What happened
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors rejected a motion to begin drafting a ballot measure that would require voter approval for data centers and high-intensity computing facilities. The motion, proposed by Supervisor Justin Cummings, aimed to give residents a direct vote on such developments in the March 2028 election. The board denied the motion 3-2, with supervisors citing a lack of sufficient information about the evolving nature of AI data centers and concerns about creating unnecessary impediments to potential beneficial uses of the technology.
At its Tuesday meeting, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to reject a motion to begin working on a ballot measure for the March 2028 election. The motion, introduced by District 3 Supervisor Justin Cummings, proposed that county staff collaborate with his office to draft an ordinance and ballot language requiring majority voter approval for any data center or high-intensity computing facility in the county.
Cummings argued for a proactive approach, stating that if the community does not want these facilities, they should take steps now to ensure they have a say. He noted that his district, which includes areas near Wilder Ranch State Park and Big Basin State Park, is at particular risk if developers target the county, although he acknowledged there are no current specific proposals.
The opposing supervisors, including District 1 Supervisor Manu Koenig, District 5 Supervisor Monica Martinez, and District 2 Supervisor Kim DeSerpa, cited the novelty of AI data center policies and a lack of comprehensive information as reasons for their votes against. Koenig expressed reluctance to dedicate staff time to what he viewed as a low threat, noting that smaller-scale data centers could have beneficial uses for researchers at UC Santa Cruz or for water recycling through heat recovery.
Martinez emphasized that AI and data centers are rapidly evolving technologies that will likely change significantly within five to 15 years, making permanent land use decisions premature. DeSerpa echoed these concerns, stating she did not have enough information to support moving forward with ballot language and suggested the board hold a study session on the topic in the future.
Source details: santacruzsentinel.com ↗
Why it matters
This decision highlights the growing local political friction surrounding the siting of AI infrastructure. While the motion did not ban data centers, it sought to shift decision-making power from local government to voters, reflecting community anxiety over the environmental and social impacts of high-intensity computing. The rejection indicates that local officials are currently hesitant to codify specific restrictions on AI infrastructure due to the rapid pace of technological change and uncertainty about long-term land use implications. This outcome leaves the door open for future proposals but signals a preference for further study and gradual policy development over immediate binding measures.
The rejection of the ballot measure motion underscores the tension between local control over land use and the rapid expansion of AI infrastructure. By requiring voter approval, the proposed measure would have created a higher barrier to entry for data center developers, potentially slowing construction in the county.
The supervisors' hesitation reflects a broader uncertainty in local governance regarding how to regulate AI-specific infrastructure. Unlike traditional industrial facilities, AI data centers have unique energy and cooling requirements that are still being understood at the local level, making it difficult for officials to craft precise regulations without risking obsolescence or unintended consequences.
This decision does not ban data centers in Santa Cruz County, but it removes a potential tool for community resistance. It suggests that local governments may prefer to address AI infrastructure through case-by-case permitting and study sessions rather than blanket ballot initiatives, at least for the time being.
What to watch next
Monitor whether Supervisor Justin Cummings or other local advocates introduce alternative resolutions or study sessions on AI data centers. Watch for specific development proposals in Santa Cruz County that might trigger new public debate. Observe if other counties in California adopt similar ballot measure requirements or zoning restrictions in response to the AI infrastructure boom.
Future board meetings may include study sessions on AI data centers, as suggested by Supervisor DeSerpa, which could lead to more informed policy discussions.
Local advocacy groups may continue to push for ballot measures or other forms of community input on data center development, potentially leading to new proposals in the coming months.
The outcome in Santa Cruz County may influence similar debates in other California counties, serving as a test case for how local governments respond to the pressure of AI infrastructure expansion.