Data center at 200 Paul Avenue in the Bayview, San Francisco. Photo via Google Earth
We have two questions before us in San Francisco as we deal with the populist movement against data centers, questions we look to a recent city report to unpack. What resources might be diverted to data centers? And how might companies skirt an imposed moratorium?
How We Got Here
In September, the fervor around data centers was enough to push the Board of Supervisors to pass a Data Center Moratorium. For 45 days, there would be no data center approved by the legislative and planning bodies of our City by the Bay. But 45 days is not an eon by any means, and on November 30th the moratorium will fade into history. Have we done anything meaningful during this mindful pause to prepare ourselves for what knocks at the door?
Data centers are the natural consequence of a hollow industry built on the promise of infinite computing power but without the infrastructure to underscore and deliver on that promise. It’s like a fancy bird doing a dance to woo a potential mate and then you realize he’s all plumage, no nest.
Why Data Centers SUCK
We are now reckoning with the visceral reports from communities with recently built data centers, watching suffering farmers and rural residents dealing with untenable noise in the countryside and water pollution in the once-pristine interior of the United States, power failures and manufactured droughts in places that have more birds than bricks. This reportage is a major factor in the political pressures that hit a high tide this fall; if it weren’t election season, the data center conversation would have likely carried on silently. Most policy and planning does.
But with a national spotlight on moratoriums and community mobilization against these bloodsuckers, San Francisco had no choice but to act, some say against her best interests. We’re a tech haven, after all, and we know more than any that the hollow industry must be fed something. Otherwise the promises that Big Tech has made will be for naught, and millions of dollars will vanish into thin air. We can’t have that. Think of the poor shareholders! So we must have data centers.
Data center at 365 Main Street in downtown San Francisco. Photo via Google Earth
Where Should They Go?
Enter the modern, thinking citizen. It is obvious to them that the data center is too cumbersome to plop into the heart of downtown. Preposterous to even propose. Why should it go here, the thinker says. Why can’t it go somewhere more convenient, more out of my sight?
And unfortunately, due to decades of persistent environmental racism and dismissiveness of the working class and largely Black community, the answer for a “more appropriate” place has been the City’s eastern shores, particularly the Candlestick, Bayview, Hunters Point areas. These neighborhoods have borne the heavy weight of capitalist industrial intentions, as well as the failures of politicians to protect their people from very real health impacts. See our reporting on toxic waste from years past.
The lessons learned from these fights have resulted in what the SF Planning Department considers to be “an already extensive regulatory environment.” But that doesn’t mean our processes account for the new, more severe environmental concerns that a data center raises.
Existing Regulatory Frameworks
Industry has always been noisy, uncomfortable, and best put away from residential areas. That’s why we have industrial zoning. But data centers, as the report points out, are louder than factories of yore, more toxic and more resource-intensive.
In addition, “San Francisco's primary regulatory framework for data centers was adopted more than two decades ago, before the emergence of large-scale cloud computing and artificial intelligence applications.” We did not prepare for the kind of land use questions we’re facing now.
The good news is, we’re not operating from a tabula rosa, despite what companies would like to see. If we were completely feckless and voted for the gutting of CEQA as it had been proposed in Prop 45 this November, we might have a different kind of question to consider, but thankfully the environmental justice fights of our forefathers have given us a small amount of protection. The report says, “Data center development in San Francisco is already subject to a multi-layered regulatory framework involving federal, state, regional, and local agencies.” Each of those regulations comes from a fight we don’t have to re-litigate, and we shouldn’t take that for granted.
The Westfield Center in San Francisco is a former mall and was proposed as a data center. Image via Wikimedia Commons.
Data Centers In Disguise
But we cannot underestimate the power of transfiguration. Data centers will rebrand. The need for their resources is too great, and the hollow industry demands bones to keep its maw open. Here’s what you might anticipate:
Automation: “One of the reasons that large data centers have been able to be built in more rural areas is that, relatively speaking, they are not highly labor-intensive operations for their physical size. Advances in automation and efficiency may also be trending toward fewer workers over time for the same size facility.” Because these projects don’t necessarily involve a large workforce, they can be hidden in plain sight. Fewer people in and out means less of a need to comply with other laws and regulations that would involve inspections, reporting, and oversight.
HVAC & Power Generator Innovation: “Data centers typically feature large backup generators and other heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment external to the building, typically at ground level because such equipment is very bulky and heavy (e.g., a typical 2 MW backup generator is the size of a cargo container for an 18-wheel truck) and needs to be ventilated. There may be potential to site generators and other equipment on rooftops that are designed to support them.” If the industry can invent new systems that take up less space, for instance a generator that is less visible, you can bet it will be popular.
Mixed Use and Reuse: “Examples show that there are situations where major structures from past eras, which may be challenging to reuse for other purposes, could be used, at least partially, for data center usage. They additionally show the possibility of vertically mixing other uses, such as office space, with small to moderate sized data centers.” We saw this with the farcical proposal to put a data center in the old mall downtown. If a building seems like it has no other good use, or if they can mix up the use like what’s proposed for the Smokestack, it’s likely to fly under the radar or be considered with a more congenial tone.
We’ll see more from our legislators on these issues, but we know that the fight won’t go away. It will only transform. Think of the idea of a data center less as an overt bloodsucker and more as a werewolf or shapeshifter, a changeling who disguises itself or hides in plain sight.
Stay vigilant.
