Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

So I asked Ms. Angie as a follow-up to our work session a couple of weeks ago to come prepared to remind us of where we have industrial land in Washington County and some commercial lands too in the urban unincorporated areas where possibly if they had time, what kind of zoning We have an urban unincorporated Washington County. And what the heck it might even mean to have a moratorium. A moratorium on what? So I want to make sure I understand what our role is and be aware of that lawful stuff before I encourage this board to consider even the topic of a moratorium. So I'll turn it over to you, Ms. Angie.

Thank you, Chair, and that was a perfect intro to what we believe was staff direction to us last, just last week, to come back to your board for your board to have a discussion. Ms. Kyle will start out the presentation, and then we also have Erin Wardell, who will also be taking a large portion of this presentation, specifically around land use section.

So, Marnie? Thank you. Thank you, Chair Harrington and Board. As usual, for the record, my name is Marnie Kyle. I'm an ACA. Today's presentation is intended to provide clear objective information to support your deliberation regarding data centers in unincorporated Washington County. So this will be a little bit repetitive, but I need that. Well, to your comments, Chair Harrington. So as we understand it, county staff was asked to, one, bring forward the process for a moratorium. Two, answer questions from your board. Three, get feedback about what comes off of the adopted work plan. And four, answer questions about whether any land in unincorporated Washington County could support a potential data center. So staff are here to summarize existing conditions, outline the processes available to your board, including the potential moratorium process. and respond to any questions that you might have. We want to emphasize that this presentation is not intended for staff to advocate for or against a moratorium or to provide any specific recommendations for action. Our role is to equip your board with the information necessary to evaluate options, understand statutory requirements, and determine what steps, if any, you would like staff to pursue. Before I do turn this over to Erin, I wanted to provide a couple of updates related to this topic. We did include a link to the July 28th presentation as background material because we know there was quite a bit of time spent in that work session reviewing a lot of the community concerns around data centers such as water and power use or health impacts and noise. So that's there for your use and also as a reminder for the public. Your board had several questions and staff have been working to get those questions answered. We wanted to do a really thorough job. Staff are in final review in answering those questions and I would expect that we will get that information back to you this week. I also wanted to let you know that we are continuing to work on a question and answer document. that would be posted to our webpage. So just a couple of updates since the 28th. And with that, I will turn it over to your subject matter expert, Erin Wardell.

Thanks, Marnie. For the record, my name is Erin Wardell. I'm the Assistant Director of the Department of Land Use and Transportation. Barney already covered the purpose of our presentation today, but just to reiterate, we are here to provide your board with information about data centers and existing land use regulations and existing land use conditions in unincorporated Washington County. We will provide your board with information about the process for a moratorium and a regulatory update, and then seek direction for further guidance for staff. Our presentation overview is on this slide. We will start by reviewing the definition of a data center, cover those existing land uses and regulations, and then go through the two processes that I mentioned. We'll also be sharing with you our understanding of other jurisdictions' actions related to data centers for your information. And then at the end, we'll have time for discussion and questions. The questions we will come back to at the end of the presentation are on this slide. We'll first ask your board if you require any additional information on this topic. We'll ask for direction on if your board wants to move forward or is ready to move forward at this time or would like to request more briefings. If your board would like to move forward with intent to file a moratorium, then we would want to seek direction on pursuing that. And if you would like to move forward with that, we would want direction on what planning activities we need prioritize in order to accomplish that. So let's start with the definition of data centers. Data centers can be many things, but essentially they are warehouses for storing, processing, and transmitting digital information. They can vary in size greatly, and they can be accessory to an existing technology use, or they can be freestanding standalone data centers. They typically incorporate high security. There is an Oregon administrative rule definition of data centers, which was recently adopted in 2026. And this information is a callback to your July 28th work session as well. So again, just to emphasize that these can vary in size greatly and they can accomplish different things for different users. Washington County has land use authority vested by the state of Oregon and established under our home rule authority for the cities of Washington County, as well as for Washington County. So this slide shows Washington County in total, and then the areas where your board has land use authority. The green area is the rural unincorporated area and the blue areas are our urban unincorporated areas. That means those areas are within an urban growth boundary. The area that is in brown is area that is incorporated into the cities of Washington County. The cities have land use authority within those areas. There is no action your board can take that will direct land use within the cities of Washington County.

I would like Erin Wardell to repeat that last item.

about cities and the county's role the county cannot direct land use regulations and activities within the city so within the brown area on this map your board has no legal authority to direct land use your board does have authority over the green and the blue areas but i'll ask you for in the q a about more detail because a lot of those blue areas are zoned residential And we'll be covering that a little bit in some of the slides that are coming up. Thank you.

And the other is rural and incorporated as well.

Yes.

And chair and commissioners, please ask land use questions. And there may be times I usually don't say to staff, please repeat what you just said. But I did indicate to Ms. Wardell prior to this presentation that I may do that because there's certain just questions we've received from community that I think it's important to maybe pause and repeat it so we can all hear certain points again.

Mm-hmm.

And I'm happy to do that and happy to answer questions if you want to jump in. Land use is inherently pretty complicated and nuanced, and so happy to entertain questions as we go along. So on this slide, we are summarizing what we know about our existing land use conditions relating to data centers. We have no known existing large-scale standalone data centers in unincorporated Washington County. We have no active land use applications for a large scale standalone data center in unincorporated Washington County currently in the review process. Land use regulations for the rural part of Washington County. So the big green area and the map that we just looked at would not allow for a data center. We do have a rural industrial designation, but that's intended for the processing and manufacture of forest agricultural products or mineral and aggregate resources. And it's not intended for uses that require full urban services.

You could say we have a moratorium already in the whole green area.

I wouldn't say that, but I would say it's not allowed. I would say it's not allowed.

What's the difference? I mean, if there's a distinction between those.

