Public comment corpus
Board and staff discussion turns
62 discussion turns by board members and staff on data-center agenda items, transcribed from official recordings.
| Session | Speaker | Time | Turn (verbatim) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imperial Irrigation District, September 15, 2026 | Paul Rodriguez | 0:14:57 recording | Good afternoon, Chairwoman Eugenio, fellow board members, Paul Rodriguez, deputy power manager. Before you today, you have IIDs, large load tariff. This is something we've been working on for almost a year now, and we've worked with various departments within the district, including finance, risk management. We've worked with multiple units within the power department itself. We've brought on outside, I'm in a lot of the other areas, the three, the R&D, the outside technical consultants, we work with outside legal counsel, outside strategic consultants, we have Ali here with us today as well, all in an effort and commitment to have before you a solid large load tariff for your approval this afternoon. So a little history here. Large load tariffs first made it on our radar in 2023 or so, but it really picked up in 2024 once we had the grid reliability issues in that northern Virginia area. At that time, NERC and FRICS really started putting together task forces, getting together with doing industry forums to ensure that we're getting the right people in the room to tackle some of these issues. And around the same time, FRICS started publishing some documentation related to ratepayer protection, and that continues to today. Fast forward to 2025 and 2026. We had rate protection requirements published around those times, and we have plenty of guidelines now. After all the data was collected in 23 and 24, the guidelines started rolling in about 25 and 26. So in terms of the guidelines, there's guidelines both at the federal level and there are some coming up on the state level. On the federal level, we do have the RM26-4004. That was the letter. FRICS sent it. It was sent out to the RTUs and ISOs back in October of last year, which is basically saying, hey, you need to have a streamlined large load interconnection process. And even though it's not applicable directly to the IED, it is something that we took a very close look at to see how the big utilities and RTOs and ISOs were going to handle these large load interconnections. We had all the different NERC 3 levels of the NERC alerts that we completed, so they're basically large data. And the NERC and the ILE, the IE, the IE, the IE, the IE, the IE, the IC, the I. And the I. And the I. And the I. And the I. And the I. And the I. And the I. And the I. And the I. And the I. And the I. And the I. And the I. And the I. And the I. 15th of last year. We also did a comment period so we published it on our open Oasis site on May 18th and closed on June 17th. One correction for the record, your memo does state May 7th I believe but the actual date is May 15th. So we opened up for 30 days stakeholder comment period and we actually received 243 comments both from developers and from the development, sorry both from developers and the public. A lot of those comments were incorporated into the actual large low tariff including some of the underlining documents which I'll get to in a couple slides. So some of the changes we did based on that feedback was the load factor threshold. Initially we had a load factor threshold of 85%. We re-evaluated this, we looked into what other utilities are doing, some published documents there from from some national labs on on where the kind of this number is landing and we we were comfortable bringing it down to 80% from 85. We wouldn't go any lower than 80% given that we do have some conventional loads or or more more conventional loads which means more kind of processing type loads which use motors resistors that we don't want to capture into this bucket. Because here we're going after this electronic or computational loads. Another one was co-located generation. Initially, when we put the draft out that was shared with the board, co-location, we kind of tiptoed around it. There were some recommendations to go ahead and put it on there. Co-location gets complicated really fast, especially that we're in California. You hear of co-location in other states where they're co-locating large loads with large gas turbines. Here, it's much more difficult, given that we have to be 60% renewable by 2030 and 100% by 2045. So co-locating is complicated, but there are some possibilities of co-locating in the future. And if that's the case, there is some language in this revised tariff. The framework itself, the structure is still the same, still establishes the common service framework, including applicable general conditions of service, customer funding obligations, and contractual responsibilities. The definition of a large load for the IEDs is pretty close, almost the same. The 20 megawatts are larger, but we did reduce that load factor from 85% to 80%. The service characteristics are still the same, 69 kV or above, and we did keep the interruption rights retained by IED on that. That's basically saying that if we ever do get a large load interconnected to the system, that the IEDs and the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, the IEDs, load queue we did a large load queue service request process which basically describes how applicants enter and progress through the large load queue our first draft at this document we were sitting somewhere like 75 pages so we were we cut that back to somewhere in the 20-25 page zone but it's basically outlining the whole process a developer would go through different stages of the application process different stages of the steady process it also gets into the question of what happens we have a squatter so a developer that's not moving whether that's because it doesn't have citing information or because it has it it lacks it the last information that I did requesting or wherever the case is there's provisions there and how we would handle those developers that are not moving in the queue to not hold the queue back we even have language there are potential clusters if we ever get a inrush of data centers so it's it's it's a lot of things are covered in this large load queue service request process you and then we also have a cost responsibility agreement basically establishes the responsibility of development steady and other project related cost and advances this this will be more project specific so we have the kind of the template for it but it could be adjusted right a 20 may what large load versus a you got a 500 may what large load it wouldn't look the same so that's we just have the template out for these the service request application we have we actually have two versions of this we have a li.e.c. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. Finally, we have the confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements. So when we deal with developers, because we are talking about bulk electric system, we do have what we call critical energy infrastructure information, so CEII. So given that we're sharing a lot of this bulk electric information with developers, we want to ensure that we have confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements handy to ensure that none of that gets out. And eventually, if negotiations move forward, we'll be dealing with commercial sensitive information. And so we also want to ensure that that's not being used as a leverage for other negotiations with other utilities or none of that. So we spent a lot of time ensuring that we have these in place. With that, I'll open up to questions. I know I said a lot there to cover this large load tariff before I request approval. |
