Phoenix Councilman Kevin Robinson told opponents of a million-square-foot Ahwatukee data center that he probably wouldn\u2019t want the massive facility near his own home.<\/p>\n
But that isn’t the legal issue, he and Phoenix Planning and Development Director Josh Bednarik repeatedly explained to a gathering of angry and frustrated data center\u00a0 opponents.<\/p>\n
For nearly two hours Aug. 16, Robinson and Bednarik faced residents who challenged them over noise, water and electricity use, fire hazards, property values, neighborhood notification and whether Phoenix could have stopped the Menlo Digital project at 48th Street and Thistle Landing Drive.<\/p>\n
Again and again, the answer came back to zoning during a meeting sponsored by the Ahwatukee Community Alliance. Opponents formed the nonprofit Alliance to stop the project that California-based Menlo Equities already has started to build.<\/p>\n
It is constructing the five-building office-data center campus on a 40.6-acre site it bought in 2015 for $50.2 million and already has razed the four-building call center that once was there.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf it\u2019s right across the street from my home, probably no. I wouldn\u2019t\u201d want it there, Robinson said after a resident put the question to him directly.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut again, \u2026 what would you want me to do?\u201d he continued. \u201cIt meets the zoning requirements.\u201d<\/p>\n
Bednarik was even more explicit about the constraints the city faces:<\/p>\n
\u201cI can\u2019t stop someone in the tracks on the chance that something might go wrong, especially if what they\u2019re showing us is compliant with the codes and ordinances we have on the books.”<\/p>\n
That explanation did little to satisfy an audience that included neighbors who have spent months researching the potential impacts of the data center and have peppered Bednarik\u2019s department with questions on why Phoenix continues processing permits despite their objections.<\/p>\n
The Alliance has raised questions about diesel generators, noise, air pollution, water and electricity consumption, fire risks, heat and the facility’s proximity to their homes.<\/p>\n
The Aug. 16 meeting put two of the city\u2019s most important figures in the controversy directly in front of those residents: Robinson, whose District 6 includes Ahwatukee, and Bednarik, whose department is reviewing the project.<\/p>\n
It also produced several commitments from the officials.<\/p>\n
Bednarik said the city is exploring whether it can require noise testing before issuing a certificate of occupancy, something he said Phoenix does not ordinarily do.<\/p>\n
Robinson said he planned to meet Menlo representatives in Palo Alto and would explore whether the company could enter into a \u201cgood neighbor agreement\u201d addressing some community concerns.<\/p>\n
He also disclosed that a Menlo executive had contributed $5,000 to his campaign and said he would return the money because of the appearance it creates.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt looks bad. I acknowledge that,\u201d Robinson said.<\/p>\n
He said he had not known about the contribution until his staff checked after the issue arose shortly before an earlier meeting with Alliance representatives.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat does not dictate how I am going to vote,\u201d Robinson said. \u201cIt does not, never has.\u201d<\/p>\n
A 1996 zoning decision<\/strong><\/p>\n The most persistent dispute during the meeting concerned how a data center of this scale could be permitted so close to residential neighborhoods in the first place.<\/p>\n Bednarik said the answer dates back three decades. The property was rezoned to Commerce Park\/General Commerce Park in 1996, a classification allowing a range of commercial uses, he said.<\/p>\n At the time, Phoenix\u2019s zoning ordinance contained no specific definition of a modern data center.<\/p>\n Instead, Bednarik said, such facilities were classified under existing categories such as a \u201ctelecom hotel\u201d or office use.<\/p>\n Phoenix did not adopt a specific data-center definition and new regulatory framework until July 2025. Menlo\u2019s site plan had been approved in 2024 and is not covered by those regulations.<\/p>\n \u201cThe vote that the council took to approve the rezoning of that site in 1996 is really what positioned this site for this kind of investment,\u201d Bednarik said.<\/p>\n That chronology is critical to the city\u2019s position.<\/p>\n Bednarik said Arizona\u2019s Proposition 207, the 2006 voter-approved Private Property Rights Protection Act, limits the city\u2019s ability to impose new land-use regulations on property after development rights have been established without risking a claim for compensation.<\/p>\n Menlo signed a Proposition 207 waiver when it modified its site plan in 2024, Bednarik said, but that waiver applied to the site-plan modification rather than the underlying zoning.