I think moratorium is a specific legal term, and so I just wouldn't want to say that. And it's temporary. And it's intended to be temporary in Oregon land use law, and so our rural regulations are not temporary. Yes, they're permanent. And that's our interpretation. Rural land uses are generally pretty restrictive to forest and agricultural uses, and so there wouldn't be an approval path forward. In the urban unincorporated area, we have two plan designations, industrial and special industrial overlay district, where there could be a regulatory path forward for a large-scale freestanding data center if there was a parcel large enough to accommodate something like that. We're going to talk a little bit more about the parcels that are specifically available. We do not allow data centers as a use. There's actually no reference to data centers in our development code right now, because when our development code was written, this wasn't a use that existed, that people talked about. However, we do have in our zoning code, and this is the best practice among zoning codes, is to have language and an approval pathway for a novel use or for a very niche use that may not be called out specifically. That places the burden on the applicant to receive approval as a part of the process that their use is substantially similar to an allowed use. So while it is not listed, it is not an allowed use. Staff are going to be cautious because we can't react to a hypothetical land use application that's not sitting in front of us right now. But we do think that there could be the possibility of a regulatory path forward within the industrial and special industrial overlay districts only.

Are there any questions on that?

Not yet. Okay. We'll move forward. These next slides will talk specifically about the parcels that have those plan designations on them. Very few of these parcels would be suited for the development of large scale standalone data center facilities, only three are larger than 40 acres. And my understanding is that's generally what the industry is looking for right now, based on our understanding of the current practice. All of these sites are developed or have a use on them right now. And so they're not greenfield, Say that again? These are not greenfield areas. All of these sites have development on them already. They are all developed. They are all developed. And this map is intended just to give you an idea of the scale and the location of these limited areas. Most of urban unincorporated Washington County is planned and zoned for residential use. So we have very limited areas that are not intended for residential use. These are the ones that are industrial or rural or the special industrial area.

I'm sorry, I'm confused. So and maybe I'm not. necessarily following this conversation correctly. These pink locations are currently, there's buildings on those. Correct. Okay.

All of them have buildings on them. Okay. Or some other development use of the site, right? Why are those three brought forward? These are the sites that have the industrial or special industrial plan designation, which could allow the regulatory path forward. Okay.

So all six of these, seven, are in, I'm only seeing one through seven, are in urban unincorporated Washington County and have the zoning of industrial or special industrial overlay districts.

Could possibly allow.

Okay, but there's already existing functional use on those properties. Yes.

Okay. Oh, there's eight. And these aren't, that's not the number of parcels, it's calling out the graphics you'll see on the next couple of slides just for reference for users finding this PowerPoint later. So yes, urban unincorporated Washington County is generally built out. We don't have very much land that hasn't already been developed to some standard. We could still see infill, of course, but again, primarily residential, very limited land has plant designation of industrial or special industrial overlay. So these maps are not to scale, which is why we've applied the pink color scale to them, because we wanted to be able to show them on a slide, but it's difficult to look at them next to each other and get an idea of how large they are. So as you can see from the aerials, there are buildings on most of these sites. Some of these sites are very small, so the ones that don't have very much color to them at all are under five acres. We have a number of different property ownerships amongst these parcels. The site in the middle is 32 acres. It looks large, and it actually looks like a greenfield site from this view. However, if you've driven past this site on Highway 26, you are aware that it's heavily constrained by high-voltage power line corridors. The site is owned by the Bonneville Power Authority, so it's not what we would call a usable, developable site.

So why do we have it on?

Because it is zoned industrial.

And the question was to show what. It meets the criteria they were searching for. It meets the criteria. They're saying none of these.

But I think your word theoretically is important because we were trying to show because who knows what's going to happen in the future. But in theory, there could be a path forward. But right now, they're all developed.

ever dealt with it would be unlikely we're just trying to be as transparent as possible yes so we are showing you all the right and I think what we're doing here is trying to educate ourselves and the public and that's that's why we're stepping through this in a in a in a very So I appreciate it. And it is a little confusing, but the questions I think help illustrate to me what's going on.

And land use, again, is inherently complicated. And I wouldn't expect our community members to understand this or understand zoning or understand what these buildings are used for either. And so that's why we're happy to share all of this information. But again, just to reiterate, these are the sites that have this plan designation and could have the regulatory path forward. but are also actively being used for something else today. Commissioner, hi.

Yeah, I have a question. This slide and then the slide before, is it safe to say you're identifying every parcel or zoning district in the unincorporated area of Washington County where some form of data could potentially? Correct. So I'll go back to the beginning of every parcel you're

We are showing all of the parcels that have either industrial or special industrial use overlays on them. And those are the only plan designations where we think there could potentially be a regulatory path forward.

And the prior slide also goes on to say that few of these properties are suitable for development of large-scale standalone data centers. So not all eight are applicable. Earlier she said only three of them, but she's going through each of the enumerated areas on the next few slides.

So we'll move on to the next area.

I guess the second part of that question then will be, will they all, all these parcels you're showing, and then the definition of data centers and That slide, which is something that we went over in a previous work session as well, would they receive sort of the same land use classification? No. Let's hold that question for later.

As she said, there are only two types of land that she's going over, those that are zoned industrial or special industrial overlay district, period. So any further discussion will hold till later in the presentation. We're only focusing on these eight parcel, these eight areas as designated on slide seven that have those two zoning designations.

Be clear on that. I'm clear, but I feel like this is a land use classification question, but I'm happy to yield and go forward. Continue.

We can pick it up at the end, too. Now we're showing two other areas. So first we have a strip of land in between the max line and baseline road. This is just east of 185th. Excuse me. Quiet in the audience, please. Could you start over? Sure. We're showing new areas now. So on the left is a strip of land in between the Max Rail Line and Baseline Road. This is just east of 185th Avenue. This area is developed with various commercial uses under various ownerships. I should say commercial slash industrial type uses. It is zoned for industrial. Now on the right side, we have the largest sites that we've identified. And so when we talk about sites over 40 acres, this is the only area where we see parcels of that site of that size. This is the original location of Tektronix. These parcels are currently under ownership of two technology companies and one apparel company. The sites are heavily developed. They're being actively used for other purposes right now. I think the dark purple kind of obscures some of the buildings that are on that site, but these sites are pretty well developed and being used.

