared for the proposed project in either of the following circumstances:
(1) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
(2) An initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but: (A) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur; and (B) there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.
(d) If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report shall be prepared. (e) (1) For purposes of this section and this division, substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact. (2) Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment.
(f) As a result of the public review process for a mitigated negative declaration, including administrative decisions and public hearings, the lead agency may conclude that certain mitigation measures identified pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) are infeasible or otherwise undesirable. In those circumstances, the lead agency, before approving the project, may delete those mitigation measures and substitute for them other mitigation measures that the lead agency finds, after holding a public hearing on the matter, are equivalent or more effective in mitigating significant effects on the environment to a less than significant level and that do not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment. If those new mitigation measures are made conditions of project approval or are otherwise made part of the project approval, the deletion of the former measures and the substitution of the new mitigation measures shall not constitute an action or circumstance requiring recirculation of the mitigated negative declaration. (g) This section does not preclude a project applicant or any other person from challenging, in an administrative or judicial proceeding, the legality of a condition of project approval imposed by the lead agency. If, however, any condition of project approval set aside by either an administrative body or court was necessary to avoid or lessen the likelihood of the occurrence of a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency’s approval of the negative declaration and project shall be invalid and a new environmental review process shall be conducted before the project can be reapproved, unless the lead agency substitutes a new condition that the lead agency finds, after holding a public hearing on the matter, is equivalent to, or more effective in, lessening or avoiding 2/23/26, 11:26 AM Bill Text - SB-887 California Environmental Quality Act: environmental leadership development projects: data centers. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB887 4/7

Page 310 of 330 ends

significant effects on the environment and that does not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment.

SEC. 3. Section 21080.69 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:
21080.69. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), this division does not apply to any of the following projects:
(1) A project that consists exclusively of a day care center, as defined in Section 1596.76 of the Health and Safety Code, that is not located in a residential area. (2) A project that consists exclusively of a rural health clinic, as defined by Section 1396(d)(l)(1) of Title 42 of the United States Code, or a federally qualified health center, as defined by Section 1396(d)(l)(2) of Title 42 of the United States Code, if the facility is less than 50,000 square feet in total space. (3) A project that consists exclusively of a nonprofit food bank or food pantry, defined as a nonprofit organization that is exempt from federal income taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26 U.S.C. Sec. 501(c)(3)), that solicits, stores, and distributes sufficient food to their defined service area, if the project is located on a site that is zoned exclusively for industrial uses. (4) (A) A project that consists exclusively of a facility for advanced manufacturing, as defined in Section 26003, manufacturing, if the project is located on a site zoned exclusively for industrial uses. (B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), “advanced manufacturing” has the same meaning as defined in Section 26003, except it does not include a data center, as defined in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 21080.
(b) This section does not apply to a project located on natural and protected lands, as defined pursuant to Section 21067.5.

SEC. 4. Section 21180 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:
21180. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(a) “Applicant” means a public or private entity or its affiliates, or a person or entity that undertakes a public works project, that proposes a project and its successors, heirs, and assignees. (b) “Environmental leadership development project,” “leadership project,” or “project” means a project as described in Section 21065 that is one of the following:
(1) A residential, retail, commercial, sports, cultural, entertainment, or recreational use project that is certified as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) gold or better by the United States Green Building Council and, where applicable, that achieves a 15-percent greater standard for transportation efficiency than for comparable projects. These projects must be located on an infill site. For a project that is within a metropolitan planning organization for which a sustainable communities strategy or alternative planning strategy is in effect, the infill project shall be consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy, for which the State Air Resources Board has accepted a metropolitan planning organization’s determination, under subparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65080 of the Government Code, that the sustainable communities strategy or the alternative planning strategy would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. (2) A clean renewable energy project that generates electricity exclusively through wind or solar, but not including waste incineration or conversion.
(3) A clean energy manufacturing project that manufactures products, equipment, or components used for renewable energy generation, energy efficiency, or for the production of clean alternative fuel vehicles. (4) (A) A housing development project that meets all of the following conditions:
(i) The housing development project is located on an infill site. (ii) For a housing development project that is located within a metropolitan planning organization for which a sustainable communities strategy or alternative planning strategy is in effect, the project is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy, for 2/23/26, 11:26 AM Bill Text - SB-887 California Environmental Quality Act: environmental leadership development projects: data centers. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB887 5/7