<\/p>\n \u201cWe can\u2019t just take that rule book and now apply a 2025 rule to something that got approval in 2024,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Robinson said Phoenix officials recognized the broader data-center issue last year as proposed projects proliferated around the city.<\/p>\n \u201cWe asked ourselves, \u2018Do we want to be known as the data center central for the United States?\u2019 And we said, \u2018No, we do not,\u2019\u201d Robinson said.<\/p>\n That resulted in the city\u2019s 2025 data-center regulations, but Robinson said those rules came too late to stop the Thistle Landing project.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re here today because Menlo was already in the works,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Residents repeatedly challenged another part of the approval history: what Menlo told the community about its plans.<\/p>\n Opponents contend residents were asked to support what was presented as the \u201cThistle Technology Center,\u201d without being adequately informed that the project would become a hyperscale data center with a dedicated electrical substation, generators and round-the-clock operations.<\/p>\n Bednarik said the distinction may have little significance under the zoning code if both uses were permitted on the property.<\/p>\n He compared it hypothetically to a developer initially describing a coffee shop and later putting in a tattoo parlor if both were allowed under the same zoning.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s not a lot I can do when they switch within two uses that are allowed on their base site,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n But Robinson said he has asked the City Attorney\u2019s Office whether representations made during the neighborhood process could provide another avenue for the city to examine the project.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ve asked them to give me an explanation as to whether or not we can hold someone to what\u2019s written here,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n He also wants the city to determine whether developers can be required in the future to provide residents with more specific information about proposed projects.<\/p>\n Bednarik said the 2024 site-plan submission would not have contained many of the operational details residents now want to know.<\/p>\n \u201cHow much energy those buildings are using, what\u2019s exactly going on inside from an electrical output standpoint \u2014 none of that would have been on the site plan,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n The question at that stage, he said, was whether the proposed use was permitted and whether the buildings complied with requirements governing such matters as placement and setbacks.<\/p>\n Noise produced some of Bednarik\u2019s most significant commitments \u2014 and admissions about what Phoenix still does not know.<\/p>\n Opponents have argued that waiting until the data center is operating to determine whether its equipment violates Phoenix\u2019s noise ordinance makes little sense because the facility will already have been built.<\/p>\n Bednarik acknowledged the problem.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s not a lot that we look at prior to someone going operational on sound,\u201d he said. \u201cThat\u2019s just not in the building code. It\u2019s not in the zoning ordinance.\u201d<\/p>\n But he said his department is investigating whether Phoenix has authority to conduct testing before granting Menlo a certificate of occupancy.<\/p>\n \u201cThat is not something that we normally do,\u201d Bednarik said, \u201cbut certainly something that I want to explore.\u201d<\/p>\n He identified 55 decibels as the city\u2019s general noise standard but acknowledged another unresolved issue: how that limit would be applied where existing ambient noise is already near or above that level.<\/p>\n \u201cIf it\u2019s, say, 56 already in there, are we using the ambience?\u201d Bednarik said. \u201cThose kinds of things, I\u2019m going to follow up on that next week.\u201d<\/p>\n The Alliance told him it has conducted baseline noise testing and contends the surrounding neighborhood is already close to the legal limit.<\/p>\n Robinson, meanwhile, said Menlo has told him its backup generators would normally be tested once a month for about 15 minutes.<\/p>\n He emphasized that was information supplied by the company and said he intended to follow up on it.<\/p>\n Fire safety also generated pointed exchanges.<\/p>\n Residents raised concerns about lithium-ion batteries and the difficulty firefighters can face extinguishing battery fires.<\/p>\n Robinson, who chairs the council\u2019s Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee, said he has discussed data centers with Phoenix Fire Chief Mike Duran III and that the Fire Department would be involved in reviewing the facility.