The Real Story – A Column
On Tuesday, October 6, 2026, at 6:00 PM, the Hillsboro City Council will convene at the Civic Center for the first reading of Ordinance No. 6521 (Case File No. CDCA-004-26). This new Data Center / Artificial Computing and Energy Storage System code will, for the first time ever, define these uses and place restrictions on where they can go. After months of passionate testimony on these matters, the City of Hillsboro took the bold, necessary step of putting a 120 Day Moratorium in place, initially called for by Councilor Kipperlyn Sinclair.
Meaningful Guardrails Are Necessary
Before we get into this, let’s give credit where credit is due. Hillsboro residents showed up all year to express their concerns. That was followed by the City Council and City staff working through an ever-expanding list of concerns and impacts, and they took significant time to review it. Work sessions and open council debate sent the list of concerns to the Planning Commission, which approved this proposed ordinance. As mentioned above, the City also took an important and commendable step by enacting a temporary 120-day moratorium to address explosive data center and battery storage expansion. Hillsboro urgently needs firm rules, clear acreage caps, and enforceable buffers that protect schools and residential neighborhoods.
However, the draft ordinance heading to Council this Tuesday contains significant loopholes and procedural vulnerabilities that could undermine those good intentions. If the City rushes to adopt an incomplete or legally vulnerable code, the ordinance risks being challenged or overturned at the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)—potentially expiring the moratorium and leaving Hillsboro with zero protections in place.
The Loopholes in Ordinance No. 6521
Before Council votes, residents should urge leadership to address three critical concerns:
Unvetted “Transfer Offsite” Rights (CDC 12.40.145.D.2)
While the City is publicizing strict caps on primary data centers (215 acres in I-P and 310 acres in I-S), the draft code creates an untested backdoor. Section 12.40.145.D.2 allows “accessory” compute capacity to be transferred offsite to an “affiliated location” anywhere in an industrial zone.
- The Risk: The term “affiliated location” is completely undefined anywhere in the code definitions. Without strict boundaries or cumulative caps on the receiving site, operators could shuffle large server footprints across town into zones where primary data centers were supposed to be prohibited. On July 21, Council directed staff to study transfer rights in Phase 2, not rush them into Phase 1. In Fact, this transfer clause opens the door to placing data centers where they were previously not allowed. This code section is a mess right now.
Broad Accessory Uses Across 12 Base Zones
The draft code officially prohibits standalone data centers across commercial and mixed-use corridors, but quietly permits them as an “Accessory Use with Limitations” across 12 different base zones—including Commercial General (C-G) and Urban Center Neighborhood Center (UC-NC). Tight, clear parameters are essential to ensure “accessory” rules do not become an end-run around local base zoning. Again opening the door to zones not previously open to Data Centers.
These two loopholes technically open up more land to Data Centers and AI computing than exists as of this article’s writing. These two loopholes actually grow the land base open for these uses in a way that vastly expands the current base and totally negates any benefits of the acreage restrictions outlines herein.
These two rules also open up all of the restricted lands in Jackson-East North and South and the Meek Road Industrial areas. From our review, this new code could be used to make those areas buildable for data centers and AI Computing via these transfer and accessory use rights, it looks once again like a Trojan horse purposefully put in the code for this reason.
Protecting Due Process and Correcting Notice Defects
Because of a City Staff-acknowledged mapping error, 34 industrial properties (19 property owners) never received notice of the August Planning Commission hearing. The City mailed corrective notices only on September 9. To ensure any ordinance Council passes survives LUBA review, Council must ensure all affected property owners and residents are fully heard on the record.
Behind the Scenes: The Changing Rules of the Public Record
When community members track land-use policy, clear procedures are essential. In the handling of Case File No. CDCA-004-26, the administrative process has raised significant questions.
On August 26, the Planning Commission formally voted to close the public hearing. When asked on the record whether citizens could continue to submit evidence, staff confirmed the hearing was closed and that deliberations would focus on testimony already received.
