Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the Oakley City Council and Planning Commission Held July 21, 2026
1) CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Henderson called the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m.
The meeting began after a brief delay to resolve a technical issue.
Councilmember Shaw, Councilmember Williams, Vice Mayor Meadows, Mayor Henderson, Commissioner Goudie, Commissioner Ireland, Vice Chair Harvey, and Chair Price were present. Councilmember Fuller was absent. 2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mayor Henderson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 3) PUBLIC COMMENTS
Online public comments were received from Lori Hayley and Joni Smith. The comments have been entered into the record and are available through the public portal. 4) WORK SESSION
4.1 Data Centers - City Council and Planning Commission Joint Work Session (Ken Strelo, Community Development Director and Derek Cole, City Attorney) Community Development Director Ken Strelo presented the staff report and explained the Planning Commission’s role for the work session.
Staff requested a brief recess at 6:40 p.m. to resolve a technical issue. The meeting resumed at 6:41 p.m.
Councilmember Williams expressed concern regarding data centers operating under a different title and requested ordinance language to prevent that from occurring. She asked whether the ordinance could specify the number of jobs per acre, similar to housing standards. She requested clarification on the Oakley Logistics Center (OLC) - specifically whether a data center could occupy the site if a tenant moved out and no permanent ban were in place.
Community Development Director Ken Strelo explained that if Council directs staff to draft a full ban, the ordinance would do more than reference the term “data center.” It would describe the use and how the use operates. He acknowledged that home-based data centers had not been evaluated. He also noted that while the Oakley Logistics Center has Planned Unit Development zoning, an expired moratorium without a permanent ban could allow an applicant to request an unclassified use permit for a data center.
Vice Chair Harvey inquired about the costs associated with placing a ballot measure.
She suggested classifying all data centers as “H-2” uses and emphasized the importance of protecting local water resources.
Mr. Strelo stated that the City’s current zoning, land use designations, and available land substantially located away from residential areas make the city an unattractive place for large-scale data centers. He noted that Oakley lacks a heavy industrial general plan land use designation and zoning district, leaving few potential sites for large data centers. He further explained that the Municipal Code does not currently include a definition for or listing of data centers therefore, they would be treated as an unclassified use, and there is a process for anybody proposing a use that is not defined in the zoning code. Mr. Strelo said that unlike certain uses, data centers primarily raise landuse and environmental considerations that could support an outright ban, however there are some caveats such as a pending application for a data center, of which there are currently none, or the possibility that such a facility was the only viable use for a property. He considered the latter circumstance unlikely because other industrial or commercial uses would be permitted on land where a data center might locate. Mr.
Strelo mentioned that any outright ban should be supported by findings regarding environmental, land-use, and related circumstances to support such a ban, and that no properties within the city would be precluded from developing other reasonable industrial or commercial uses.
Councilmember Shaw inquired if the City moves forward with a permanent ban and has specific findings, is it something the City Attorney works on with staff or if Council would need to determine what those findings would be.
City Attorney Derek Cole clarified that, consistent with standard practice, his office would propose language for Council review, which the Council could then modify or approve. He added that following Council direction, staff could return and formally introduce an ordinance or conduct a focused workshop to refine the proposed direction.
Councilmember Shaw requested an expedited timeline and supported having the City Attorney draft the language. She stated that she would like to be sure there are no loopholes, noting that the ordinance should define and prohibit the operational characteristics of data centers, thereby preventing similar uses from operating under another name.
Mr. Cole responded that the draft ordinance could define data centers both specifically and broadly to capture similar uses operating under different names.
Commissioner Ireland asked whether the ordinance could also address the external effects of what it is operating from an objective criteria standpoint. He noted that public comments highlighted concerns regarding water usage, noise, power consumption, and environmental risks associated with batteries and backup fuel storage systems.
Mr. Cole confirmed that the ordinance could identify those objective factors. He noted that based on his experience drafting ordinances, a focused workshop could be helpful to allow discussion of specific concerns.
