If you are buying or selling property in Adelanto, a proposed change involving data centers raises an immediate question: does it approve something nearby? ZTA 26-01, also identified as Ordinance 668, would change how the zoning code classifies certain uses. It would not approve construction or grant a development entitlement.
The proposal remains pending. Status as of 27 October 2026: the Planning Commission voted against recommending it, and Insider did not find a later official City Council action. For a property decision, keep the proposed code language separate from any future application for a particular site.
R. put down her pen halfway through the sale documents. “Does Ordinance 668 mean a data center has already been approved nearby?” she asked. She wanted to understand what had been decided before signing anything. We went back to the pending amendment together. It would classify uses, but it supplied neither an approved site nor a construction schedule. Any future proposal would still need discretionary approval and project-specific environmental review. I could explain what the amendment addressed. I couldn’t turn it into permission to build, which was the distinction she needed.
What would the amendment change?
The amendment would add or identify several uses within existing categories in Adelanto’s zoning code.
The city packet for ZTA 26-01 and Ordinance 668 describes a text-only amendment to Title 17, Section 17.30.010 and Appendix A. It would identify data centers under Warehouse/Distribution/Storage/Transportation. It would also add microchip, semiconductor and drone manufacturing under Manufacture and Wholesale.
Those category names matter because they describe where the city would place a use in its zoning framework. They do not describe an approved building, an operating facility or a construction schedule.
The proposal uses the words “may be considered” and requires discretionary permit approval. That wording leaves a future approval decision to be made. If you see the amendment described as allowing data centers, read that description alongside the permit requirement. The proposed classification and permission to develop a specific property are separate steps.
Where would the proposed rules apply?
The proposed amendment would affect Light Manufacturing, Manufacturing Industrial and Airport Development District zones citywide.
Its scope is broader than one project site, but it is also tied to named zoning districts. A citywide text amendment does not mean that every property in Adelanto would receive the same new use classification. For your property review, the relevant starting point is the parcel’s zoning and whether it falls within one of those districts.
The packet does not establish an approved data center parcel. Nor does the amendment itself identify a verified development capacity or opening date. Avoid attaching those details to the proposal when discussing a listing or evaluating land.
For related reading about zoning districts, see Chino Hills housing priority zoning districts. Keep the two cities’ rules separate. Here, the useful question is specific: what would the proposed Adelanto text make eligible for consideration in the applicable zone?
What power-generating uses are included?
The proposal would also add several technologies under power-generating facilities.
The listed uses include natural gas and hydrogen power plants, fuel cells, linear generators, battery energy storage systems, LNG stations and microgrids. Small modular reactors are also listed, subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval.
This part of the proposal deserves attention alongside the data center classification. Reading only the data center language would leave out other uses covered by the same amendment.
Still, a list of technologies is not a description of a planned installation. It does not establish that any particular technology would be built, how large it would be or what electricity demand it would serve. The proposed language would make uses available for consideration through discretionary approval.
For a buyer or seller, that means the text can explain the range of uses under discussion. It cannot supply the operating details of a future facility. Those details would have to come from a specific proposal and its review.
What would still need approval?
Every future use would require a discretionary land-use entitlement and project-specific CEQA review.
The city states the limit directly: “The amendment does not grant any entitlement, approve any development, alter any development standard, or authorize construction of any kind.”
The packet identifies future environmental review topics including air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards, hydrology and water supply, noise, transportation and energy. Listing those topics does not establish a finding about a future project’s effects. It identifies matters that project-specific review would need to address.
Municipal Code Section 17.115.040 requires findings that the amendment is consistent with the General Plan and will not adversely affect surrounding properties. Those requirements concern the amendment. They do not establish approval of a particular development.
Staff proposed a common-sense CEQA exemption for the text-only amendment. That recommendation concerns the code change itself. It does not remove the stated requirement for future project-specific CEQA review.