| Imperial Irrigation District, September 15, 2026 | Director Cardenas | 0:24:04 recording | If I may, Madam Chair. First of all, I do want to thank Ms. Alley for helping us out with this process and then allowing the public to comment during the comment period. And again, being able to put this together does provide the necessary transparency needed as you propose a new tariff. Maybe if I may, Mr. Rodriguez, I wanted to ask a couple questions to Ms. Alley, if I may. Yeah, go. And one of the things I was. Looking looking at Miss Alley was the APS large load or APS is large load, extra high load factor tariff. And I see that there's a lot of similarities. I know it's apples and oranges versus IOU versus POU, but do like what they have proposed in terms of the collateral deposits and some of the other things that are necessary, which I'm glad that's baked into to our tariff. They are using, though, a 92 percent load factor when it comes to that. Maybe. Can you speak a little? A little bit to the reasons why they're using 92 and maybe why we're looking at 80 percent or something to that effect? Yeah. So it's actually ironic. The original reason for using a 92 percent load factor was because there was actually some economic benefit to being on the XHLF tariff. That's the extra high load factor tariff in APS's service territory. So they saw it actually as originally a benefit to the service. And so they were really trying to incentivize that very, very high load factor. And therefore, they gave some of the economic benefits that were under that tariff only to customers that were able to achieve an incredibly high load factor. The reason for that was at the time what we were seeing in Arizona, as we were seeing across most of the country, was that there was this declining base load. And this was going to replace some of that declining base load and keep that steady so that we wouldn't have problems with things. Like potentially having to cycle at Palo Verde, things that you wouldn't really want to see happen. Now what we're seeing is that you have data centers operating at a much lower load factor than that. In their most recent tariff revisions at the Arizona Corporation Commission, I believe that they actually have lowered the threshold for the XHLF tariff. So what you're seeing is that being brought down. The reason for 80 percent for you guys is very strategic. You want it to be high enough that it is going to cap. Sure. Most computational load. But you don't want it to be so low that you start to capture any of the manufacturing load. And I think what Paul alluded to was that you do have some mineral extraction plants, some potential manufacturing in your service territory that today are operating at close to a 70 percent load factor. So imagine that you were to have a slightly more sophisticated plant come in at some point. Mineral extraction. Light, even heavy manufacturing. You really don't want to encapsulate that type of load in this tariff. And so that's where you're really threading that fine line. So that's where we landed at 80 percent. I appreciate it. I just have one more question. And it's in regards to the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act or PERPA. And I know that there's some very clear rulemaking when it comes to that. And I do value the opportunity and discretion to exercise our own large load tariff. Can I just have some assurances that we are in compliant with? And this is the appropriate pathway of us moving forward when it comes to us exercising our sovereignty over our own rate per protection initiatives. Yes, of course. So, you know, PERPA really deals with generation much more than it's dealing with load, right? And so what PERPA sought to address was that if you had generation under a certain amount, that that would be must take for utilities that were governed under PERPA. So really here what we're dealing with is load. You know, to the extent that you were to have a data center come in and propose a traditional load that would fall under the PERPA guidelines, of course, then you're going to want to thread that needle. But generally speaking, the size of data centers is such that they likely would not be pairing their resource with a generation resource that falls under a PERPA policy. So I think you're probably okay when it comes to PERPA. Thank you. Madam Chair, I just wanted to give recognition to our. Staff to Ali for putting together a large load tariff that not only protects us, protects our rate payers, but also allows for preventions and cost shifting. I believe the policy is consistent, transparent and non-discriminatory and want to just give special recognition for our staff and our community and everyone that helped in this process. Thank you, Director Cardenas. |
| Imperial Irrigation District, September 15, 2026 | JB Hamby | 0:29:27 recording | Yeah, I'll add. This is an evolving, complicated set of. Issues that we're trying to grapple with in real time. Our intent is to include best practices here as far as we're best able to see them implemented other places and implement them here. I think it's consistent with our December resolution and primarily the goal of protecting existing rate payers and ensure these new opportunities pay for themselves and don't burden existing rate payers. Yeah, that was the main thing. Protect our rate payers. I'm noticing that we have the right to reserve interruptions. We can do that. Yes. Yeah, that's perfect. Thank you. |