Page 311 of 330 ends

which the State Air Resources Board has accepted a metropolitan planning organization’s determination, under subparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65080 of the Government Code, that the sustainable communities strategy or the alternative planning strategy would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
(iii) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21183, the housing development project will result in a minimum investment of fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) in California upon completion of construction.
(iv) (I) Except as provided in subclause (II), at least 15 percent of the housing development project is dedicated as housing that is affordable to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. Upon completion of a housing development project that is qualified under this paragraph and is certified by the Governor, the lead agency or applicant of the project shall notify the Office of Planning and Research of the number of housing units and affordable housing units established by the project.
(II) Notwithstanding subclause (I), if a local agency has adopted an inclusionary zoning ordinance that establishes a minimum percentage for affordable housing within the jurisdiction in which the housing development project is located that is higher than 15 percent, the percentage specified in the inclusionary zoning ordinance shall be the threshold for affordable housing. (v) (I) Except for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code, no part of the housing development project shall be used for a rental unit for a term shorter than 30 days, or designated for hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging use. (II) No part of the housing development project shall be used for manufacturing or industrial uses. (B) For purposes of this paragraph, “housing development project” means a project for any of the following:
(i) Residential units only.
(ii) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.
(iii) Transitional housing or supportive housing.
(5) (A) A data center project certified by the lead agency to meet all of the following conditions:
(i) Pays the full cost of interconnection to prevent cost shifts to other ratepayers. (ii) Does not increase fossil fuel consumption within the state. (iii) Includes zero-carbon energy storage with at least four hours of capacity at 100 percent of forecasted peak demand for the facility.
(iv) Uses onsite zero-carbon energy storage to provide demand response services to the electrical grid. (v) Relies on zero-carbon generation located behind the meter to the maximum extent feasible. (vi) Recovers fully from the data center operator all electrical grid investments, including costs of new generating capacity, to serve the data center in the event the data center ceases operations. (vii) Uses recycled water and water-efficient technology or waterless cooling systems. (viii) Will rely on 100 percent zero-carbon electricity resources to serve hourly energy needs within five years of initial operations, of which 75 percent shall be newly developed. (ix) Contains a community benefits program.
(x) Contains a project labor agreement and prevailing wage requirement, consistent with Section 21183.5.
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, “data center” means a commercial facility primarily used to house computer servers and associated equipment for processing, storing, or transmitting data that require at least 50 megawatts of peak demand and consume 1,000,000 gallons of water per day. (c) “Infill site” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 21061.3. 2/23/26, 11:26 AM Bill Text - SB-887 California Environmental Quality Act: environmental leadership development projects: data centers. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB887 6/7

Page 312 of 330 ends

(d) “Transportation efficiency” means the number of vehicle trips by employees, visitors, or customers of the residential, retail, commercial, sports, cultural, entertainment, or recreational use project divided by the total number of employees, visitors, and customers.

SEC. 5. The amendment of Section 21080.69 of the Public Resources Code made by this act does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.

SEC. 6. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
2/23/26, 11:26 AM Bill Text - SB-887 California Environmental Quality Act: environmental leadership development projects: data centers. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB887 7/7

Page 313 of 330 ends

Staff Report
March 4, 2026
ATTACHMENT 4
Bill Text – SB 978

Page 314 of 330 ends

SHARE THIS:

Date Published: 02/04/2026 09:00 PM
SENATE BILL NO. 978
SB-978 Large-scale energy facilities: labor: electricity rates. (2025-2026) CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION
Introduced by Senator Pérez
(Coauthors: Senators Arreguín and Hurtado)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Connolly and Harabedian)
February 04, 2026
An act amend Section 913.11 of, and to add Section 740.22 to, the Public Utilities Code, relating to large-scale energy facilities.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 978, as introduced, Pérez. Large-scale energy facilities: labor: electricity rates.

Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law authorizes the PUC to fix the rates and charges for every public utility and requires that those rates and charges be just and reasonable.

This bill would require the PUC to establish a special rate structure for large-scale energy users, who would be defined as customers of electrical corporations operating facilities with operational requirements of at least 75 megawatts of electricity, to protect other customers of electrical corporations, prevent cost shifts to those other customers, and require large-scale energy users to pay for the electrical corporations’ upfront costs of transmission or distribution infrastructure upgrades necessary for the provision of electrical service to those users. The bill would require the construction of those facilities to comply with certain labor requirements.

Existing law establishes the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 90% of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2035, 95% by December 31, 2040, and 100% by December 31, 2045. Existing law requires the PUC, the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, and the State Air Resources Board, in consultation with all California balancing authorities, to annually issue a joint report related to meeting that state policy.

This bill would require that the joint report also include the impacts of large-scale energy users on the state’s ability to achieve the above-described state policy.

Home Bill Information California LawPublicationsOther ResourcesMy SubscriptionsMy Favorites 2/23/26, 11:27 AM Bill Text - SB-978 Large-scale energy facilities: labor: electricity rates. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB978 1/4

Page 315 of 330 ends

Under existing law, a violation of an order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the PUC is a crime.

Because a violation of a PUC action implementing the bill’s requirements would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 740.22 is added to the Public Utilities Code, to read:
740.22. (a) For purposes of this section, all of the following definitions apply:
(1) “Facility” means a facility with an operational requirement of at least 75 megawatts of electricity. (2) “Large-scale energy user” means a customer of an electrical corporation operating a facility. (3) “Skilled and trained workforce” has the same meaning as set forth in Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code. (b) The commission shall establish a special rate structure for large-scale energy users that does both of the following:
(1) Protects other customers of an electrical corporation and prevents cost shifts to those other customers. (2) (A) Requires the large-scale energy user pay for the electrical corporation’s upfront costs for transmission or distribution infrastructure upgrades necessary to provide electrical service to the large-scale energy user. (B) The upfront costs described in subparagraph (A) shall not be recovered by the electrical corporation from other customers of the electrical corporation.
(c) (1) A large-scale energy user shall only use onsite solar or wind generation and a battery electric storage system as backup power generation for the facility.
(2) A large-scale energy user that uses battery electric storage systems shall enter into a binding agreement with the local fire department to ensure adequate fire protection services are available, including fire protection for the battery electric storage system and dire response times for communities in proximity to the facility. (d) (1) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 1720 of the Labor Code, construction of a facility constitutes a public works project for purposes of Article 2 (commencing with Section 1770) of Chapter 1 of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code.
(2) A contractor who enters into a contract to perform work on a facility shall do all of the following:
(A) The contractor shall pay each construction worker employed in the execution of the work, at minimum, the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, except that an apprentice registered in a program approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards shall be paid, at minimum, the applicable apprentice prevailing rate.
(B) The contractor shall maintain and verify payroll records pursuant to Section 1776 of the Labor Code and make those records available for inspection and copying as provided in that section. Notwithstanding Section 1776 of the Labor Code, the contractor shall not be required to provide copies of certified payroll records to any entity other than the Department of Industrial Relations and the commission. (C) The contractor shall biannually, on July 1 and December 31 of each year, submit to the commission digital copies of its certified payroll records, in a format consistent with systems used for compliance with Section 1776 of the Labor Code, for projects subject to this section. The commission shall retain these records as public records for five years.
2/23/26, 11:27 AM Bill Text - SB-978 Large-scale energy facilities: labor: electricity rates. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB978 2/4