And on the corner in the light pink, is that the analog? Thank you. It's analog device, so that's all built out.

It is, and analog's actually using more of the dark purple as well. I think our parcel map just needs to be updated, so they've expanded their campus use. I do want to be clear that the technology companies likely do have internal data centers that they're using for their own purposes on these campuses. That's our understanding of how the industry works. So again, we're distinguishing between the large freestanding data centers that have been a topic of conversation versus what's happening within an active technology campus. And I don't know that for sure. I don't know enough about what's being done on this particular campus, but I'd expect that some of our technology companies do have that.

We're talking about the same kind of stuff we would have to run the county, right? Exactly. Server rooms. We have tech equipment in our buildings. Someone might call some part of that a data center, I guess. But, like, that's not the primary business. It's an accessory use.

Correct. I just want to make sure that we're making that a distinguishment because it's two different things that we're talking about. And then finally, this is our last closeup of these particular areas. So the top slide is just south of TB Highway. We have some industrial parcels along that area. These are under various ownerships and used for various industrial purposes. And then we have another site just east of there, south of TV Highway, along Shaw Street. Again, various industrial uses, different ownerships. And then number eight are some funny little industrial remnant parcels that are just north of Sherwood's industrial area. I suspect there's a fascinating land use story as to how we ended up with these strange little parcels down there, but they're not very large and they're not particularly useful for what we're talking about today.

When you say not very large, would you remind me how large?

Those are less than five acres because they're in that white color and they're very unusual orientations and constrained by a rail line. We're going to shift gears now and talk about the moratorium process. So a moratorium or a pause on a particular land use is allowed by state statute, providing that the local jurisdiction can make findings of a need to impose that moratorium and that resources are available to make necessary regulatory updates. There's another path for a moratorium that involves infrastructure availability where a jurisdiction may need to impose a jurisdiction while they resolve a problem with some necessary infrastructure. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the need for a regulatory update. These circumstances arise in these types of situations where a novel use presents itself and jurisdictions identify that they need time in order to update their regulations. So essentially, this is intended to be temporary and it's intended to allow the jurisdiction time to resolve their regulatory needs while they're holding on receiving any new land use applications for that particular need that is subject to the moratorium. The statute requires a minimum of 45-day notice to the State Department of Land Use and Conservation in advance of the final public hearing that takes action on enacting that moratorium. Once the moratorium is enacted, it can last for a maximum of 120 days. The jurisdiction is able to extend that moratorium for up to an additional six months if they can show that they've made substantial progress towards whatever regulatory update needed to be done. The extension process would require additional notice and an additional public hearing. The board would need to direct staff to provide the notice to the LCD. The notice itself is very straightforward and can be handled by staff. It does not require formal board action in order to send the notice to the LCD. The board would then bring forward the resolution and order at that upcoming public hearing no sooner than 45 days and through a resolution and order can enact the temporary moratorium. The board would need to direct staff to reallocate resources in order to undertake this action. The moratorium itself would require staff to make findings as to the need for the moratorium, in addition to beginning the regulatory update process. So I'll pause here to see if there's any questions right off the top of anyone's head. So with regard to the moratorium, with regard to your mic.

So if I understand this correctly, Jack, SUBMIT THIS REQUEST, BUT THE MORATORIUM IS NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL SOMEBODY APPROVES IT AND DOES SOMETHING. SO WE CAN SAY WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS AND A DATA CENTER THAT WOULD BE INTERESTED AND WOULD HAVE OPPORTUNITY CAN SAY, OKAY, THEN WE'VE GOT BASICALLY WE THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE THEM 45 DAYS TO GET THIS THING GOING, SO WE'LL SUBMIT THE APPLICATION NOW.

So the notice itself is a notice of intent to consider. And so we are telling the state, Washington County's Board of Commissioners is considering enacting a moratorium on data centers. You then have to wait 45 days. That's not to do with our staff capacity or anything else. Statuary requirement is a 45-day period before the public hearing. At that public hearing, your board would conduct a normal county public hearing, and then you would take action on a proposed resolution to enact a moratorium. So that's the actual action that would take place.

That doesn't seem like the process that Hillsborough went through.

It is the process that Hillsborough went through.

So they submitted 45 days out, but then they didn't announce that to anybody, and so that's why they kind of got sideways. Correct.

I was also confused about this, but... I've talked to other jurisdictions that are pursuing moratoriums or have pursued them, and this is the process. That initial notice to DLCD is not a public action necessarily. It's just staff saying, my leadership is intending to consider this moratorium. So Hillsborough submitted that at the end of June to the state, and then they were able to hold that public hearing 45 days later. Okay.

So I have a question about the first statement. provided that the local jurisdiction can make findings of the need to impose a moratorium. Are moratoriums ever not allowed?

Probably. I think there could be a reason why the state would say, no, you're not allowed to consider this moratorium. In this case, the need would be a statement that we don't have a regulation in place to regulate this land use and we need time to update our regulation.

But it has nothing to do with what we went over previously about availability. Correct. Okay. I just wanted that cleared up.

Thank you. A need for a regulatory update. Okay. Thank you. Okay. There are other potential actions that your board could consider, and there could be more actions than these, but staff have identified some things for consideration. Your board could consider adoption of a resolution and order reflecting community concerns regarding data centers. We have one jurisdiction in Washington County that chose to pursue this path. The board could direct staff to bring back a briefing after the governor's data center advisory committee has published a report of its findings and recommendations in October. Once that's done, we could do a briefing and share that information with your board and you can make your decision then. You could also direct staff to conduct additional research on data centers and their potential for development and community impacts and bring that back to the board at a future date. This action would also include a need to deprioritize other items in the work plan because we're asking staff to do some of that work without the moratorium.

