Planning commission backs data‑center PUDs with technical limits after heavy public concern

The Oklahoma City Planning Commission on a (recommendation) moved the proposed PUD rezoning for a large data‑center campus near I‑40 (PUD 21‑05 and companion PUD 21‑24) toward City Council consideration, attaching a set of technical evaluations aimed at limiting noise, protecting water resources and requiring utility coordination.

Applicant David Box and Ryan Sanders of BeltLine Energy described the project as a data center designed for high‑performance computing and artificial‑intelligence workloads. Sanders said the site is located on a resilient node of the local energy grid and that the facility would be built with “landscape buffers, setbacks and reduced noise allowances” compared with typical industrial zoning. “A data center is, at a high level, a piece of digital infrastructure that processes digital compute,” Sanders told commissioners.

Neighbors and environmental advocates offered lengthy, sometimes emotional public comment. Residents and groups warned the projects could strain water supplies, increase electricity costs and produce constant low‑frequency noise and light pollution. Ashley Lamont of Honor the Earth said data centers “can consume as much water and power as entire towns” and urged commissioners to reject rezoning. Charles Scott, an environmental consultant who lives in Yukon, told the commission he was concerned the PUD language as originally filed referenced Yukon water and that water‑service details remain unresolved.

City staff and the applicants spent much of the hearing negotiating seven so‑called Technical Evaluations (TEs) that staff recommended. After discussion the commission and applicant agreed to a set of limits and clarifications to be recorded in exhibit D (the data‑center development regulations). Key negotiated elements read into the record included:

- A reduction to allowable decibel levels at property lines (applicant agreed to lower levels compared with default industrial zoning and staff added a follow‑up TE requiring refinement of noise language prior to council); - Generator enclosures and sound‑dampening requirements, with language to ensure enclosures shield equipment but not conflict with exhaust/engine function; a maximum enclosure height and requirement that enclosures be architecturally integrated were included; - Potable water may be used only for domestic, fire and irrigation purposes; potable water is not contemplated for cooling and wells for cooling are prohibited; cooling shall rely on treated wastewater or air‑cooled systems per exhibit D subject to limits; - Cooling‑water sourcing language modified so Oklahoma City utilities (and the Water Utility Trust) are the governing approvals; the applicant may pursue reclaimed water agreements, but not at the expense of the city’s potable supply; - A request that the local electric utility provide a letter describing generation‑capacity impacts remained in the record as a staff TE for City Council to consider; representatives from OG&E said they could provide a will‑serve statement but that detailed commitments require complex negotiations and regulatory review.

Commissioners said the PUD process — rather than a fixed ordinance — allowed flexibility to address issues raised in study sessions and public comment. Commissioner Meek, who led portions of the discussion, said the applicant had been cooperative and that many concerns will be further addressed before council and in permitting. Commissioner LaForge said she favored retaining staff’s request for utility capacity information so City Council can weigh grid impacts.

The commission’s recommendation is advisory; the PUDs now go to Oklahoma City Council, where the city will post the final exhibit D language and technical evaluations. Applicant representatives said they plan to continue discussions with OG&E, Oklahoma City utilities and state regulators as the project proceeds. "If they cannot get the power they cannot build the product," the applicant said during debate.

Next steps: the item was recommended for approval to City Council with the TEs and exhibit D language to be refined for council review.