A second attempt at a pause on data center applications in Orange County failed Tuesday night, this time not for a lack of a second, but on a 1-4 vote.
For the second consecutive meeting, Orange County District 4 Supervisor Crystal Coleman called for a pause on data center applications in the county and motioned to send the highly criticized technology zoning district back to the planning commission for refinement.
In December, supervisors approved the district to accommodate high-intensity technology-based uses including data centers, technology schools or colleges and technology research and development facilities. Four uses are allowed by special use permit (SUP)–on-site power generation, a public utility facility not including utility-scale solar, a telecommunications tower and a data center. The district is floating and could be applied to any suitable property through a rezoning. It sets forth larger setbacks and buffers as well as height restrictions and sign regulations. The use of public water, groundwater or potable water is prohibited. Additional regulations added by the planning commission in response to public feedback were removed by supervisors including the requirement of quarterly utility usage reports and a 1,000 feet setback from an occupied residence. Residents utilizing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allege emails confirm those additional regulations were removed after feedback was received from those in the data center industry.
Since its approval, county residents have questioned the zoning ordinance, stating it lacks specific guardrails and should be applied to a designated area rather than be applicable to any qualifying parcel via a rezoning. Further FOIA requests of county emails and other records have led residents to determine supervisors not only knew about the potential of a 765kV transmission line coming to the county, but identified potential properties for hyperscale data center development.
During Tuesday’s board of supervisors meeting, Coleman again attempted to pause data center applications, although supervisors allege no applications have yet been received, and instruct the planning commission to further refine the technology zoning district. Unlike the last meeting, this time the two matters were part of the official meeting agenda and were actually discussed. Coleman said having the planning commission evaluate the district wasn’t an effort to eliminate it or any indication that she is opposed to it or related development in the county. Instead, a pause would represent responsible governing and being willing to revisit decisions when additional information is learned.
Specifically, she would like the commission to look at the district’s location and acreage, if existing setbacks are enough to protect residential development and ensure an understanding of electrical infrastructure, noise and wastewater discharge.
District 5 supervisor and board chair Bryan Nicol said the district was developed utilizing an extensive public process. He said discussion at the time was that the board wouldn’t choose an exact location for the district or as he put it, “winners or losers.” He referenced FOIA requests that have revealed the supervisors looked at specific properties that could accommodate data centers. He further refined that to three properties. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by Michael and Sarah Regan designate those three properties as allegedly the Faulconer, Wilson and Boyd properties–references to the owners of each.
Nicol said Coleman herself had suggested a property, something Coleman took issue with. She claimed it was a suggestion made in passing, one she took back a week later as having been in “poor taste.”
“I continue to be misrepresented by you and I don’t appreciate it,” Coleman said.
District 2 Supervisor Ed Van Hoven said he didn’t see anything in the ordinance that he would want to send back to the planning commission.
“If it wasn’t pretty good we would have had applications lined up,” he said. “We can address noise standards, power generation and wastewater discharge once we have an application.”
District 3 Supervisor Keith Marshall agreed stating he had asked the commissioners their thoughts and all indicated that they wouldn’t want to revisit it.
District 1 Supervisor Jason Capelle said a pause on data center applications wouldn’t impact the county’s fight against Valley Link. He, too, said there were three sites that have been discussed since he came on the board in January.
“We put this ordinance [into place] in December,” Capelle said. “It’s almost nine months later and [developers] haven’t figured out how to meet the ordinance. If it were such a slam dunk, we would’ve had an application within a month.”
He said landowners have property rights and the three specific landowners have had discussions with the county’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) and county officials. It would be wrong, he said, to go back and try to block them.
“I would rather see their applications,” Capelle said, “[and] get to see the other side of the story which none of us have seen yet.”
Coleman said Capelle would feel differently if any of the applications supervisors were waiting on were in his district. She said she’s acting on what her constituents want. She also alluded to supervisors, who she didn’t identify, saying they were “waiting for applications so [they] can deny them.” Coleman said landowners are investing money into something they think could be an opportunity and it would be unfair to wait for an application knowing it would be denied.
“We should do what is right and what is reasonable,” she said, stating supervisors should humbly do what constituents have asked of them.
The motion to return the district back to the commission failed 1-4. A subsequent motion to pause data center applications also failed 1-4.
Meanwhile, residents continue to question supervisors, stating data center conversations were occurring behind closed doors for two years and asking why they’re not listening to constituents.
Resident Bonnie Fincham said the whole thing is frustrating. She said the floating technology zone would allow for data centers to be put anywhere in the county and said the zone should instead be contained.
“We hear a lot about large property owners and their rights to do with their land,” Fincham said. “What about the small landowners? All of these things are going to have consequences on us, the little people.”
Mayhurst owner Casey Cashell said supervisors had a chance to restore lost trust by supporting the pause on applications. Michael Regan said since the county has spent so much time courting data centers, it’s unlikely supervisors will vote to deny an application.
“Four of the five supervisors have demonstrated they are more willing to keep advancing the interest of data center development and its promised tax revenue than to listen to the residents asking them to slow down,” he said.
Resident Paul McDonald suggested the supervisors bring in the county’s economic development staff to make a presentation regarding the “county’s two year old plus secret data center recruitment program.” He said the standard response from supervisors have been that they are passively waiting for an application, which he said is now known to be a “complete mischaracterization.”
“I urge you to have the economic development office come in and brief the public on the data center recruitment program, the scope, taxpayer money that was spent, what has been done and what is planned,” McDonald said.
The Orange County Board of Supervisors will next meet Sept. 22 at 5 p.m.