Like doing more research, you all just ran a map of every single parcel with what's on them. Like what more would you all bring back? I guess I'm just not clear on what that would look like.

I think that in that case, we could bring back, I'd specifically focus on the mitigation strategies. So in that case, we could bring back more of a concept of what a regulatory update could look like and a little bit more information about the potential for development. But again, you're right. I think we've done a pretty thorough job.

I think one of the also included in the packet was the NACO packet around kind of considerations for land use. And so I think we could dive into that and bring back some of those ideas that would be regulatory requirements if we did specifically allow data centers.

And if your board does choose to move forward with the moratorium, staff will be doing that third bullet point anyway, because that's when we'll start doing the research about regulatory updates.

And this was just staff's attempt of providing your board options for you to discuss. We didn't know what questions that you would have, so I would call the third bullet point a bit of a catch-all of doing more work.

And these aren't independent of each other. We could do one and two.

Yes.

Right?

Mm-hmm. Yep. Or something else that we didn't list up here because we didn't think of it.

Understood.

I guess I have a question for you, Erin, before you move from there, or maybe it's the moratorium. Hypothetically speaking, if we do not adopt a moratorium and an application is submitted, which set of standards would govern then, like the existing code? And then the first question I actually had when you started this presentation was, does our community development code contain a specific definition of a data center. It does not. Or AI computing. So then my hypothetical question, what would govern?

We would put the burden on the applicant to make a case as a part of the approval process that their use is substantially similar to an allowed use in our code. And I don't know what that could be because I don't know what this hypothetical application is, but that burden would be on the applicant to make that case for us.

And wouldn't they have to use, if I captured this correctly, I thought I heard you say that there is a definition of data centers in the ORSs. And so I assume they would have to use that definition.

I would expect that they would.

And they do that it's substantially similar to other allowed uses in those two different overlay, those two different industrial district or special industrial overlay district.

Yeah, but it's not in our code. So should we update the code as well?

But the ORS provides the content.

Commissioner, whether we should update our code is what we're here to inform you on how that might happen and some of the considerations in that. So it's not a question we can answer. Again, the information today is to give you background on, as it exists today, how a future application might provide a regulatory pathway. whether we should update the code or not is not a question staff is prepared to answer.

I'm having a little trouble here. We're talking now about future applications, but in going through the property, the eight sites, I was under the impression that those sites were not truly available because they already had existing buildings or they were small or something. So if we're talking about a potential application, I'm having trouble understanding where that would be if we don't have that opportunity.

So if I might, and Ms. Angie will correct me, you have the facts down about the existing state of those eight areas and that they are in active use, as they are today. You have those facts down. There is, however, left to someone's imagination or a potential future, somewhere out in the future, someone could own a property, change their mind about the current use, destroy the current buildings after the existing tenants or businesses no longer occupy it, and in some future but unknown time want to redevelop that. So staff is here today to give us background. They have these ideas to as part of background. These are not set options. These are not set actions. These are just for us having had prior presentations, the benefit of other information, including community concern for us to understand what it means to have a moratorium and any other considerations we might potentially want to consider. We don't necessarily have to decide today that we intend to or have any potential intent to do such things.

Commissioner Treece, to make this concrete and kind of put into action what I think the chair just said, and I'm not suggesting any of this would actually happen because it would be economically stupid, but it could happen. would be some data center group decided that they desperately wanted that Tektronix campus. And they went to all the companies that own those parcels now and offered them four times market value for them. And they say, oh, sure, we'll sell and then move somewhere else. And then they're assembling a bunch of properties and all of a sudden you've got an application. Do I think that's even remotely possible? Let me state this differently. Do I think any data center company is going to think that's a good strategy or plan or a financially viable one? No. Is it theoretically possible with infinite money and, you know, whatever? Sure. It would not be commercially practical, though.

Does that make sense? Yes. And I want to make myself perfectly clear here. You know, as we go through this process, And as we discuss moratoriums, as we discuss what our realities are here, I want to be, I perceive my job, our collective job, is to produce facts and realities for our public. And I don't, I'm really concerned about making sure that we are, you know, we're clear-eyed about what this issue is. So that's why I'm asking you. these questions, and I appreciate the commentary that gives it even more strength. They have four more slides to take us through. The other thing is we're talking about 120-day moratorium. That's our maximum on this, so that's four months. I just want to make sure that that's out there too.

When you say these days, on the previous slide, side 12, Are those calendar days or business days?

The statute says 45 days, so I'm assuming it's calendar days. Got it.

Thank you.

And during that time, the work has to happen to bring forward what a new regulatory framework might look like. So it's not like we're just sitting for 120 days. Might impact the whole work plan. It will impact the whole work plan. So why don't you take us through that?