| Imperial Irrigation District, September 15, 2026 | Chairwoman Eugenio | 0:30:14 recording | Last week, legal papers were delivered to my home, the home I share with my daughter. I was not named in that lawsuit, but they came to my door anyway. That crossed a line. It was intimidation and it was an attempt to silence me. But it will not. I will not be intimidated. I will not be silenced and it will not stop fighting for the very people who entrusted me with this office. We are here because of failed leadership. Public officials ignored our warnings, dismissed our concerns, divided our community, and betrayed the public's trust. Our community deserved better then and it deserves better now. As a public utility, we must provide power to applicants who meet the established requirements. But we have an equally important duty to protect the public. We are protecting our families. We are protecting our water, our air, our land, our agriculture, our economy, and our children's future. This is our home. Not a dumping ground and not a colony for outside interests to exploit. To those who want to build here, respect us. Protect our resources and leave our community better than you found it. As a board, we promised to defend this community and today we are keeping that promise. But we did not do it alone. So again, I'd like to reiterate a thank you to our general manager, Jamie Asprey, our general counsel, Wayne Strumper, our power manager, Matt Smelser. Thank you to Paul Rodriguez and thank you to all the staff who helped make this necessary action possible. Most importantly, thank you to the members of this community who stood together, demanded accountability, and refused to be ignored. And to those who created this division and betrayed the public's trust, do better. And remember who you are elected to serve. With that, I will ask for a motion. |
| Imperial County, September 3, 2026 | Jim Minnick | 0:47:59 recording | Environmental review is an environmental review is an environment review. The, the tie, that level of documentation, right, is what is the difference between it. So a negative declaration, a notice of exemption, they're all part of an environmental review, right? And that's what my presentation was trying to explain in terms of one agency over another agency, making a decision. Um, different agencies have different, different things. And just because something is discretionary, does not necessarily mean it's, it's requires a higher level of analysis. Okay. Okay. Let's say you want to put in a, um, for years, you want to put a second dwelling unit on your property. That's a categorical exemption. Uh, it's, but it's still a discretionary action. You want to do, you want to do a water well, right? Uh, that's a, that's a negative declaration. Typically, if you meet the requirements of X number of water per gallon in limit, right? So it, it land use is applied to those things, right? You first have to determine whether a project is, uh, whether a proposed development. I tried to really be clear on my presentation of talking about a proposed development versus a project because sequel uses the word project. And we tend to use the word project in the vernacular, like everything's a project, right? Well, not necessarily because I wanted to differentiate. That's why I gave you the list of what it was. So even if we do determine something as a project, whether it's ministerial or discretionary, we still look at, look to sequel to see if it requires an initial study or whether it is, you mentioned the term cat X, we don't use the word cat X. That's a NEPA term, but I knew what you meant, a notice of exemption. Okay. Um, and so in the case of a project that is found to be a notice of exemption that is done at my office based on what sequence says. Okay. Um, now, um, and so that's, that was, there's one of your questions. I have more questions. Okay. There are two, two specific, |
| Imperial County, September 3, 2026 | Jim Minnick | 1:15:19 recording | Any project that is an entitlement project or a project that is subject to CEQA that we prepare a CEQA document for goes through a public review. And then we have a process and is ultimately decided either by the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors depending on the level of the entitlement. You appeal a Planning Commission decision that's a generally speaking a final decision to the Board otherwise the Board hears the project and makes the final decision on the environmental document. Staff does not. That's done by the Board. So but when the Planning Commission gets it we only have we have 10 days before the Planning Commission to submit in writing. Okay. Is that what it is? We have to submit in writing our appeal to the Planning Commission before the Planning Commission hears it. No no no no. Okay so hold on. I got this. Okay so let's say it was a Planning Director action. There are certain things that the Planning Director can do in lieu of the Planning Commission. I can do a lot line adjustment. I can do a minor subdivision. It's designed to allow for situations where we have a lot of projects on a Planning Commission or not enough to hold a Planning Commission. Any decision I make. Is appealable to the Planning Commission. That's the only way you would appeal something to the Planning Commission. You could also appeal an EEC decision. So let's say the EEC concludes with a negative declaration and you don't agree with it. That decision can be appealed to the Planning Commission. And under the current regulations then that's done. It's been appealed to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would hear the project just the CEQA project not the rest of the entitlement. And that's how our current regulations work. The new proposed ones would allow even if you didn't agree with the Planning Commission's decision on what type of environmental document needs to be circulated. You could still appeal the decision on what type of document is being prepared to the Board of Supervisors. That's one of the new changes that are being proposed. Currently the Planning Commission is the final word on the type of project or type of document that the environmental document. |
| Imperial Irrigation District, May 15, 2026 | Alex Cardenas | 0:32:44 recording | No, I do appreciate the engagement and you coming on board with us to help us through this process, and I also welcome the 30-day period for us to have a transparent discussion and ask for public input. Additionally, I do appreciate the fact that we're looking at it through a windshield and not a rearview mirror when it comes to addressing these things, but I did have some questions, specifically around three key points. One is financial collateral. And I think that the backup material does address financial collateral, but personally, what I'm looking for are some ironclad financial agreements and what that means. So, you know, the upfront capital and the long-term take on pay contracts and how that works, just kind of looking where the bright lines are in terms of as we look at this new tariff, which is really a new era. On, when you look at 20 megawatts and above, but when you look at financial collateral, how can we get to a point subject to the public comment period that those that that financial collateral is ironclad, and we are dealing with folks that know what they're doing when it comes to this these types of investments. So when you look at the tariff, you'll see that we have included certain collateral requirements and the types of collateral are very specifically outlined. First, there is a parent guarantee. Option. However, the only utility, the only excuse me entities that would be eligible for that parent guarantee option are those that are very very financially sound and sophisticated. So you're there's very few entities in the world that have the credit rating that we're talking about here, let alone in this industry. And so this would not be eligible