Page 316 of 330 ends

(3) The requirement imposed in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) may be enforced through any of the following mechanisms:
(A) Within 18 months after completing the facility, by the Labor Commissioner through the issuance of a civil wage and penalty assessment pursuant to Section 1741 of the Labor Code, which may be reviewed pursuant to Section 1742 of the Labor Code.
(B) By an underpaid construction worker or apprentice through an administrative complaint or civil action. (C) By a joint labor-management committee through a civil action pursuant to Section 1771.2 of the Labor Code.
(4) If a willful violation of this subdivision has been enforced against a contractor for the construction of a facility pursuant to paragraph (3), that facility shall remain eligible to receive service pursuant to the rate structure established pursuant to subdivision (b) if restitution has been made to the affected workers and all associated penalties and fines have been paid.
(5) The commission shall require each large electrical corporation to include the requirements of this subdivision in each interconnection agreement with a large-scale energy user. (6) This subdivision does not apply to a construction of a facility that is a public work, as defined in Section 1720 of the Labor Code, and that is subject to Article 2 (commencing with Section 1770) of Chapter 1 of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code.
(7) (A) The entity that engaged the contractor to perform work on a facility is not an awarding body, as defined in Section 1722 of the Labor Code. Public works project requirements not codified in this section do not apply to the entity. This section does not affect the entity’s liability for nonpayment of wages or materials under Section 3 of Article XIV of the California Constitution. (B) The contractor who enters into a contract with the entity described in subparagraph (A) to perform work on a facility is the awarding body only for the limited purposes of Section 1773.3 of the Labor Code. (8) (A) All contracts for the construction of a facility shall require every contractor and subcontractor at every tier to use a skilled and trained workforce for the construction of the facility. (B) Every contractor and subcontractor at every tier shall use a skilled and trained workforce for the construction of the facility.

SEC. 2. Section 913.11 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:
913.11. (a) Notwithstanding Section 10231.5 of the Government Code, the commission, Energy Commission, and State Air Resources Board shall, in consultation with all California balancing authorities, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 399.12, as part of a public process, issue a joint report to the Legislature by January 1, 2021, and at least every four years thereafter.
(b) The joint report shall include all of the following:
(1) A review of the policy described in subdivision (a) of Section 454.53, focused on technologies, forecasts, then-existing transmission, and maintaining safety, environmental and public safety protection, affordability, and system and local reliability.
(2) An evaluation identifying the potential benefits and impacts on system and local reliability associated with achieving the policy described in subdivision (a) of Section 454.53. (3) An evaluation identifying the nature of any anticipated financial costs and benefits to electrical, gas, and water utilities, including customer rate impacts and benefits. (4) The barriers to, and benefits of, achieving the policy described in subdivision (a) of Section 454.53. (5) Alternative scenarios in which the policy described in subdivision (a) of Section 454.53 can be achieved and the estimated costs and benefits of each scenario.
(6) An evaluation of the impacts of large-scale energy users, as defined in Section 740.22, on the state’s ability to achieve the policy described in subdivision (a) of Section 454.53. 2/23/26, 11:27 AM Bill Text - SB-978 Large-scale energy facilities: labor: electricity rates. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB978 3/4

Page 317 of 330 ends

SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution. 2/23/26, 11:27 AM Bill Text - SB-978 Large-scale energy facilities: labor: electricity rates. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB978 4/4

Page 318 of 330 ends

Staff Report
March 4, 2026
ATTACHMENT 5
SB 978 Fact Sheet

Page 319 of 330 ends

Last updated: February 9, 2026

Senate Bill 978 (Pérez)
The Data Center Community Accountability Act
Summary
SB 978 ensures that new data centers are built and
operated responsibly by protecting energy
ratepayers from higher costs, requiring data centers
to pay their fair share, supporting good paying jobs
for workers and establishing rules for backup
generators to protect surrounding communities.