We'll talk about that too. So this slide talks about the regulatory update process, which is where our conversation is going anyway. So if a moratorium is enacted, During the moratorium period, staff will start working on the regulatory update. So our typical land use ordinance process takes a minimum of four months from the day we file an ordinance until typical board adoption of that ordinance. They can take longer if they're complicated and if we require engrossment or amendment to the ordinance after it's filed, it requires additional board hearings, which extends the timeline. So as I'm sure you've already pieced together, if this moratorium is four months and it takes us a minimum of four months to adopt a land use ordinance that we are not ready to file this week, we probably cannot complete a land use ordinance during this timeline. We would likely need to extend the moratorium for the additional six month period in order to allow us to complete that process. The Planning Commission would be involved in this because it is a land use ordinance, and so they would hold at least one hearing. They could opt to hold more than one hearing before they make that recommendation. And the Planning Commission, as your board is aware, is given the authority to make a recommendation to the board on ordinances. They can make a recommendation that the board adopt the ordinance, adopt the ordinance with amendments, reject the ordinance, or make no recommendation. The Board of Commissioners takes the final action on all land use ordinances. So this next slide talks about the planning work program reprioritization. As we have already discussed, undertaking this work would require taking something else off of our planner's plate. Your board typically authorizes land use ordinances through our planning work program, and that's adopted biannually based on our identified staff resources and any additional financial resources we may have to bring on consultant support as well. Our current work program was adopted in summer of 2025, so it covers 2025 to 2027. It did not take into account this particular data center regulatory update because it wasn't something that we were considering when we did that work. If your board wishes to consider adopting data center regulations, staff would ask you to deprioritize one or more of our tasks. The board can amend the planning work program and authorize filing of a new ordinance through the adoption of a resolution and order directing staff to do that. Staff have identified that most of the work we are doing right now, most of the land use ordinances we'll be bringing forward are required by the state due to legislative action. We have two discretionary items, and so those are the items that would need to come off the plate and be delayed. One of those is the update to our development code related to our community development code assessment project. The purpose of that project is to make our development code easier to use and implement and is intended to reduce barriers to housing. The other ordinance we would deprioritize is a regulatory update specifically relating to contractors establishment that has been requested by the city of Wilsonville and that we've been working with them on. So those are the only two items that we think are discretionary. Everything else is mandatory.

Did I hear you correctly say that for us to tell you to do this, we need an ordinance?

Resolution and order. Directing staff to file a new ordinance.

Direct staff to do this work rather than just, isn't that more work? Why do you need, we've been here directing staff to say, hey, we want you to come back with this. I don't remember doing ever a resolution and order to direct staff to do work. I'm just lost here.

The best I could answer that, we have always approved the LUT work plan by resolution and order, even while you've been on this board. So that's why if we want to have staff put time and energy into a different topic, we have to take an action by resolution and order. It is our job.

Chair, if I may also, to start the moratorium process, you have to make those findings that Ms. Wardell touched on, and you would do that by resolving and ordering these findings. It's a commitment to the state. And it's a very specific statutory process.

Yeah, I I'm not questioning the work plan for LUT part. That part I get, and we have approved. I do see the complication being added to this to say that there's more work. So I'm not going to debate and address a little bit of a fear mongering, but we do need to be prioritized, and I feel like By mentioning some of the projects that was mentioned is, I think, a disservice because now the other community is going to worry that their project is going to get left out. But I do have a question for you, Courtney, and that is with the 45 days here, if we start this process for the 45 days, in that meantime, we could change. We're not legally committing to go through this. We could take action or no action.

Is that correct? Yes, you have to give the 45 days notice is to DLCD. And then after that 45 days is when we have to have a public hearing where you would adopt the findings saying why the moratorium period is required and necessary and that we have the necessary staff time to actually work on the regulations.

And that is $100. That is a commitment to endeavor to do this work within 120 days.

With the potential to extend to six more months.

With additional notice and findings, yes, you can do an extension. And I do have a timeline in two slides, and so we'll talk through a theoretical timeline as well. I did want to summarize what we know about some of our other jurisdictions and what they're doing around this topic area. So as your board is most likely aware, City of Hillsborough adopted a moratorium on data centers and battery energy storage systems on July 27th. They are currently in the process of updating their development regulations. They just held a planning commission hearing on their draft regulations. The cities of Woodburn Salem and Clackamas County provided notice to DLCD of their intent to consider a moratorium. And so they are moving towards holding their public hearings on their moratoriums. And we can bring back more information once we know the direction they intend to go with that. The City of Beaverton adopted a resolution noting concerns with data centers and expressing support for their current prohibition of such uses in Beaverton. I want to put a footnote on this. Their code is actually really similar to ours in that it's not an explicit use called out, but Beaverton staff have done a similar analysis that we did, and they've determined that they don't believe there is a regulatory path forward for a large standalone data center. so they were confident making this statement. We're not as confident in making that statement as Beaverton staff may have been, so that's Beaverton's chosen action on this. City of Tigard held a work session on June 23rd, took in the information and determined that it wasn't something that they were going to direct staff to pursue at this time, given other priorities and limited development potential. That is a summary of what we know is happening out there.

I want to come back to the city of Beaverton because I talked to the mayor of Beaverton about this topic a couple of different times. And so I agree with you 100%. They don't feel that large-scale standalone data centers are allowed uses in the city of Beaverton. And so therefore, they don't need to have a moratorium or do anything further than the resolution that they, that you spoke about.

So this slide shows a hypothetical timeline that we put together. And so If you're bored today, tell staff we would like you to go ahead and send notice to DLCD that you intend to consider a moratorium. We can work on sending that to the state this week. I would work with county council on accomplishing that. So theoretically, we could send that by September 4th. On September 15th, staff could bring forward an RNO for your board's consideration, authorizing us to file a land use ordinance to update regulations, and that would kick off our research and development of those regulations. The soonest your board could consider enacting the moratorium, given that 45-day waiting period, would be your October 20th public hearing date. On February 18th, so if on October 20th your board approved the moratorium, on February 18th that moratorium would expire unless your board has gone through the process of extending it the additional six months. So what you don't see reflected on here is a hypothetical land use ordinance timeline. Again, that would take a minimum of four months from when we file it.

I have a question about this slide. You said earlier that our current work plan has directed that you follow through on those changes that are state directed, as well as two discretionary ones. And I wrote down what they were. So if we were to follow this hypothetical timeline, would that only impact the two discretionary, the workload for the two discretionary projects, or would that put even the state required ones at risk?

I don't think we can put the state-required ones at risk. We just have to keep doing that work. I do think we could reallocate staff from the discretionary tasks.

And you also talked about potentially needing some additional consultant resources as well.

We may.

So hypothetically, you'd impact those two, need some additional financial resources that are already constrained. So it hypothetically would, in my opinion, as I understand it, likely require that further extension as well. Okay. Yes, very likely. Okay. But thank you for helping ground me in a potential timeline.

