Clearing Up Data Center Confusion.
Good morning. We are going to go back to the data center application for a bit as I want to help clear up a few things.
There seems to be confusion in the community about what exactly is happening. Are we getting a data center? What is the plan for this data center? And so on.
When I broke this story, I tried to explain it the best I could. Since then, the Chronicle has done a couple of stories on it and I added a couple more.
But there seems to be some confusion, so I want to help clear it up.
No one is voting on a data center. That is not a part of any application. It will not be a part of the PDC hearing in March or the BOCC hearing in April. Why not? Because the application is for a zoning change and amendments to the Comp Plan and LDC. It is NOT an application for a data center.
Here is a screenshot of the staff report.
Here is the entire staff report if you wish to read it.
The key takeaway here is exactly what they are asking for... A Land Use Atlas Map Request to change several land zones and convert them to Heavy Industrial District and to alter the future land use of the property (which is where data center usage becomes an allowable use).
Note... they are NOT asking to approve a data center.
Why is this important?
As I mentioned the other day, if you are going to speak at the PDC or BOCC hearings, or send emails to them, you have to use factual information, otherwise they cannot consider it.
If a bunch of people get up to the microphone and speak about how they are for or against a data center, guess what? The boards cannot weigh that that testimony the same as someone who speaks about the zoning. Even if it is factual information with data about water usage and all of that... none of that can be looked at the same because they are not applying for a data center.
Yes, they are adding language that would allow a data center by right, so perhaps the door will be opened for that discussion, but the attorneys will remind the boards that the application is not for a data center but for a land use change which allows all kinds of other uses besides a data center.
My suggestion... if you are going to go speak at the meeting... speak about the industrial usage of the property. Speak about what the rezoning of large parcels of agriculture, low density residential and medium density residential will do to the surrounding properties that have homes on them.
Speak for/against the rezoning application and present facts/evidence to support your viewpoint on that issue.
Focus on things like this (from the staff report)
The talk for this project is a data center and I think that is what the end user is planned to be, but as Ms Avis Craig has mentioned in other hearings (she has a letter as part of this application).... "The one constant about plans is that they will change".
If plans change it is not a data center, the zoning change allows it to be anything allowed within industrial zoned properties. Anything with a P below (except for marijuana facilities which are now banned) would be allowed by right. No approval needed from the BOCC once the zoning is changed.
So if plans change and it is no longer a data center, it can be any number of things.
Even if it is a data center, staff has concerns about water.
Remember, any change in the LDC will not apply to this application. Here is a conversation between Commissioner Kinnard and County Attorney Denise Lyn regarding this. Remember, Kinnard proposed the LDC changes at the last meeting and suggested to Ms Lyn that they would apply for this application.
In this reply, Ms Lyn states it will not apply to this application as it is already pending.
However, since this is a land use change, staff can recommend changes and conditions on the projects. If agreed to, the developer would be bound by those things, but they do not have to agree.
Remember, each side presents their own case. The developer presents and then staff with the boards issuing a recommendation (PDC) or decision (BOCC). The applicant does not have to agree with staff and the PDC/BOCC can agree/disagree with either.
One more question I want to explore. Back in the Ron Kitchen days, the BOCC required whoever was submitting an application for a zoning or land use change to present a site plan for the project. He wanted to see exactly what was being planned and require the applicant to stick to that plan. This would outline all the buildings, parking, houses, parks, etc that were being planned for each project.
Why are we no longer doing that? Why is the BOCC not requiring that as part of the process? In this case with Holder Industrial Park, it would tie the developer to a specific plan. The BOCC (and the public) would see exactly what was being planned and all of that. If it is a data center, the size of it and other uses within the property would be shown.
Say what you want about Kitchen, he was right on this. Make the developers stick to a set plan and do not give them the ability to pull the wool over our eyes. We saw that happen in the 486/491 intersection and it can certainly happen again. Time for the BOCC to hold firm on this so that we know exactly what we are getting when these come before the county.