for most of the customers that are going to come through. Most customers will have to either. Post a letter of credit and on demand surety bond or cash. Those are all very sturdy financial instruments that can be unilaterally exercised by the district in the event that you need to actually collect on that collateral. So these are things that you can really take to the bank. They're issued by banks or by insurance companies, but they are very ironclad and I think the type of protection that you're looking for on top of that, you know, we'll be collecting. Some type of working capital to ensure that the district is not ever sort of left flat footed. And that's, you know, really important to ensure that you always have something to be, you know, working towards when you're talking about customer service billing metering all of that stuff. So you meet if I may, Madam chair, let me just say just have two more points. Let me speak in terms of avoiding the the boom or bust cycle and the decommissioning cost. You know, there's pledges that they'll pay for. The substation they'll do this. They'll do that. But you know, whether this is a boom or a bust, what can be considered in terms of decommissioning costs of their legend? They're going to build a 20 20 million dollar substation that they even don't even have engineering plans for. But how can we ensure that decommissioning costs are baked into the tariff as well? Or is that even the possibility? I think it's something that we can certainly take back. It's, you know, not necessarily something we've outwardly contemplated, but it sounds like generally the permitting Authority requires a remediation of the site at that point in time. So that would be we've seen that with other large-scale projects. I don't we've not seen a project make it through of this scale of this type to the permitting process, but assume as part of their conditional use permit or whatever permit is authorized by the authority having jurisdiction. They would have some. Some. Requirement for that. So it's not it's not a bridge too far that we can consider remediation appropriate remediation and to include decommissioning costs. Should this be a bust? I think that's appropriate for that part of the infrastructure that is belong that belongs to ID and where IEDs infrastructure would be required to meet theirs in order to facilitate service. All right, just two more points. Madam chair. Apologize. I want to speak specifically to grid reliability and RA or resource act. That's one of the questions that we think we need to hear as we talk about decommissioning of ad lakeute's himself in our policy. Can you give us an idea of what's going on with that and what we want to see in our policy? and how we can possibly exercise interruptible power in the interest of protecting our repairs. Actually, we'd prefer to have Ms. Koslow address that for you. So interruptible tariffs are something that we see in many different jurisdictions. IED doesn't currently have one. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. So characteristics of interruption will have to be outlined in a business practice manual that will be posted on the OASIS site as well as be available to any interested party through other means if that is not something that they want to do, if they don't want to register on OASIS, although I don't know why you wouldn't want to do that. So this is something where essentially we are going to only curtail in the event that there is going to be a grid reliability event or to the extent that we see a grid reliability event sort of pending. And this is something we talk a lot about. Especially in the West where we have these very extreme heats in the summer. You may have times during the year where you're flush on power and then other times you have that same amount of power but you are really butting up against the top of your system. It is never a utility's intent to cut off customers. That is something that we do when we have to in order to protect grid reliability. And so what this tariff is saying is we are going to put these customers sort of first in line to be curtailed. So to the extent that there is an event that requires that type of curtailment, they will be first in line. And those operating instructions will be given to them. Now, there's things that we can do to actually work with industry to think about how do we allow them to actually go on to their backup power. Are there ways that we can give them enough of a heads up so that it's not interrupting their business so that they can use all of the resources that they will inherently have. on their data centers or other large loads in order to really think about ways to not interrupt the business. So yes, this is curtailable. That is part of the tariff design. But we'll be looking for ways to make sure that we protect them as well. Now, we're also in the midst of a massive five-year CIP plan. And I want to speak specifically to jumping the line. So making sure that massive industrial interconnections, not believe or be entitled to thinking that they can jump the line. So is there something specifically that the tariff can address that line jumping is not, I don't want to say this, that line jumping is something that's not permissible? I'm not sure that you would put that necessarily in the tariff. But for sure, that needs to be a policy that is set by the utility. Yes. Absolutely. That's something that many utilities will do in terms of how they do their queuing procedures. So that's something that we'll be working with the power department in terms of how do we set up the queuing process? Who goes into this queue? Remember, this specific tariff is only applicable to customers that have an 85% load factor or above. So there are going to be other large customers, maybe even as large as 20 megawatts, maybe larger than that, that don't necessarily fit those criteria. And they will be served much more similarly to the way that IED serves customers today. So of course, we need to think about how those customers are going to interact with one another, how they're going to interact with your planning processes and your procurement processes. But yes, the queue will need to be something that we really think about. Madam Chair, my final thought or inquiry is in regards to water. Obviously, the significant cooling that's involved is something that concerns the public. Rightfully so. But is there any way that the tariff can be coupled with a rigorous water review and the possible impact? Can those be tethered together in regards to the tariff? And I guess the ask is, number one, can the tariff require a rigorous review of the water impact? I'll have Tina also weigh in on this. So the open access transmission tariff that we currently have has certain conditions that you have to meet as a generator interconnection customer to push power into the system for us to move your project forward. There are a number of things that are conditional. You have to have an offtake agreement or you have to have acquired very expensive equipment. You have to have secured a turbine and those types of things. I don't see any reason why we couldn't, include a requirement that the water assessment be part of this. And we do have a separate process for that. And at all scoping meetings for all customers that require, have a water requirement, we do encourage them to reach out. And we always say early and often to the water department. Madam Chair, what I'm just ultimately looking for, subject to the 30-day comment period, is a tariff that necessarily is not anti-business, but pro-rate payer. Thank you. |