And just on the work plan, just for the board as a reminder and for members of the public too, Washington County goes through really a robust, I feel it's a robust planning work process. We did transition to a two-year work plan from an annual work plan because to achieve, just as we're talking about here in timeline of planning work and filing ordinances, it's really challenging to get planning work completed, especially with community engagement in one calendar year. So that two-year transition we have found and thank you for your board support and leadership in this as being far more attainable. I didn't review prior to today's work session, the long list of desires that are also on the work plan that have came from you as individual council members, also community members too. So I am just putting that out there not to say that Like as a barrier on this conversation, there are just significant planning needs that we need to get to at some point in time for the LUT department and focusing, having very small discretionary tasks that the team is focused on and the focus being state mandated requirements really is challenging to meet what those emerging needs are of community and the planning realm.

Even beyond the two years, we've got a pretty considerable parking lot.

That's what, that was this reference. I can't recall exactly how long list. But it is in our public record. Yep.

So is it then, like, could staff use the 45-day period then to scope out the work needed, required, and return to us with, like, the resources timeline and the work plan timeline? work program trade-offs that we could consider before we commit to a comprehensive package here?

We would start working on it. I don't know how much work can be accomplished in that time period. And so if your board directs us today to send notice to DLCD, we would assume that we should start working on that and putting together more information for your board about what that regulatory update could look like.

And I think a good model is the Hillsborough. There's a lot of time and effort, especially I'm a big fan of the definitions and how comprehensive the definition is. So I feel like a lot of the legwork has been lifted for us, frankly, for Washington County, because they've done that. And they put in that investment of actually agreeing on which definitions.

Their findings, quote, their own community development code, which is a different development code than ours. So it isn't applicable.

No, I'll repeat. I'm referring specifically to the definitions that are particularly related to data centers. And actually including the BES, the battery energy storage system as well in their definition.

We would look at what our other jurisdictions are considering. That's what I was referring to. Not necessarily there.

Yeah.

Yeah. So we would look at Hillsborough and we'd also look at the other three that have noticed their intent to consider a moratorium and see the work that they've done so far as well. And there's other jurisdictions around the country considering this. So we wouldn't be starting from scratch, but it would still be a significant lift to identify what the regulatory update is.

For clarification, I just want to, I want to point out for the public and for all of us, we're only talking about data centers here. We are not talking about battery storage.

That's what we were asked to bring forward.

The definitions. I'm referring to definitions. I'm expanding it.

I just want to know. Battery energy storage is not a data center. So are we talking about both?

That's my question. We were asked to bring forward information around data centers, not battery storage.

Yeah, but I'm going to pause on that slide because Hillsborough example is where that came from and their definitions, but I'll leave it. I see the confusion to some people.

Do we have any more questions on this slide?

Okay, next slide. So our next slide brings us back to our discussion questions from the beginning of the presentation. So again, to reiterate, what additional information does your board need on this topic? Does the board want to move forward with the moratorium or with one of the other actions? If the board wants to move forward with the moratorium and regulatory update, what would they like staff to accomplish through the updated regulations? And finally, if the board wants to move forward with the moratorium and regulatory update, what planning work program tasks will be deprioritized? Who would like to go first?

Well, I think I've already sent my list of questions and although they're not directly related to this process that we're going to have to go through to me it's it's information that I would like to have and I'm not asking staff to provide this right now but that I think it's important that we have a complete understanding of what it is that we're asking we're considering a moratorium on because I think there's a lot of inaccurate information, not only in the media, but if you listen to the testimony at the City of Hillsborough, there's all kinds of things that are said that are just not true. And the fact of the matter is you've already got over 20 data centers in the City of Hillsborough, according to Clean Water Services, that are already there. And so I just think we need to do more homework on this. And specifically, There's no land available in unincorporated Washington County other than the scenario that Jason presented, which is just not a realistic scenario. And so I'm not willing to invest staff time to look at putting a moratorium on something that has a very, very, very remote possibility of error occurring in unincorporated Washington County. And the fact that we'd have to reprioritize work, and I think we're talking about not just a little bit of work, We're talking about a pretty significant amount of work that would have to be prioritized. I'm not willing to do this at this time. I guess I answered number two. I'm a no.

Okay. Who would like to go next?

I can. One observation is that we should probably have data center criteria in our community development code in the future just in general that probably should happen that's sort of a practice I'm coming at this from a very practical perspective so at least that's what I think I'm doing when I marched the timeline out 120 days plus 45 days plus 180 days you know that'd be 345 days that we could we would have to get our act together if there was moratorium at maximum right none of those sites right now I don't think given the fact that we don't I don't think we think any of them are optioned for this or anything else like none of them could be practically we could practically receive an application within 345 days for a data center I mean the I just, I don't see how that would be possible. It would be a Herculean task if they started today, right? Please disagree with me if you do disagree. But I don't, so therefore, I don't know how we would justify, given that's the case, we could do our work in 345 days anyway, moratorium or not. So I don't know if that makes it more difficult to to request a moratorium when you could do the work without a moratorium and have the same impact. I'm not suggesting that we need to do that, but I really do question given the land availability, the current uses, and the really flexible owners of some of those properties like the Bonneville Power Administration. I'm sure they're super flexible. That's a joke. Like a railroad. Those who are not paying attention, we're getting it.

Jerry is.

Yeah, as flexible as a railroad. I just find it very questionable what the utility of a moratorium would be other than to be mostly performative, which if that's what we're trying to do, I guess I can get on board, but it would need to include a minimal amount of staff time. And I think the only way we can really in earnest go forward with a moratorium is if we're gonna do a bunch of work. And the bunch of work we're talking about is gonna be mostly for what I would conclude at this moment in Washington County's urban unincorporated area as a solution in search of a problem. That's my conclusion.