Councilmember Shaw asked whether the workshop could be held jointly with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Cole confirmed that the workshop could be conducted jointly with the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Williams inquired if we hold a joint workshop, whether it would still require a first and second reading of the ordinance.
Mr. Cole responded that it would go before the Planning Commission for a recommendation under zoning ordinance procedures, then proceed to the City Council for introduction and return to the City Council for adoption, requiring three meetings.
Councilmember Williams inquired whether completing the process by the end of the year was realistic based on the proposed timeline.
Mr. Cole stated that completing the process by year-end would be ambitious. He noted that a workshop likely would not occur before September, after which the Planning Commission would need to make a recommendation before the City Council meeting could be noticed under the mandatory 20-day publication requirement.
Online written comments were submitted by: Jaana Hansen, Kelly Marvin, Robert Marvin, and Juliana M. Williams. The comments were entered into the record and are available through the public portal.
The following individuals provided in-person public comments:
Jon Basinger suggested offering educational information to students regarding data centers.
Randy Sullivan opposed additional large warehouses and data centers. They stated that their water and PG&E bills had doubled since they moved to Oakley and expressed concern about the loss of the community’s small-town character.
Jasper Willowbrook urged the Council to consider the Pittsburg data center and questioned the need to have data centers that close together using the same power source. They mentioned the devastating effects data centers are having all over the world and recommended an outright ban.
Cherie Cabral, representing the California Construction Labor Management Trust, identified themself as a 30-year resident of Contra Costa County and stated that data centers are established critical infrastructure and that more than 65 percent are smaller than a Home Depot. They acknowledged that such facilities may not be our favorite things to have nearby but said they support jobs and quality of life. They encouraged the Council to regulate data-center development through the planning process rather than impose an outright ban.
Melinda Mora stated they are a Pittsburg resident here supporting the ban on data centers. They were excited to hear that they (the Planning Commission and City Council) all agree on what the definition of a data center is and stated that additional facilities were unnecessary given current environmental impacts.
Louis Gentry stated that facilities of the scale under discussion were unnecessary. In addition to previously identified concerns, they mentioned they are also concerned with the amount of electronic waste generated and supports a data center ban.
Councilmember Shaw stated she is in support of a permanent ban. She expressed support for labor unions, but emphasized the need to consider long-term impacts. She cited the change in technology and concerns regarding AI data centers. She stated that she is unwilling to take the risk and would like to see it done sooner rather than later noting that residents have waited long enough.
Councilmember Williams stated that data centers do not bring enough jobs to justify approval. She also raised concerns about impacts from home-based versions of data centers, noting that those have not been addressed. She emphasized there is no need for it here and we have the luxury of being able to stop it and supports proceeding with the ban, streamlining and accelerating the process and ensuring the ordinance contains no loopholes.
Chair Price stated his support for proceeding with a ban and encouraged staff and the City Attorney to bring this to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Vice Mayor Meadows stated he would like staff to come back with more information on the health effects that any potential data centers would have on the community and the appropriate distance they should be from residential areas.
Vice Chair Harvey stated she supports a full ban on data centers and re-iterated she would like to see them classified as “H-2.”
Mayor Henderson stated he supports the ban and would like to see this continue at a pace to be completed by the end of the year. He stated he supports a second focused workshop.
Commissioner Ireland stated he would like to see the workshop proceed as quickly as possible while considering the objective criteria and protecting accessory uses. He noted that he would like to see more details on the health effects and stated he supports a full ban.
The City Council and Planning Commission agreed to hold a second joint workshop that would focus on an ordinance establishing an outright ban.
Community Development Director Ken Strelo summarized the final consensus direction to confirm how staff and the City Attorney should proceed. He reported staff understood the final direction to hold another work session to focus on the health effects on nearby residential areas, look at draft ordinance language, and to proceed with a ban by year’s end. No further clarification or direction was provided to staff.
ADJOURN
There being no further business, the mayor adjourned the meeting in honor of Rohan Sharma at 7:51 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kim Snodgrass
City Clerk