| Imperial Irrigation District, May 15, 2026 | Gina Dockstader | 0:43:50 recording | And I have a question for Ms. Goslow. When we don't have enough megawatts to serve both Imperial and Coachella Valley, and we have to go out to March, to purchase that energy, and we are now procuring all this extra energy for these additional data centers, will that impact the rate at which we purchase power? There are a lot of factors that are kind of baked into that question. Of course, when demand goes up, the prices for supply go up as well. That is a natural sort of impact. If you talk to anyone in this industry, they'll say the way that you put downward rate pressure on most customers is you increase the supply. So one of the things that we're going to be having to look at here is, not only what are the power prices, what are the prices that we are looking at in terms of long-term power purchase agreements, even shorter-term market purchases, but then potentially doing a market power analysis to see what would the sort of counterfactual impact be had those customers not come in on the market. And that's going to have to be one of the factors that we take into account with the actual rate that's being charged, which is trying to ensure that we're really looking at all of the downstream impacts of these customers coming in. So it's not just a strict, we bought a PPA for you, and this is the price of the PPA, but we run some type of counterfactual to see what the prices would have been in this region at this locational marginal pricing node, and actually look at that impact delta and also attribute those costs. It's somewhat complicated, but something that certainly can be done. |
| Imperial Irrigation District, May 15, 2026 | Lewis Pacheco | 0:45:44 recording | Thanks for all the work. It matches up with a resolution from December, so appreciate all the layers of effort on this. After the 30 days that we have to expose this, are we going to have an open, session or is IAD going to form, have a follow-up? 10 to do, Director Pachuck, it's a very good question, and we are getting daily comments in, and we have some of our generation interconnection customers that are also providing comments. So what the power department will do is take all of those comments and suggestions that we've received, and they will evaluate that with all of the consultants that we have about how those things can be incorporated into the framework. And then that framework will be brought back to the board for consideration. |
| Board of Supervisors, February 17, 2026 | Peggy Price | 0:30:09 recording | MOVING ON TO DISCUSSION OF THE AGENDA. ITEM A, ITEMS TO BE PULLED FROM THE ACTION DISCUSSION CONSENT BUDGET. CHAIRMAN PRICE, THERE HAD BEEN A REQUEST TO PULL FROM THE PUBLIC, PULL ITEM 19. OF COURSE, THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA IS AT THE BOARD'S DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO MOTION, I'LL MOVE TO ITEM B, URGENCY ITEMS TO BE ADDED. MADAM CHAIR, NONE. OKAY. SO MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS TO BE PULLED FROM THE ACTION DISCUSSION CONSENT BUDGET. WE NEED THE APPROVAL OF THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA, MADAM CHAIR. OKAY. WHAT ABOUT DO I HAVE TO ADD? DO I READ B AND C BEFORE WE GO FOR APPROVAL OF THE ORDER? CHAIR, I DO BELIEVE WE ARE NOW AT 5C TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. APPROVAL OF ORDER OF THE AGENDA. DO I HAVE A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR ESCABAR, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR HAWK. PLEASE VOTE. OKAY. THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES. ITEM 6, APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR. I HAVE A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR KELLY, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR HAWK. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSED. |
| Board of Supervisors, March 26, 2026 | Martha Cardenas-Singh | 3:44:56 recording | Good evening, everyone. I did take a couple of notes that I just wanted to get some clarification. Just for clarification, and this was in my notes already, although it was already asked, this is for the developer. Is there a PLA that's already in place with the unions? Yes. Yes. All right. What unions? They're right here. The laborers? They represent the unions? All right. That was my question. Thank you, Mr. DeVoe. I do. Mr. Breckin, this question is for you, and I apologize. It's back to your presentation. There seems to be maybe an opportunity for clarity. When we talk about the bond measure for IBC and for the Imperial School District, maybe the slide that went before and then that slide, because if you could clarify that for me, please. |
| Board of Supervisors, March 26, 2026 | Martha Cardenas-Singh | 3:51:04 recording | All right, thank you for the clarification. I've got a question that would go to him, please, if I could ask it. Are our social, are our costs for our health care valued in this equation? Have you discussed what it's going to cost us as a matter for our health care? |
| Board of Supervisors, March 26, 2026 | Unidentified supervisor (video ID pending) | 3:52:14 recording | I've already publicly said it. I've never signed an NDA. I won't. I'm a public official, and there's no cause or reason as opposed to a public official to sign an NDA. |
| Board of Supervisors, March 26, 2026 | Unidentified supervisor (video ID pending) | 3:52:27 recording | So I'll go next. I have never signed an NDA. So whoever you're talking to, that's misinformation. |
| Board of Supervisors, March 26, 2026 | Unidentified supervisor (video ID pending) | 3:52:43 recording | For the record, I haven't either, but that's for the record. |
| Board of Supervisors, March 26, 2026 | Unidentified supervisor (video ID pending) | 3:54:30 recording | I just want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who's been here. I know that it is difficult to come up and be very vulnerable. Just know that you're listened and that you're heard. We've taken everything into consideration and we are listening. So I just want you to provide, I want to at least acknowledge and let you know that we are listening to what's being shared. And I appreciate you coming here this evening to share those concerns. That is why we had this meeting, to be able to hear the concerns that you have. So I know it's hard and it's difficult on both sides, you know, to come here today and know that we're listening and that we are taking note to everything that's been shared today. |