I can go next. While I understand both Commissioner Willey and Commissioner Snyder's position, and thank you for providing the baseline information about what the risks are, and that's really what we're talking about here, is what the risks are for a data center to be placed in Washington County. What we haven't talked about is the public sentiment. And I think it's very important that that be component of this decision. That's in part why I talked about a task force to work toward what is a good education plan, what is a good awareness building plan, and how we can talk about all the issues, whether it's farmland, whether it's construction jobs, whatever it might be on different positions. So I am personally concerned that we have, to this point, We haven't had the opportunity and the bandwidth to educate the public about this, with the exception of this meeting today. This is the first time we've had publicly available what our vulnerabilities are, if you want to put it into those terms. This is the first time we've had our questions answered. That's why I'm saying this, is that I think that it is incumbent upon us to take into consideration the public sentiment, whether it is well-founded or not, is not relevant to me at this point because there is fear. There is a deep level of concern about this. So I am not, am I out of time? No, it's someone's phone. Okay. It isn't silent. Sorry. I am deeply concerned about that element that we really have not discussed here. And I would like that discussion to be part of this decision. So at this point. I share that concern. And at this point, the moratorium is the salve to a certain extent that the public is looking for. I don't know that the salve is appropriate to the problem here. But I can't, we do have to consider that. It's important. So that's where I stand right now.

So Commissioner Treece and Snyder, that's one of the reasons that we brought another option for you is to consider a resolution in order that kind of addresses those community concerns. So it would be just short of a moratorium. So it's just another option. I'm not advocating for one or the other. I just wanted to bring you back to that page where we have another option.

Ms. Kyle, I appreciate that. And I would also ask if that utilizing that option does not preclude us from a moratorium either. Correct? Correct. Thank you. That would be my option, of course, at this point.

I can jump in and add my two cents. I feel like I don't, I think our community, I see the resolution as a bit of a performative to take and borrow the language that Commissioner Snyder used. I think what our community is looking for is an action, not like I hear your frustration, but actually being a bit proactive. And I see this discussion and this opportunity, this discussion and today as an opportunity to, yes, we've identified our code is inadequate, but it's also a way to be proactive before an application arrives to us in Washington County. And I wanna be sensitive and say that I do think I don't hear the concern that we need more information. I think Commissioner Snyder, I mean, not Commissioner Snyder, Commissioner Willey, you sent in some questions and I did look at them and I agree. That's why I think that I'm not asking us to make the final decision today. We have a required 45-day process before a moratorium could even be adopted, as you've heard from the staff. I would rather start that process now and use that time to answer the questions that have been raised here and in our email inboxes. The fiscal impact we've heard from our community members, we've heard water and wastewater questions, energy, land use, staff capacity came up today. I really would like to understand what it would it take to do this work within this 45 days. And then what I would like to understand from our legal sides, like our legal authority in this area too. So at the end of 45 days, this board retains the ability to either say yes to what we've learned, to move forward, or to say no and pursue a different route. Whether that is we come back to the performative idea of, you know, resolution and order. And I don't even know, I shouldn't categorize it as a performative. It might be a wonderful resolution and order that actually heals, there's a healing element to it in that resolution and order that heals our community and addresses some of the concerns and trepidations and frustrations that exist. So starting the process simply will preserve our options is how I see So I would rather move forward that direction. And I wanna say, I appreciate you all coming here, putting this work presentation together and doing your due diligence and hearing these different conflicting messages here, but this is really one of the biggest topic and biggest issue impacting Washington County residents. And we cannot say keep pointing the finger to other jurisdictions. We have a role to play. And personal affections aside, we have a moral responsibility to act. And that's what I am hoping we do today.

Each of the four of you have had an opportunity to answer these questions, so I'll go through mine and then attempt to summarize. It's been interesting listening to each of you. In addition to what we've been exposed to from public comment in our own forums, as well as hearing about or reading about public comment to other local jurisdictions. What I, as one, continue to have a need to understand is, as, for example, Commissioner Fai was summarizing different categories drinking water, wastewater, energy, land use, and legal authorities. I'm pretty clear on what our legal authority is and our land use. Wastewater, we have, as a board member of Clean Water Services, I feel very well supported by the information and the FAQ that Clean Water Services has put out and the availability of our understanding of clean water services role with industrial permitting and pretreatment requirements. Drinking water, the Washington County Board of Commissioners doesn't have any responsibility for drinking water. Energy, I don't believe we have any authority with regard to energy, but these general categories of concern and getting an FAQ from Washington County of those categories and qualifying what, if any, authority we have. And maybe that's already targeted for this FAQ you've got. That could be the information that I need, but I don't know that today. Do I want to see us move forward with the moratorium or with another action? Since our current community development code does not seem to have a path forward, I'm not interested today in a moratorium. What I am interested in is getting the benefit of the deliverables that you spoke about earlier. in the presentation, but I also want to see that the department is able to complete the work of the current work plan for the state required items and the two other items that this board did say we want improvement here. having the update to the community development code that assessment i understand will happen in calendar year 27 and why while we aren't the board that will take final action for that adoption the process is one where we make highest and best use of the county resources in order to meet COUNTY REQUIREMENTS AND COMMUNITY NEEDS. SO I WANT TO SEE BOTH THAT ONE AND THE CONTRACTOR'S ESTABLISHMENT WORK DONE. NOW, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO DO SOME FURTHER WORK ON THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND A FUTURE POSSIBILITY FOR UPDATING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR EXPLICIT definitions of data centers, just as Commissioner Snyder talked about earlier? Yeah, I think it does make sense into the future, but not at the expense of derailing the current work plan. We did, as Ms. Angie talked about, go through a very robust process on that. But you do have this other action plan for as proposed as one idea on the slide of reflecting those community concerns and how we might follow through on the county role relative to any of those. And I'm interested in that, but only after learning more about the grounding of those different topic areas. And you may have gone over that with us OF BACK IN OUR WORK SESSION, WHAT WAS IT, JUNE 25th? JULY. JULY 25th. BECAUSE THERE WAS A JULY DATE AND THEN THERE WAS AN AUGUST DATE OF LAST WEEK. SO I DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY YESTERDAY SINCE YESTERDAY WAS SUCH A DISRUPTED DAY FOR ME TO GO BACK. and look at that material, given the reminders that you had in today's packet, I just wasn't able to do that. So I would benefit from a little bit more time and having the benefit of your FAQ document for that. So I think that answers the question for me So in essence, I find that I'm both in agreement with Commissioner Willie and Commissioner Snyder right now and no on the moratorium, but also I find I'm somewhat in agreement with Commissioner Treece in terms of the R&D on the community concerns and seeing that as further clarity because I know that there's only so much we can do to help continue to educate and inform I'm in support yeah but I'm also not so foolish as to think this is going to satisfy folks who are doing things for their own benefit and not of interest and they are not interested in what we as a county government need to do. But I think we as a board can possibly move forward with having to go back to that slide on the you call it Other actions, I call it ideas for actions. Oh, thank you. Oh, I have it right up here on my screen. It was the sneaker at me. Yeah. But I also, I want to be clear. I don't want to derail the current work. Right? So while I'm interested in taking a, and RNO on reflecting those concerns and being clear about our role and possible actions for future work plans and board consideration, that's pretty much the limit for me.

