Four hours and 36 minutes after gaveling in, the Hillsboro Planning Commission adjourned its Aug. 26 hearing on the city’s first-ever data center zoning code without a vote and without, by several commissioners’ own account, a clear enough answer to some basic questions about what the rules would actually allow. A smaller group of residents came to speak about what they disliked about this proposal. The meeting agenda and informational packet were updated by the staff just before the meeting, which started the process off on a bad note. But those people were heard by the Commissioners, and their voices were influential in changing the outcome of the evening.
The hearing was supposed to produce a recommendation to send to City Council on Community Development Code Amendment 00426, the “phase one” rules defining where data centers and battery energy storage can be built in Hillsboro and under what limits. Instead, after nearly two hours of public testimony and roughly another hour of commissioners’ deliberation, the Commission voted unanimously to continue the item to Sept. 9th, asking staff to return with more specific numbers rather than concepts.
**What residents told the commission**
Seventeen people signed up to testify in person, plus one online. Almost none supported the draft as written.
Several speakers focused on a single number: the code’s proposed 30% cap on the portion of an industrial site that a data center can occupy as an “accessory use” to another business with no limit on total square footage. Resident Paige Mendicino told commissioners that on a 50-acre site, that cap alone amounts to a 15-acre data center footprint, with nothing in the draft to prevent it from dwarfing whatever business it’s supposedly accessory to. Janna Nelson made a related point about the renamed “data storage and processing” category, arguing it opens the door to more AI development after months of public opposition to exactly that at City Council.
Simone Campbell walked commissioners through the math on the city’s proposed acreage caps for standalone data centers: the industrial park zone’s 215-acre cap against roughly 203 acres already built or approved, and the industrial sanctuary zone’s 310-acre cap against roughly 292 acres already in use. By her calculation, the caps leave little room for anything new, while the code simultaneously prohibits data centers in ten other zones where none currently exist. Her conclusion: the amendment mostly locks in what’s already built while deferring every protective standard — school buffers, building setbacks, a public hearing requirement — to a “phase two” amendment with no fixed adoption date.
Other testimony ranged from process concerns (Denise Caire called the draft language inaccessible to a general reader) to broader opposition to data centers generally (multiple speakers, including Sandra and a speaker identified only by “Brown” in the meeting’s captioning, argued no further data center development should be approved at all) to a candidate for State Senate, Myrna Munoz, urging the commission to add school-proximity protections now rather than waiting.
Renewable Northwest’s Adam Capage, testifying online, raised a more technical flag: a Land Use Board of Appeals decision issued that same day, Aug. 26, reaffirmed that battery energy storage is legally classified as a “utility facility” for siting purposes, while solar generation is not, meaning the draft’s plan to regulate storage and generation under one permitting framework may not track how state law treats each differently.
**Where commissioners themselves got stuck**
Commissioners spent much of the pre-testimony question period probing the same soft spots the public would later raise, and several left the hearing without answers.
Commissioner Stephen Davis pressed staff repeatedly on the accessory-use cap, eventually getting Community Planning Director Dan Diaz to confirm, under questioning, that a worst-case build-out across the city’s two eligible industrial zones could produce roughly 1,200 to 1,300 acres of accessory-use data center space — more than double the 608-acre cap the rest of the amendment sets for standalone data centers. Davis also asked what prevents an existing, lower-intensity data center from being redeveloped into a much higher-intensity one — with more power and water draw on the same acreage — without triggering any additional review. Staff’s answer: nothing does, under this draft. That’s explicitly left for phase two.
Commissioner Diana Jackson pushed staff on whether artificial intelligence should be defined and regulated separately from ordinary data storage, citing concerns about job displacement. Staff’s answer was that they’re not aware of “hyperscale” AI data centers specifically in Hillsboro, while acknowledging that AI use in various forms already exists here, didn’t fully satisfy her, and she asked for it to be revisited. Jackson also spoke as a parent whose child attends a school near a proposed data center site, pushing for noise and proximity protections to be included in phase one rather than waiting for phase two.
Commissioner Anne Thrall-Nash asked the sharpest process question of the night: what, legally, counts as “significant progress” if council wants to extend the data center moratorium past its 120-day limit in November? Staff conceded there’s no defined standard — it’s entirely discretionary. Later, when staff offered to map buffer zones around schools as a quick win for the Sept. 9 meeting, Thrall-Nash was the one who caught the catch: that map is close to meaningless until the accessory-use percentage is actually locked down, since under the current 30% allowance, most of the eligible industrial land could functionally become “accessory” data center territory regardless of where a buffer line gets drawn. Staff conceded the point on the record.
Commissioner Joe Grillo argued for moving data center approvals to a Type III process (something several in attendance asked for, as data centers now have no required hearings, while Public Schools, for instance, typically do)—meaning a public hearing. As it is, Data Centers are a Type II staff-level decision. Grillo opined that there is considerable confusion and emotion among these users and that a Type III hearing would be the most direct way to rebuild public trust, saying that operators should simply be required to publicly disclose their energy, water, and noise data rather than leaving residents to rely on water-cooler talk.
Commissioner Mujikaat Saaka, presiding over the second half of the meeting, ultimately helped shape that into a formal consensus item: Type III review for all three categories under discussion — standalone data centers, accessory-use data centers, and energy storage facilities.
**Why the vote got pushed back**
By the commission’s own account, the sticking point wasn’t any single issue; it was that several of the fixes under discussion depend on each other. Thrall-Nash’s catch about the buffer map is the clearest example: you can’t meaningfully draw a school buffer until you know how much land the accessory-use provision will actually allow for data storage, and that provision itself is still being renegotiated.
Commissioners left staff with four specific items to bring back on Sept. 9:
- Tighter limits on the accessory-use allowance (possibly measured against building floor area rather than site acreage);
- Draft language for buffers between data centers and schools, at distances of 500 feet, 1,000 feet, and a quarter mile;
- Confirmation that a Type III public hearing process will apply to all three use categories; and clarification of how the code’s definition of energy storage will square with the LUBA decision Capage flagged.
Key Takeaways: The Transfer of Development Rights section of the new code came out of left field. At no time in the public record that the Herald has reviewed did the City Council or staff mention anything about this. So this was a mystery to those watching closely: who wanted this added. The Accessory Data Center was mentioned only once in the transcripts and in the film we watched, and it was not widely debated or requested by the City Council. Allowing 30% of a site to be used that way could result in Data Centers proliferating rather than being controlled. Because buildings can be at least 4 stories high, an average-sized data center, as an accessory use, could easily reach hundreds of thousands of square feet. Suggestions were to either not allow this at all or limit it to a smaller percentage of the Primary Use building size. Industry experts advocate limiting Accessory Data Centers based on power consumption. Any of those options seemed interesting to the Planning Commission, which, in the end, knew that this new Code was not baked in. So, back to work for a while for the planning staff, who probably haven’t had to do something like this before. Lastly, several residents stressed the need to establish a school buffer zone now and pressed that there is no reason to do it later. Considering that Marijuana facilities have a 1000-foot buffer from all schools, the request seemed to resonate with the Planning Commissioners, who asked for language on this on the 9th.
The Sept. 9 meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. at the Hillsboro City Hall, where the Planning Commission will review changes and consider approving them for submission to the City Council for adoption.
You can watch the meeting and the debate right here on the Hillsboro Planning Commission YouTube page.