Background
In recent years, there has been a spike in the roll
out of hyperscale data centers across the country. A
hyperscale data center is a facility that houses and
runs large-scale computer systems for data storage,
as well as both AI development and deployment.1
Some projections indicate that data center
electricity demand could double or triple by 2028,
accounting for as much as 12% of total U.S.
electricity use.2

When hyperscale data centers are added to a utility
service territory, they require additional
infrastructure to support their operations, often
resulting in the construction of new transmission
facilities.3 The California Energy Commission (CEC)
estimates data center demand on the electrical grid
will increase by 3.3 gigawatts by 2035. On average,
an AI hyperscale data center uses as much
electricity as 100,000 households.4 Without
regulation, the costs and impacts of this increased
energy demand could be shifted onto ratepayers
and the broader electrical grid.

1 “Data Centers and Their Energy Consumption: Frequently Asked Questions.” Congress.gov, 26 August 2025, Data Centers and Their Energy Consumption: Frequently Asked Questions | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
2 Ibid.
3 “How Will Data Center Growth Impact California Ratepayers?”. The Public Advocates Office, 28 October 2025, How Will Data Center Growth Impact California Ratepayers?
4 “What we know about energy use at U.S. data centers amid the AI boom.” Pew Research Center, 24 October 2025, US data centers’ energy use amid the artificial intelligence boom | Pew Research Center 5 Ibid.
6 “Powering the US Data Center Boom: Why Forecasting Can Be So Tricky”. World Resources Institute, 17 September 2025, Powering the This issue is particularly significant for California.

Already, roughly one-third of U.S. data centers are
in the state, creating the risk of additional costs
being layered on already skyrocketing residential
electricity bills5. As experts have noted, “the era of
flat data center energy use is over”6. While changes
in load that require additional energy are common,
data centers are unique in their extraordinary
energy intensity, consuming 10 to 50 times more
energy per square foot than a typical commercial
office building.7

Further contributing to the impacts of data centers
on the electrical grid, and by extension onto
ratepayers, is the lack of flexibility in their energy
use. Even during periods of high grid demand, data
centers require uninterrupted service and often rely
on diesel-powered backup generators to maintain
operations. According to the CAISO’s 2022 Summer
Market Performance Report, these generators are
typically used during afternoon peak load hours.8
Liang Min, who leads Stanford’s Bits and Watts
Initiative, argues that “the state should improve its
forecasts for energy demand to support clean
energy goals”.9

Problem
The operational pressures presented by data
centers also intersects with broader economic and
public health issues.

US Data Center Boom: The Challenge of Forecasting Electricity Needs| World Resources Institute
7 “How Will Data Center Growth Impact California Ratepayers?”. The Public Advocates Office, 28 October 2025, How Will Data Center Growth Impact California Ratepayers?
8 “An Assessment of California Data Centers’ Environmental and Public Health Impacts”. Next10, UC Riverside, 12 November 2025, ai- environmental-public-health-costs.pdf
9 “Data centers are putting new strain on California’s grid. A new report estimates the impacts”. CalMatters, 14, California data centers rapidly increasing energy use, report finds

Page 320 of 330 ends

Last updated: February 3, 2026
Data centers pose a great risk to ratepayers if left
unchecked. Their projected electricity demand will
require the construction of new transmission
infrastructure, and without clear statutory
guidance, those costs may be passed to ratepayers
and other commercial energy consumers.10 Energy
costs have already been rising since 2015,
compounding those concerns.11 Additionally,
establishing strong labor standards for their
construction is also essential to ensure these
projects are completed with a skilled workforce.

Another risk arises when transmission
infrastructure is planned or built to serve the high
energy demands of a data center, only for a data
center to relocate or abandon the project leaving
those costs to ratepayers.12 Once the utility begins
to build transmission lines to support the new load,
there is currently no requirement that a data center
remain in place or reimburse costs if it moves
operations, secures a better rate elsewhere, or
experiences project delays.