| Board of Supervisors, March 26, 2026 | Presiding officer (identity pending) | 3:56:14 recording | Thank you, Michelle. It's been a pretty lively night. And I just want to thank everyone. We do appreciate your comments and we listen to you. And that's why we had this forum for you tonight. So I just want to thank everyone for being here. And I think the board and our staff, we listened. Just want you to know that we have listened. So with that being said. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 2, 2026 | Peggy Price | 3:04:54 recording | Returning back to Item Number 18 into the dias. I just have some comments as we talk about this item and there were several comments that were made today in terms of timing in different aspects of the resolution and the guidelines that will be able to answer some of those here today and some we will not. That's going to have to come back to us. But I'm very proud that we have been able, we have been listening, we have been learning through these months, which for myself I learned about this project the day before Thanksgiving, November of 2025. And it came hot and fast. Not really understanding everything that was going on with this project being somewhere else for the previous 11 months. So with that being said, we proposed some guidelines. We've been listening. Guidelines that we felt that would protect our community but also considered, you know, responsible development. Thank you for all the emails. We received quite a number of them, both in support and in opposition. And I feel that these guidelines do address those concerns. Granted there is still some work to be done. We know that. And you brought that to our attention today as well. And I know that you see it too. We've had several meetings. We've had some workshops. We've considered those comments. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for coming on this evening. Let me ask an appropriate question and talk about some of the concerns that they gave us about ourADMS project? Just one question I'd like to sort of frame from what was required is what kind of guidance did we apply and see if there was any Central Order guidance or commission途 given that will impact our navigational efforts to reduce excess parkinguna portion H 25 which instance. On the following page it does say additional setbacks may be required based on project specific characteristics. And we know that there are some smaller data centers out there right in the residential area. So this is to cover, we have to consider smaller scale to larger scale in these guidelines and ordinances. And I, you know, there's been some comments made about us benefiting from this project. And we all shared that in our, one of our last meetings. None of us have benefited financially from this current development, proposed development off of Ayton Road. Just want to make that statement. But, you know, in listening to all the comments today and over the past months, I would like to propose a work group or work groups. And you've mentioned that here today. One with labor and you brought it up today, including public safety and nonprofits. Looking into local hires that organize labor and public safety issues. You could include other nonprofits in there. And then also a community group. I know that we have talked about this. It would be great if we could do a community group. Now is the time that if we have a community group that we can pull together with many of you folks that have been coming to these meetings and even do a fact finding assignment, which includes a field trip to a data center. Or data centers. Excuse me. And bring that back and incorporate it into a report for us. Okay? Okay. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 2, 2026 | Jesus Eduardo Escobar | 3:09:47 recording | Thank you, chair. I've said this before and I'll repeat myself, um, because there's a lot of misconceptions out there. One acre feet, one acre foot of water is 325,000 gallons of water. The ID is privy to 3.1 million acre feet. Eat currently a lot less because of different transfers and agreements, but it's still in the neighborhood of 2.4 million acre feet. Water is not an issue. We, as a collective group, residents residents, Mr. Scurries, I'm sure you're going to like where I end up on this. So chillax chillax. I'm sure you will. We need to understand that water consumed by the whole of America. In peril county constitutes less than 3% of the old world water that we utilize over 97% is utilized in farming. And yes, we are farming community, but how many millionaires or how many people making a above middle-class living work in farming besides the owner, we need to diversify. I said this time and time again, you'll be able to diversify your. You're wrong. I apologize, but you're wrong. And he wrote me out. You wrote me out, but you are wrong. We need to diversify our economy. Power. We currently have 500 megawatts of power, the geothermal power for well over 40 years in imperial county. We have over 2,500 megawatts of power. That have been untapped. What do data centers need? They need power. What do you have? Plethora of power, solar industry, because that was mentioned. We've got holes in the solar industry. We had one year, maybe a year and a half of great jobs. And that was it. What did we do as a board of supervisors 24 months ago? We created a tax because California wasn't helping us out. So we created a tax $600 per acre per year on ag land and $450 per acre per year on arid land. That is something we took as an initiative at the local level to try to supplement our fiscal needs. So there's a lot of issues out there that we're not fully aware of as an elected official. We are, we have the responsibility to listen to our entire community, not one sector, not one area, not the city of Calexico, but the entire imperial county footprint. And at the end of the day, it's important that we listen to all. We listen, we listen to people that are pro business. We listen to people that are pro community, but something that binds us all this healthcare, how do we teach people about health care in imperial county? Do we have healthcare in imperial county that suffices our needs? We look at our fiscal issues because we talked about fiscal. Somebody mentioned fiscal. Anybody that understands the financial statement can understand that we are operating on fumes. Our employees can tell you based on their raises and the issues associated with cost of living. How? a lot of these individuals that work for the County of Imperial are living day to day. So at the end of the day, we really need to focus on something that is meaningful for as many members, because we're not going to appease everybody. That's a black and white, to appease as many people as we can possibly appease. The elephant in the room is not developing a data center in Imperial County. The elephant in the room is where we are developing a data center in Imperial County and what steps are being utilized to develop a data center in Imperial County. I was not privy