Fairfield Freezes Data Center Applications With Unanimous Urgency Vote

Fairfield has hit pause on data centers before a single application has arrived. After a public hearing with more than 20 speakers, many from the One Lake neighborhood, the City Council voted 7-0 on Nov. 10, 2026, to adopt Interim Urgency Ordinance 2026-08, a 45-day citywide moratorium on data center applications and entitlements. The vote sets up a Dec. 15 showdown over whether to extend the freeze while staff drafts permanent rules.

---

• 7-0 vote adopts 45-day data center moratorium citywide; six votes were required.
• One Lake residents dominate the hearing, citing noise, water, fire risk and property values; a 148-resident petition was submitted.
• Construction labor pushes back, arguing a developer inquiry doesn't justify an urgency ordinance.
• Staff floats a starting rulebook: Planning Area 6 only, a 3,000-foot buffer, a 100-acre cap and the full 2% utility tax.
• Extension decision looms Dec. 15; the moratorium's 45th day falls on Dec. 25.

---

Council Hits Pause, Clock Starts Ticking

Why it matters: The ordinance blocks the city from accepting, processing or approving any data center application anywhere in Fairfield. That includes any proposal for Planning Area 6, the industrial land near One Lake that drove most of the night's testimony.

The basics: The moratorium is an interim urgency ordinance under California Government Code 65858. That law lets cities temporarily freeze certain land uses while they study new zoning rules, but it requires a four-fifths vote and strict time limits.

Where things stand: The item traces back to a council comment at the Oct. 20 meeting. City Manager David Gassaway stressed that the freeze is preemptive: "Currently there is no application anywhere in the City of Fairfield for a data center use." Data centers are also not a defined use in the city's zoning code.

Several commenters wanted a longer freeze. City Attorney Lim said that option isn't on the table. "It's 45 days or nothing," he said. He also cautioned that "it would be improper to pass an urgency ordinance singling out a certain property or business," which is why the ordinance applies citywide.

Lim laid out the path ahead:

• Staff must issue a written report 10 days before the ordinance expires.
• After notice and a hearing, the council may extend the moratorium by 10 months and 15 days, then by one year.
• Alternatively, the council may extend it by 22 months and 15 days at once, though Lim said case law on lengthy extensions is unclear.
• If the ordinance lapses, the city would need a new 45-day urgency ordinance.

Vice Mayor Pam Bertani pressed for clarity on when an extension could be considered.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: Bertani moved the ordinance and Councilmember Manveer Sandhu seconded. The roll call: For: 7 (Councilmembers Doug Carr, Doriss Panduro, Manveer Sandhu, Scott Tonnesen and K. Patrice Williams, Vice Mayor Pam Bertani and Mayor Rick Vaccaro), Against: 0, Absent: 0.

The unanimous vote cleared the six-vote threshold with room to spare. For One Lake residents, it buys time. For developers and landowners eyeing Planning Area 6, it adds a hard stop.

What's next: The staff report is due by Dec. 15, the council's last meeting of the year. Public commenter Nora Dizon asked staff to calendar the extension before the 45 days expire on Dec. 25, to avoid a lapse.

---

One Lake Turns Out; Labor Pushes Back

Why it matters: The hearing record on health, fire, noise, water and the legal basis for an urgency ordinance will shape both the ordinance's findings and the regulations staff drafts next.

Where things stand: Most of the more than 20 speakers backed the moratorium. Many lived in One Lake, and some wanted an outright ban.

• George Kennedy submitted a petition signed by 148 residents. He cited a JLL/North Point offering describing a 50-acre first phase growing to the full 300 acres. "Let's plan first, approve second," he said.
• Jeremy Weber opposed signaling Planning Area 6 as a desirable site. "This moratorium represents the will of the people," he said.
• Ed Fisher, a former firefighter, raised thermal runaway, toxic smoke and hidden-cable fires. He noted Planning Area 6's high fire risk designation and asked the city to "adopt a long-term moratorium on any large-scale data center projects."
• Alicia Minion said "this is very easy to justify legally to support this moratorium." She asked the city to add substations and lithium-ion battery projects and to study the risk of data center bankruptcies.