Beyond cost impacts, data centers also create public
health concerns due to air pollution from backup
diesel generator use. Statewide public health costs
associated with emissions from data center backup
generators are estimated to reach up to $266.57
million by 2028.13 Even modest emissions from
these generators can push local air quality beyond
health-based limits, resulting in respiratory and
other health impacts for nearby communities.14

Although governors across the country are
beginning to recognize these challenges in a
bipartisan way,15 California must act proactively by
adopting laws that include explicit and enforceable
ratepayer protections, clear labor standards for new
construction, and measures that address the

10 “How Will Data Center Growth Impact California Ratepayers?”. The Public Advocates Office, 28 October 2025, How Will Data Center Growth Impact California Ratepayers?
11 “A Closer Look at California’s Surging Electricity Rates”. Public Policy Institute of California, 1 April 2025, A Closer Look at California’s Surging Electricity Rates - Public Policy Institute of California 12 “How Will Data Center Growth Impact California Ratepayers?”. The Public Advocates Office, 28 October 2025, How Will Data Center Growth Impact California Ratepayers?
disproportionate public health impacts of data
center growth.

Solution
SB 978 addresses these challenges by establishing
clear, targeted requirements to protect ratepayers,
safeguard public health, and ensure alignment with
California’s climate and workforce goals. It
specifically:

1. Creates a separate rate class for data
centers operating over 75MW; recognizing
that their load characteristic differs
significantly from other large energy
consumers.

2. Requires qualifying data centers, defined as
those operating at more than 75MW and
requiring additional transmission capacity,
to pay upfront for the associated costs to
prevent stranded assets and cost shifts to
ratepayers.

3. Requires data centers to use clean back-up
generation rather than diesel or other
polluting sources.

4. Directs the CEC to estimate impacts of data
centers on the state’s ability to meet its
climate goals.

5. Ensures that all data centers built in
California employ a workforce that is paid a
living wage.

Sponsors:

Author

Support

Contact
[email protected]
916-651-4025
13 “An Assessment of California Data Centers’ Environmental and Public Health Impacts”. Next10, UC Riverside, 12 November 2025, ai- environmental-public-health-costs.pdf
14 Ibid.
15 “Governors Collaborate to Ensure Regional Energy Affordability”.

National Governors Association, 21 January 2026, Governors Collaborate to Ensure Regional Energy Affordability - National Governors Association

Page 321 of 330 ends

Staff Report
March 4, 2026
ATTACHMENT 6
Letters of Support

Page 322 of 330 ends

PRIDE IN THE PAST • FAITH IN THE FUTURE

320 West Newmark Ave. Monterey Park, CA 91754
www.montereypark.ca.gov

CITY CLERK

MAYCHELLE YEE

CITY TREASURER

AMY LEE

CITY COUNCIL

HENRY LO

VINH NGO

JOSE SANCHEZ

THOMAS WONG

ELIZABETH YANG

March 4, 2026

The Honorable Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
California State Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: AB 1577 (Bauer-Kahan) – Data Center Energy and Water Transparency NOTICE OF SUPPORT – City of Monterey Park

Dear Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan,

On behalf of the City of Monterey Park, I am writing to express our support for AB 1577, which establishes a structured and transparent framework for reporting data center energy and water use while safeguarding consumer privacy.

As California continues to experience rapid growth in data -intensive industries, local governments must better understand the cumulative impacts of large-scale data centers on energy demand, water resources, and local infrastructure. AB 1577 provides an im portant tool to support informed planning and responsible development by requiring standardized reporting on power usage effectiveness, water usage effectiveness, and total energy consumption.

The bill appropriately balances transparency with privacy by requiring that reported data be anonymized and aggregated for public access. This approach ensures policymakers, utilities, and communities have access to meaningful information without compromising sensitive or proprietary data. Additionally, the requirement for data center developers to disclose relevant energy and water consumption information during the permitting process will help local jurisdictions evaluate potential impacts early and coord inate effectively with utilities and regional partners.

Page 323 of 330 ends

PRIDE IN THE PAST • FAITH IN THE FUTURE

320 West Newmark Ave. Monterey Park, CA 91754
www.montereypark.ca.gov

For cities like Monterey Park, which are working to advance sustainability goals while maintaining reliable public services, AB 1577 supports better decision- making and long -term resource planning. The bill promotes accountability, encourages efficient design, and aligns with California’s broader climate, energy, and water conservation objectives.

