Lancaster residents press council for stronger community benefits agreement as data-center plans advance
Loading...
Summary
Residents pressed Lancaster City Council to withhold final approvals until a stronger, enforceable community benefits agreement (CBA) is produced for proposed data centers. Speakers cited environmental, health and quality‑of‑life risks, questioned zoning classifications, and urged tighter enforcement mechanisms and planning for future expansion.
Dozens of Lancaster residents used public comment at the Oct. 28 Lancaster City Council meeting to urge stronger protections and enforceable guarantees in the still‑unfinished community benefits agreement tied to proposed data centers.
“I look forward to this council and anybody involved paying particular attention to the community benefits portion of the community benefits agreement,” said Ian McAndrew, a Lancaster resident, saying the draft CBA appeared “very short on benefits for the community, and very short on enforcement mechanisms.” Sarah Berman, another resident, said the draft lacked “any enforcement, any teeth,” and listed concerns about water, energy use, and “extreme light and sound pollution.”
The public comments reflected several recurring concerns: that the developer’s draft CBA does not include clear enforcement mechanisms or remedies if promises are broken; that infrastructure and zoning classifications used to permit the projects may not reflect the true scale of data‑center operations; and that approvals for an initial phase could presage larger, more impactful future expansions.
Speakers described expected impacts ranging from additional local energy and water demand to quality‑of‑life issues such as noise and light. “Phase 1 is only the beginning,” Sarah Berman said. “There’s gonna be a phase 2, and we’re not even planning for that yet.” Several speakers recommended revisiting zoning definitions that had been used to approve the sites.
Council president Begay opened the meeting by telling the public the CBA had not been delivered to council and that negotiations were continuing. “I have a meeting scheduled later this week to receive updates,” Begay said, and indicated council could expect the CBA to return in November.
Several speakers also asked for improved public engagement and transparency: better notice about hearings, clearer posting of meeting agendas and materials, and clearer timelines for when any CBA would be finalized. Tony Dastra and others urged improvements to the livestream and communications systems so residents who cannot attend in person can follow negotiations.
No formal action was taken on data‑center approvals during the Oct. 28 meeting. The comments were part of the public record and were directed to the council for consideration while negotiations continue.
Looking ahead, residents asked council to ensure any CBA contains specific, enforceable commitments, monitoring and reporting requirements, and clear remedies for breaches so that promised community benefits cannot be interpreted as aspirational language alone.