<\/p>\n He said he has asked the department to identify specialized equipment it might need to respond to incidents at such facilities.<\/p>\n \u201cIf there is equipment we don\u2019t already have that we\u2019re going to need, let us know what that is so we can be properly prepared for it,\u201d Robinson said.<\/p>\n Bednarik said Phoenix Fire will review hazardous materials at the site and must approve the project before the city issues a certificate of occupancy.<\/p>\n But when residents asserted that nondisclosure restrictions could prevent firefighters from knowing what hazardous materials are present, Robinson said that conflicted with what he had been told and promised to investigate.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t believe that\u2019s true,\u201d he said. \u201cLet us look into that.\u201d<\/p>\n On water, Bednarik said the project must comply with Phoenix\u2019s large-water-user ordinance and that the Water Services Department will be able to monitor the facility\u2019s actual consumption because Phoenix is its water provider.<\/p>\n Asked what Menlo\u2019s specific water-use threshold would be, however, Bednarik said he did not know and promised to provide the figure later.<\/p>\n Robinson said Menlo has told him that its air-cooling technology will limit water consumption and that most water used at the site would be for domestic and landscaping purposes.<\/p>\n On electricity, he said SRP representatives had told him residential and business customers would be prioritized and that the data center would not cause residents\u2019 rates to increase.<\/p>\n After residents challenged that assurance, Robinson promised to seek more information from SRP and try to obtain an answer in writing.<\/p>\n The tenor of the meeting grew increasingly contentious as it neared its end.<\/p>\n Residents repeatedly asked why Robinson could not simply vote against the project or why the city could not deny future permits.<\/p>\n Bednarik said the project is now in building-plan review and no council vote is pending.<\/p>\n He also addressed a July council vote involving abandonment of a drainage easement that opponents have cited as an opportunity for council members to stop or slow the development.<\/p>\n Bednarik characterized that vote as essentially procedural rather than a decision on whether the data center should be built.<\/p>\n \u201cIf they are compliant … I don\u2019t have any ability to say that I can\u2019t issue the permits at this stage of the program,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Robinson rejected calls for a citywide data-center moratorium, saying the regulations Phoenix adopted last year sharply restrict where future facilities can be built but cannot erase existing property rights.<\/p>\n \u201cThe best I can do at this point, being totally honest and transparent with you, is try to mitigate some things,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cThey own the property,\u201d Robinson continued. \u201cIt\u2019s zoned whether we believe that or not, or agree with that or not. It\u2019s zoned appropriately.\u201d<\/p>\n He said his job now is to \u201chold their proverbial feet to the fire\u201d and press Menlo for answers.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the Alliance touted an announcement it received late last week from Maricopa County that could pose new challenges for Menlo.<\/p>\n As a result of county Supervisor Mark Stewart\u2019s reaction to letters he\u2019s received from neighbors, the county is requiring Menlo to resubmit applications for air permits for the generators it wants to use in all five buildings. A hearing will be held in early November. \u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Phoenix Councilman Kevin Robinson told opponents of a million-square-foot Ahwatukee data center that he probably wouldn\u2019t want the…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":1024825,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[5131],"tags":[372447,5229,5643,1587,410036,302642,410037,302646,1589,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":["post-1024824","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-phoenix","tag-ahwatukee-community-alliance","tag-america","tag-arizona","tag-az","tag-josh-bednarik","tag-kevin-robinson","tag-mark-stewart","tag-mike-duran-iii","tag-phoenix","tag-united-states","tag-united-states-of-america","tag-unitedstates","tag-unitedstatesofamerica","tag-us","tag-usa"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/117160783945102368","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1024824","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1024824"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1024824\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1024825"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1024824"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1024824"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1024824"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}