For these reasons, the City of Monterey Park supports AB 1577 and thanks you for your leadership on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Yang
Mayor

Henry Lo
Mayor Pro Tem

Jose Sanchez
Councilmember

Thomas Wong
Councilmember

Vinh T. Ngo
Councilmember

Page 324 of 330 ends

PRIDE IN THE PAST • FAITH IN THE FUTURE

320 West Newmark Ave. Monterey Park, CA 91754
www.montereypark.ca.gov

CITY CLERK

MAYCHELLE YEE

CITY TREASURER

AMY LEE

CITY COUNCIL

HENRY LO

VINH NGO

JOSE SANCHEZ

THOMAS WONG

ELIZABETH YANG

March 4, 2026

The Honorable Steve Padilla
California State Senate
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: SB 886 California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act NOTICE OF SUPPORT – City of Monterey Park

Dear Senator Padilla,

On behalf of the City of Monterey Park, I am writing to express our support for SB 886, the California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act. This bill will provide essential clarity and fairness in how large- scale energy users such as data ce nters interconnect with our electrical grid and how the costs of those interconnections are allocated.

SB 886 requires the Public Utilities Commission to establish or modify an electrical corporation tariff that governs how large load customers connect to the grid and receive transmission and distribution services. The bill ensures that eligibility criteria are established for large load customers and facilities and that the tariff prevents cost shifts to other ratepayers while evaluating risks and benefits to nonparticipating customers. This provision is particularly important for cities like Monterey Park, where residents and local businesses are already facing high utility costs and cannot absorb increased costs caused by large energy intensive facilities.

The bill further supports responsible planning by encouraging local publicly owned electric utilities to adopt similar tariffs that keep costs from being shifted to residents who do not participate in special rate programs. This approach aligns with our city’s interest in protecting ratepayers and ensuring that growth in energy

Page 325 of 330 ends

PRIDE IN THE PAST • FAITH IN THE FUTURE

320 West Newmark Ave. Monterey Park, CA 91754
www.montereypark.ca.gov

demand does not unfairly burden communities that are not directly benefiting from these facilities.

For these reasons the City of Monterey Park supports SB 886 and appreciates your leadership in advancing policy that protects residents from undue cost burdens while promoting fair participation in the electrical grid.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Yang
Mayor

Henry Lo
Mayor Pro Tem

Jose Sanchez
Councilmember

Thomas Wong
Councilmember

Vinh T. Ngo
Councilmember

Page 326 of 330 ends

PRIDE IN THE PAST • FAITH IN THE FUTURE

320 West Newmark Ave. Monterey Park, CA 91754
www.montereypark.ca.gov

CITY CLERK

MAYCHELLE YEE

CITY TREASURER

AMY LEE

CITY COUNCIL

HENRY LO

VINH NGO

JOSE SANCHEZ

THOMAS WONG

ELIZABETH YANG

March 4, 2026

The Honorable Steve Padilla
California State Senate
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: SB 887 (Padilla) – Data Centers and CEQA Clarity
NOTICE OF SUPPORT- City of Monterey Park

Dear Senator Padilla,

On behalf of the City of Monterey Park, I am writing to express our support for SB 887, which provides important clarification regarding the application of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to data center projects while establishing a respons ible and balanced pathway for streamlined review when stringent environmental standards are met.

As data center development continues to expand across California, it is critical that state law clearly reflects the significant energy, water, and infrastructure impacts associated with these facilities. SB 887 appropriately clarifies that data centers are not ministerial projects and should not be categorically exempt from CEQA review. This clarification supports transparency, informed decision-making, and meaningful environmental analysis at both the state and local levels.

At the same time, the bill thoughtfully allows large data center projects to qualify for streamlined CEQA review under the state’s environmental leadership development program when they meet rigorous requirements related to zero - carbon energy use, water efficiency, grid cost recovery, and community benefits.

This balanced approach encourages innovation and economic development while ensuring projects advance California’s environmental, climate, and equity goals.

Page 327 of 330 ends

Monterey Park City CouncilMarch 4, 2026

Monterey Park City Council
March 4, 2026