If your concern involves a site’s disclosed conditions, NHD reports are a separate subject to review. Keep the questions distinct: a property’s disclosures, a proposed zoning classification and a future development application each call for their own documents.
Where does the decision stand?
The amendment remains pending after an advisory Planning Commission vote against recommending it.
The notice was published on 4 August 2026, the packet was posted on 13 August, and the hearing was on 19 August. Staff recommended Resolution P-26-07, asking City Council to adopt Ordinance 668.
Knock LA reported that the Planning Commission voted 3 to 2 against recommending the amendment. That was an advisory vote. City Council would make the final decision.
The coverage said no Council hearing date was set as of 27 August. Status as of 27 October 2026: the Planning Commission voted against recommending it, and Insider did not find a later official City Council action.
That record supports describing Ordinance 668 as proposed and pending. It does not support calling it adopted, effective, finally rejected or dead. When reviewing a property description or discussing the proposal, use language that preserves that distinction. A recommendation against an amendment and a final Council decision are different actions.
How should you use this information in a property decision?
Use the proposal to frame document questions, while keeping unsupported assumptions about a particular development out of your valuation or purchase decision.
Start with the property’s zoning. Then separate the proposed text amendment from any site-specific entitlement record. If a statement concerns a developer, parcel or facility size, ask which project document supports it. The supplied record does not verify those details.
Say a buyer is reviewing Adelanto land and encounters a claim that the data center amendment means construction is approved. The buyer separates the proposed code change from the property being considered, checks whether its zoning is one of the named districts, and asks for any site-specific entitlement record supporting the claim. The pending amendment cannot supply that approval. The buyer can then distinguish what the proposal says from what would still need a separate application and review.
The same discipline helps a seller describe property accurately. Do not turn a proposed use classification into a promise about development, revenue or timing. No project, entitlement or construction timeline is approved or verified by this fact base.
For related reading, buying land in Temecula offers another land-purchase topic to consider alongside this Adelanto proposal. Keep each city’s rules and each property’s records separate.
What are the common questions?
The main questions concern adoption, geographic scope and whether the amendment would approve a development.
Has Adelanto adopted Ordinance 668?
The proposal remains pending. Status as of 27 October 2026: the Planning Commission voted against recommending it, and Insider did not find a later official City Council action.
Would this amendment approve a data center?
No. It would identify data centers within a zoning category. A future use would still require a discretionary land-use entitlement and project-specific CEQA review.
Would the amendment apply to one site?
No. It would affect Light Manufacturing, Manufacturing Industrial and Airport Development District zones citywide. That scope does not establish an approved project parcel.
Does the Planning Commission vote end the proposal?
No. The reported vote against recommending the amendment was advisory. City Council would make the final decision.
The short version
Adelanto’s proposed amendment would change use classifications while leaving individual development approvals for future decisions.
For you, the practical distinction is between what the zoning text would let the city consider and what a specific property has permission to build. The proposal establishes neither an approved facility nor verified water demand, electricity demand, tax revenue, jobs numbers or an opening date.
Treat this as an educational explanation, not legal or tax advice. Keep the pending status clear, check the property’s zoning, and ask for the actual entitlement record behind any development claim.
If you are weighing a sale alongside these land-use questions, start your pricing review with the home value tool.
Common questions
Has Adelanto adopted Ordinance 668?
Status as of 27 October 2026: the Planning Commission voted against recommending it, and Insider did not find a later official City Council action.
Would the amendment approve a data center?
No. The text-only amendment would classify uses. Each future use would require a discretionary land-use entitlement and project-specific CEQA review.
Which zones would the amendment affect?
The proposed amendment would affect Light Manufacturing, Manufacturing Industrial and Airport Development District zones citywide.
Did the Planning Commission make the final decision?
No. Knock LA reported that the Planning Commission voted 3 to 2 against recommending the amendment. That vote was advisory, and City Council would make the final decision.
