Committee advances St. Louis data‑center zoning bill after amendments on renewables, noise and reporting

The St. Louis City Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committee on July 7 voted 6‑0 to give Board Bill 49 a due‑pass recommendation after adopting a package of amendments that the bill’s sponsor said balance the city’s sustainability goals with project feasibility.

“A board bill does not ban data centers,” Alderman Switzer, sponsor of the measure, told the committee as she walked through the revisions. Switzer said the proposal treats data centers as conditional land uses with three size categories (micro, standard and major), includes a 500,000‑square‑foot cap in the text as written, and requires projects to demonstrate how they will meet noise, construction and renewable‑energy conditions.

Why it matters: The measure is the city’s first comprehensive attempt to regulate hyperscale and smaller data centers as land uses. Supporters say the thresholds will protect neighborhoods from pollution, noise and rising utility costs; opponents say the requirements could effectively block projects without additional workforce or community‑benefit provisions.

Key changes adopted

- Renewable thresholds and compliance pathways: The committee approved an amendment that makes the day‑one renewable requirement flexible between bundled and unbundled renewable energy credits (RECs), allows up to 25% unbundled REC credit at the five‑year benchmark, and preserves a more stringent year‑10 target that emphasizes bundled RECs (the sponsor described the year‑10 allocation as 75% bundled/25% unbundled in the staff text).

- Noise measurement and enforcement: The committee added language requiring baseline noise levels be measured by a city‑approved third‑party noise professional and clarified triggers for post‑construction testing and complaints.

- Reporting and waiver documentation: An amendment requires annual renewable‑energy progress reports and explicit documentation that operators must submit when requesting the one‑year waiver at year five, so staff can assess whether reasonable efforts were made toward compliance.

Public testimony and technical concerns

Adolphus Pruitt, president of the St. Louis NAACP, opposed the bill as written, saying it does not ensure training or job access for residents and warning it could "block the potential funding sources" that might support workforce development. “This bill is not ready,” Pruitt said during public comment.

Environmental advocates including Elise Schafer of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment backed the regulations as achievable and necessary. “The thresholds laid out in this bill are more than generous for companies to meet,” Schafer said, noting typical timelines for utility‑scale wind and solar development versus data‑center construction.

Experts raised technical adjustments. Dr. Casey Fellerfin, a biology professor who has studied sound, told the committee low‑frequency noise from data‑center equipment can travel far beyond the bill’s 600‑foot setback and recommended octave‑band or g‑rated measurements, wider setbacks and complaint‑triggered retesting protocols. “The setback specifications in this bill do not work for the physics of the noise that data centers actually produce,” Fellerfin testified.

Staff and mayoral support

Miriam Keller of the City’s Planning and Urban Design Agency described the amendments as technical fixes the department helped craft in response to stakeholder input and recommended the planning commission review the final language. Caitlin Smith, a policy adviser to the mayor, said the mayor’s office supports the bill as amended.

Vote and next steps

The committee moved the amended Board Bill 49 out with a due‑pass recommendation on a voice/roll call vote (six aye votes: Aldermen McWeitzer, Vice chair Sonia, Browning, Aldrich, Chair Clark Hubbard and Cone). Planning staff said the commission will review the amendments the following day at 5:30 p.m.; if the committee’s recommendation holds, the bill is slated for second reading on Friday.

What the bill does not yet include

Witnesses and residents repeatedly asked for explicit workforce development or community‑consent mechanisms to be paired with the zoning rules. Multiple commenters and a few committee members said those policy elements would be better addressed in separate legislation rather than in a zoning regulation.

The committee recorded 16 pieces of written testimony on the bill and closed the meeting after approving minutes from prior sessions. The planning commission and the full Board of Aldermen will have additional opportunities to amend or refine the regulations before final passage.