However, during the two-week continuance before the Commission’s September 9 vote, staff accepted late filings from corporate and utility stakeholders—including PGE, the Washington County Chamber of Commerce, the Technology Association of Oregon, and the Westside Economic Alliance. Staff incorporated those submittals into Staff Report No. 5 and uploaded them just hours before the final vote. When residents attended the September 9 meeting to address those additions, the dais took public testimony off the table.
When formal objections were raised regarding the closed hearing, omitted property notices, and unvetted code additions, City staff provided the following written clarification:
“Dirk,
Staff will address some of your concerns in the October 6 staff report and presentation.
In the meantime, attached is a copy of the revised public notice that was sent in the Special Industrial District I-P zone for your information.
Also to clarify, the record on this case file is not closed. This is a legislative decision, and the record does not close until a decision is made. This is why your written testimony submitted on September 8 was conveyed by city staff to the Planning Commission for its meeting and deliberation on the Data Center code Packet on September 9. What you may be referring to is that the public hearing was closed near the end of the Planning Commission meeting on August 26 to allow the Planning Commission to deliberate and direct staff to update the code package so that they could make a recommendation to City Council.
Finally, there was discussion among Council of holding a date for a second Council work session, but the final direction from City Council and the City Manager’s Office to staff was to not proceed with that work session.”
What This Clarification Means for Tuesday Night:
- Your Voice Can Still Be Entered Into the Record: Because this is a legislative enactment, the official evidentiary record remains legally open until the City Council takes its final vote. Any written testimony sent to
council@hillsboro-oregon.govbefore 3:00 PM on Tuesday must be included in the legislative record. - No Formal Hearing at Council: While staff directed 19 omitted property owners (representing 34 parcels) to attend the October 6 meeting, the City Council has not opened an official public hearing. Testifiers will be restricted to the standard 3-minute general public comment period.
- The Bypassed Work Session: Rather than convening an additional study session to evaluate off-site transfer rules, battery storage sizes, and notice defects, the City Manager’s Office and Council leadership elected to advance Ordinance No. 6521 directly to first reading.
As of the writing of this article, we believe the process is procedurally out of order. The Planning Commission closed the record, as a detailed review of the transcript shows. Furthermore, the 19 and owners were not given timely notice to participate and testify at the Planning Commission hearings. It appears that anyone unhappy with the City Council’s final vote on the proposed ordinances would have an all-but-certain win at LUBA, which would send the entire process back to the start and require it to be redone. This is our opinion- not a legal opinion- but it has serious merit. None of us should want this outcome, unless someone wants something passed that isn’t enforceable. Then this might be just what the doctor ordered.
What Council Needs to Do on Tuesday
To protect Hillsboro’s future and ensure the code is legally defensible, Council should take two straightforward actions:
Sever the Offsite Transfer Clause: Remove CDC Section 12.40.145.D.2 from Ordinance No. 6521 and return it to Phase 2 for a full study session, exactly as Council originally instructed on July 21. Council did not direct staff to include transfers in this section of the process.
Keep the Evidentiary Record Open: Ensure all public comments and omitted property owners receive a fair hearing before final passage.
The Herald covered all of this in an earlier article, which led to some changes in the proposed ordinance we see now.
Progress and Pitfalls: Inside Hillsboro’s Redrafted Data Center Ordinance To Be Heard This Wednesday
How You Can Participate on October 6
- When: Tuesday, October 6, 2026, at 7:00 PM – YOU WILL NEED TO WAIT FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT – Sign The Yellow Card As You Enter – You will have 3 minutes to address the Council and can read something or just speak yoru mind!
- Where: Shirley Huffman Auditorium, Hillsboro Civic Center (150 E Main Street)
- Virtual Access: Zoom Link | Meeting ID: 851 4863 9488 | Passcode: 932487 | Phone: 1-253-215-8782
- Submit Written Testimony: Email
council@hillsboro-oregon.govbefore 3:00 PM on Tuesday, referencing Case File No. CDCA-004-26.
Hillsboro’s elected leaders need to hear that our community supports strong data center regulations—but only if they are done right, without loopholes, and with complete procedural integrity.