to the guidelines. They were worked on by other supervisors. I was privy to the resolution. And I fully agree that the resolution is, is weak. So my proposal is as follows, and I would want that brought back in two weeks so that we can take a more affirmative action related to data center development in Imperial County. We need to specifically build a six-month moratorium on data centers to be able to fully digest how and where we want these data centers developed. We need specific deletion. We need specific affiliations with local governments and local authorities that would allow them to detect data centers as close to where they were designed and deliver data on their website. We need specific affiliations with local governments and local authorities that would allow them to DNA decide where those data centers would be located and build access ethically for data centers. That was my proposal. My proposal with federal agencies is that we should design effort about progress while stressors take care of data centers and solve problems with data centers. Then as an exercises looks at others with primary vision success but i am interested in progress doing progress by Umpliffe pieces will tell us when are what such spaces really goes well with everyone these communities will meet from area to area as well as local agencies will face individuals over those spaces will create gap spaces how could there be activities from general residents doing progress around public Church mind data centers over local agencies these communities will face factors such as We need to, and I wrote them down because I didn't want to forget them. We need to eliminate by right. By right is going to get us in more and more trouble. If we focus on a regular approval process for developing data centers down the road, we avoid a lot of the issues. And obviously by avoiding by right, we create participation or a requirement for responsible development under the California Environmental Quality Act, or as everybody calls it, CEQA. I support, and I think this is mentioned before, an ad hoc committee. And I wrote down individuals. Who would build an ad hoc committee or would be part of an ad hoc committee so that within the six month moratorium, we could build specific guidelines that have teeth that are able to be provided both to our community and to developers so that we can move forward. Healthcare needs to be included. Education, nonprofit, public health, experts in the energy field, expert in the water field, labor, and obviously emergency services. Because if we don't have that, we're not going to be able to do anything. Because of the potential hazards that this may create. Last but not least, we also have to create a carve out on Lithium Valley, that 51 acre site in northern Imperial County. Why? Because we're already working on an environmental report and a specific plan related to development in that area. This is basically for the whole of Imperial County so that we can effectively look at the development of data centers down the road. If we decide not to do it, we decide not to do it. Okay. Okay. [...] Okay. support the resolution is weak. This creates a specific timeline for us to be fully engaged, for us to fully present something to this community that is both meaningful, that has specific protections and that also allows for future development in our county. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 2, 2026 | Martha Cardenas-Singh | 3:18:14 recording | So let me be very clear. I want to share with you, I am the one that wrote this resolution. So let me explain to you the process behind this. Since we've been having workshops that have been taking place and we have been hearing from our constituents and the concerns that have taken place here in our community, I started becoming very active in many of the meetings that take place here. I started attending our environmental evaluation committees that take place so that I could see, how a project that has to be approved through the CEQA process, all the individuals that sit on this dais and all the questions that are asked when a project has to go through the CEQA process. I have been attending those meetings to be very clear about the questions and what mitigations would be recommended from that point. In addition to that, I've been attending our planning commission meetings. And one of the items that was concerning to me is I went ahead and I attended the meeting that took place. Let's see, this took place on May the 13th of 2026 and at the planning commission, what was heard was specifically to approve an update to the CEQA regulation guidelines for implementation of CEQA as amended and approved CEQA findings and exemptions made it very important. The moment I saw that, I thought I need to make sure that I attend this meeting. What was concerning to me is that this was the county's first adopted it's CEQA regulations, which is the first one that was adopted by the city of ! So I'm going to take a vote. A no vote on April 7th meeting is only half of the job that needs to be done. The other half is to make sure that whatever needed to be done to ensure and move forward, whether it's the current project or any other project that comes through our county goes through an environmental process. That was the purpose and the meaning behind the resolution. To be very clear, on the resolution. Maybe I didn't get it 100% right. But what I can share with you is that I stood here on the dais and I shared with you on May the 19th that I had been working on a resolution that I would be bringing forth to be able to be heard. At the same time, Chairwoman Price also worked on specific guidelines. All right? That's what was being worked on. That was shared. In response to my colleagues, to be fair, we were dark last week. That is why I didn't have the agenda item placed last week. Elections have nothing to do with this process. I didn't specifically ask to have it placed on June the 2nd because of elections. Because guess what? Elections will come and go. What matters here is that we're placing protections. The reason I worked on this resolution is because I wanted to make sure that we had safeguards. I have been to school board meetings, central school board meetings. I've even attended with several of you to school board meetings to make sure that these discussions are taking place. School board trustees have also shared that they're concerned. That they're concerned about the fact that we're placing protections. So I wanted to make sure that we were concerned about the specific project. I am an educator. I cannot look at anyone in the eyes and say that I've seen a document that could ensure the safety of students should there be an electrical fire. Whether that's an evacuation plan that a school would be able to evacuate 500 students at one time to ensure their safety. I can't be able to tell any student or any family without me having that documentation documentation documentation so no that this was my first attempt putting the resolution because I wanted to make