I would add, as I've been listening, Chair, to what you're saying, I think there may be a way in the adoption of a resolution in order reflecting community concerns to be pretty explicit and specific about the fact that the reality of the situation of what parcels are available, how they're developed, et cetera, means that we essentially have a de facto moratorium now. And that because of that, and only because of that, are we not going to go further and file 45-day notice. We could do that anyway and just not use it. So that's another option. I would be okay, I guess, with that too, though I don't know how we would get to a place where we would be able to, from a criteria perspective, make the case that this is a real risk. So I'm kind of iffy on the just do it for just do it so we have an option.

To me, that that feels like too performative yeah it also feels like what we're seeing a lot of platitudes without a plan yeah uh it's leading people along yeah that's why i don't prefer it but i it's one of those things that i could live with but i wouldn't i wouldn't love it would you clarify what your what what is the it the it would be

it would be submitting the 45-day, sort of starting the clock with DLC.

Potential and not the R&O.

No, the R&O, I think we would be fully supportive of being pretty aggressive and robust. I think the Beaverton one and maybe what we would write would send a message to that if you're coming in for an application, we already aren't excited about it.

We have no place for them.

Well, I know. That's why it doesn't matter. But it's just one more of those things that sort of says currently. Yeah. I mean, yeah, again, currently. But I think is in the community development code work that you're that's on the work plan now. This is me asking a question. Please don't get ahead of your skis. Well, I know what you're going to say. Don't take my head off. Would there be a way to have a small amount of like we should probably have data center criteria added to that community development code review work that's going to happen in 2027?

I think it's going to be complicated to develop that language. So I wouldn't want to commit to that right now.

It is something we could consider. It goes against what we've seen in terms of documentation, making it more easy to use. implementable and also reducing barriers to housing.

Yeah.

I think we've established a record here of our intent.

Yeah.

So I just had to ask.

We could include the same question. We could include the OAR definition of a data center. That's really straightforward. That doesn't require any research and it's already adopted into state rules.

So we could do something like that. Yeah, but I don't want to put the county at any risk of somebody saying, well, you have a definition, therefore. Yeah, we'll leave that to the future.

A big risk of unintentional consequences once you start going down that path, because like we've talked about, maybe our server room is considered a data center by definition. So we want to be really careful summer office spaces. So yeah.

The technology is also changing rapidly. The OIR could change really quickly. I mean, depending on the data center recommendations, we could see additional state policy coming out. So I feel like there's a lot of uncertainty around what we would need to do.

I do think we should also add the governor's data center advisory committee. Like that part should also be in the resolution in order that we do expect a briefing on that coming back.

Yep.

Sorry, I'm talking.

So I'll summarize. We don't have, if we could go to the last slide, the one with the questions. Whoever's driving the slides. Sorry. We're going back to questions. The last slide. This thing has delay. Okay. So in summary, staff has heard and noted for themselves the additional information that we want we do not we have a board majority to not move forward with the letter of potential intent for a moratorium or any other action towards that move right now we do wish to move forward with the alternative action that we have talked about here of the resolution and order noting community concern as well as the other additional notes that we want to have included there. And I also expressed as one of five that I think there is other information from either our prior presentations and or from the FAQ that you're developing that will be useful to include in that resolution. And so I'll work with Ms. Angie so that we have a draft plan for how this board might have a work session on that R&O into future weeks for full board consideration.

I just want to be clear that I think that that resolution or order should lay out the case for why we essentially have a de facto moratorium.

Yes, you said that.

Yeah, I'm just, I think it's important enough. I wanted to reiterate it.

Yeah. And it should outline the fact that it does not preclude us from moving forward with the moratorium based on the information that we gain.

Right.

That's important to me too.

Yep.

Yep. So we'll move forward with that.

Chair, just as a matter of the record and for the public, we will attach the planning work plan to this packet because it was referenced multiple times during this discussion. And it is not published in today's packet.

Nope. But it is, as noted earlier, in our public record of prior meetings that are perfectly available on our meeting portal. Great. All right. Oh, boy. I did not do a good job of making sure we followed our 45 minutes. We had a great discussion.

I appreciate the robust discussion that we had.

Okay, so we're going to take a less than 10 minute break here at 2.30 so that the room can clear out and then I'll ask for the appropriate motion for an executive session and we'll start that at 2.30. Thank you. 2.30. I told you.

Okay. There we go. Welcome back. Back to you, Chair Harrington.

Okay. Okay. We are back from break. Hello. We are back from break. Hello. We are back from break. And at this juncture, I would like to ask for a motion to adjourn to executive session pursuant to ORS 192.660 sub 2 sub D for the purposes of Discussing labor negotiations. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please vote by raising your hand. Thank you. Commissioners, any opposed? The motion carries unanimously five to zero. We are hereby in executive session.