Other speakers widened the lens:

• Raymond Victorio urged that battery storage and backup generation be covered by the moratorium. He cited state bills SB 283 and AB 1285.
• Robert Myers said a 3,000-foot buffer is insufficient.
• David Bauman argued Area 6 should be saved for housing.
• Marsha Adair, a licensed architect, warned about loopholes and falling property values.
• Cheryl Whitfield, a city planner, said she sent the city manager and city attorney an AI data center policy toolkit. She cited Monterey Park's ban.
• Ana Petero, a Fairfield Unified School District governing board member speaking as an individual and professor, argued data centers are unneeded.

The other side: Construction labor challenged the premise. Cherie Cabral, representing the Western Steel Council and the California State Labor Management Construction Trust, said California has nearly 300 data centers without major problems. She urged the regular zoning process instead. "Simply having an inquiry from a developer does not constitute the grounds to be able to put an urgency ordinance into place," she said.

Dave Harrison, a member of Operating Engineers Local 3, cautioned against outright opposition, citing the technology race. "I support the building of data centers responsibly," he said. Steve Talbert welcomed potential tech and trades jobs and suggested the former beer company site as a location.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: Neighborhood groups won the first round. Trades unions, who stand to gain construction work, signaled they will contest the urgency rationale as the city moves toward permanent rules.

---

Staff's Draft Rulebook: Area 6, Buffers and Taxes

Why it matters: The starting points Gassaway outlined, and the questions councilmembers added, frame what any permanent data center ordinance will have to answer.

Where things stand: Gassaway traced the issue to Travis Air Force Base power-resiliency grants and a microgrid concept. He also pointed to the 4.6 million-square-foot industrial entitlement for Planning Area 6 of the train station specific plan. Staff approached North Point about higher-value uses after Upside Foods' $400M project went elsewhere over power delivery.

His suggested starting points:

• Limit data centers to Planning Area 6.
• Require a 3,000-foot separation from residences.
• Set a 65-decibel limit at the property line, with monitoring.
• Cap sites at 100 acres.
• Apply existing MPUD height and design rules.
• Require community benefits.

He also called for mandatory closed-loop cooling, which recirculates water rather than consuming it. "It would be silly for us not to mandate and require that any data center projects in Fairfield have a closed-loop cooling system," he said.

On revenue, Gassaway recommended amending the utility user tax cap in Municipal Code 18.49 so data centers pay the full 2% rate.

The other side: Several commenters, including Weber and Michael Jefferson, objected to the 65-decibel standard near One Lake and questioned the proposed distance. Jefferson also disputed that a data center would aid Travis.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: Councilmembers each added items for staff to study:

• Councilmember K. Patrice Williams asked for plain-language explanations of the 65-decibel standard and the 100-acre cap, and for a possible site tour. "So I am in support, but those are the highlights that I want to be able to see in 45 days," she said.
• Councilmember Scott Tonnesen said, "I just wanted to add the groundwater monitoring for wells in Area 6."
• Councilmember Doriss Panduro asked about fire mitigation and contacting the water board.
• Council comments also raised substation construction and electronic waste. One member asked to lower the noise limit below 65 decibels and extend the buffer.
• Another member asked whether Travis supports or opposes a data center. Gassaway said power infrastructure is the base's top resiliency priority; the base's stance was not answered.

What's next: Staff returns with its report and proposed regulations by Dec. 15.

---

• General public comment: Michael Jefferson criticized the mayor after a prior meeting in which a speaker was ushered out for referencing the mayor's wife and California Forever. Jefferson called it a First Amendment violation.
• Surveillance concerns: Ryan Massano tied data centers to government surveillance. Robert Myers called for a separate moratorium on Flock cameras.

---

Looking ahead: The Dec. 15 council meeting is the next decision point. Expect the staff report, a proposed extension and a renewed face-off between One Lake residents and construction labor.