Commission studies data centers: staff urged to define use, thresholds and impacts

The Planning Commission spent a study-session segment on July 8 evaluating whether and how Pasadena should define and regulate data centers, including small "edge" facilities, multi‑tenant operations and larger "hyperscale" centers.

Staff findings and technical framing: Planning staff described typologies (hyperscale, multi-tenant, edge), legislative activity elsewhere (Monterey Park’s Measure N ban; state and federal bills under consideration) and a set of potential development standards: on-site clean power generation, backup power, limits on water-cooled systems, buffering for noise and mechanical equipment, and thresholds for power/water use or land area to distinguish limited from general data centers. Staff used examples to illustrate resource impacts — for instance, a 10‑megawatt data center could consume energy roughly equivalent to 8,000 households and use on the order of 40 acre-feet of water annually — and noted the city’s code currently does not contain a specific data-center land use.

Utility perspective and case-by-case constraints: Bill Varsh of Pasadena Water and Power advised that any sizable data-center application would require case-by-case evaluation for power and water demands, reliability and contractual arrangements (long-term service agreements), and that smaller ‘‘edge’’ facilities would be orders of magnitude less demanding than hyperscale projects. PWP staff said energy demand can be priced through demand charges and that large customers may require long-term contracts and transmission upgrades.

Public comments and community concern: Members of the public urged caution or outright prohibition. Yadi and others recommended an immediate moratorium or ban, citing fire‑hazard vulnerability (Eaton Fire), water scarcity and air/noise concerns and urging the city not to permit data centers by exploiting r&d or ancillary-use loopholes. Several commenters referenced a recently purchased Amazon site in Northeast Pasadena and urged the city to prohibit data centers until benefits outweigh risks.

Commissioner direction: Commissioners asked staff to draft clear, tiered definitions (limited vs. general), to compare local examples (Vernon, Temple City, Monterey Park), to estimate impacts relative to institutional users (hospital or university campuses), and to return with draft code language that would: (1) allow ancillary data centers for existing institutions (Caltech, JPL, Huntington) under clear standards; (2) establish size or power/water thresholds that would trigger more intensive review or prohibition; and (3) consider entitlements more rigorous than a simple CUP — for example, planned development agreements or development agreements that include enforceable community benefits and infrastructure upgrades. Several commissioners emphasized that large hyperscale facilities are unlikely in Pasadena’s current built context but that the city should close definitional loopholes and set enforceable thresholds.

Next steps: Staff will collect comparative case studies, prepare draft definitions and threshold options (by size, land area, and power/water use), consult PWP on service implications, and return with a more detailed package for commission feedback.