sure that whatever mistakes took place in the past were no longer gonna take place moving forward and not was the reason for resolution did get it right in perfect now I didn't but i will tell you that this spirit of making sure that there was a resolution and what was most concerning to me is that no project be approved by right. That was my primary focus. So yes, I worked on a resolution with the hopes and the impact that would take place as that we move towards an ordinance. In order to do that you have a resolution, you give direction to staff, it comes back, and then we start working on a public hearing that allows everyone to be able to come in in public hearing to be able to share their voice and their concerns from all constituents. And then from that point it would come to the dais and the dais would then decide if that ordinance would be adopted or not. So that is the reasoning behind it. I will share with you, there is no Brown Act violation. There are only two supervisors that can work on one document at one time. Anything above that becomes a serial meeting. I will tell you that I worked on this resolution with another supervisor so I did not get to see the guidelines. I never even seen them until all of you saw them and that was on Friday. And the reason that the resolution and the guidelines were put together, to me they're two separate things, they were merged together is because there were similarities. Now I have feedback on the guidelines. I read them for the first time on Friday. I have my own notes and my own concerns just like I'm sure my colleagues have great concerns and we've also heard from the public about the resolution. I am completely open to making those adjustments that need to take place with the resolution but at the end of the day I want to make sure that this project, any project moving forward goes through the CEQA process because I have a responsibility to ensure that when I vote on any item that I have data and information before me. As far as the guidelines that have been provided, I would like to give direction that we have an industry expert, someone who is an expert on data centers that can come back and give us the recommendations on what would be required and how they could align with CEQA and to ensure that we mitigate any of those issues. So I don't apologize for trying to put a project forward and I don't apologize for trying to put a project forward and I don't apologize for at least not sitting here idle and taking an opportunity. I'm willing and able to pivot, recalibrate, whatever it may be, but we need to make sure that we protect the safety of our constituents. So please know that you've been heard. Thank you. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 2, 2026 | Ryan Elliot Kelley | 3:25:55 recording | Thank you, Chair. I would, I support the, the comments of Supervisor Cardenas saying is, you know, what you don't understand as being the public is that we do have constraints. So the item that is on the agenda today, we do not get to debate or discuss as a group until we are here as a Board. So today, having a conversation about these guidelines and about the resolution, that happens now. We can't have that now. We can't have that meeting last week. We can't have that meeting two weeks ago. So understand that I was hoping that we would have more of a robust conversation about what is appropriate in those guidelines. And maybe we can still get there. And as was mentioned from some of the speakers and also from some of the Supervisors is that an ad hoc approach to meeting here has something to do with having more council essential films on manpower by tax tie��men but also between current vehicles that or across those vehicles that my состояниment does not include any trouble than being able to return them as soon as possible. LIE graphene systems they don't catch fire they don't need cooling and they're 100% biodegradable so there are other things that we still need to learn and maybe maybe visiting a location with this ad hoc would be a benefit as well I would do want to say though and and to share with what supervisor Escobar just kind of highlighted is about the constraints of Imperial County so yes we do love the farming and agricultural tradition of Imperial County and we don't want to see it jeopardize because it does provide food on our table but I want to share with you about some of the industry that we have in this valley so the cattle industry that's feed lots one world beef it uses about 875 thousand acre feet of water every year that's acre feet the sugar industry which we don't have anymore was 28,000 acres plus sprinkles it used a hundred thousand acre feet a year citrus 49,000 acre feet a year vegetable crops 360,000 that includes melons energy that would be geothermal solar and wind combined uses 18,400 acre feet per year retail solar and wind uses 18,400 acre feet per year commercial businesses about 6,000 acre feet a year manufacturing and mining in Imperial County about 1,500 acre feet a year healthcare uses about 1550 acre feet a year the government sector state federal local special districts school districts eighteen thousand five hundred acre feet a year. So put that into, how much does that bring back into say the county government or the special districts, school districts or the cities? The cattle industry pays $2.2 million in annual property tax. That's feed lots and the beef plant. We lost the sugar industry, so that's $549,000 in property tax, it's gone. Forage crops, alfalfa, Bermuda, Sudan, pays $12,830,000 in property tax per year. Let me jump to the bigger one. The biggest property tax payer in Imperial County is the energy industry. It's $17,460,000 per year. That's not all to the county. The county gets 18% of every dollar. The rest of it goes to the school districts, the hospital districts, the special assessment districts. So there's a formula that breaks it down. It breaks down of how taxes are distributed. Healthcare sector pays zero. There's 9,150 people working in healthcare in this valley. And the healthcare, either the hospitals, the clinics that are in federal programs, zero. Government sector, federal, state, local, special districts, Imperial irrigation district, pay zero. They all have exemptions. If you ever wondered, the federal government, they are the largest landowner in Imperial County. If they had to pay the real property tax, it would be $51 million a year, but they don't. They have an exemption, and we only receive $3.8 million in what's called PILT, payment in lieu of taxes. And we have to fight to get that every single year. The state of California, if they were, all of their properties in Imperial County, they would pay $21,500,000 a year in real property tax. They pay zero. They used to have a PILT, but in 2015, they changed it. They changed the law. They said the law in the California Fish and Wildlife Code, they changed it to shall make payment, to may make payment, and they have not paid us since. Imperial irrigation district is also exempt. $46,980,000 a year would be the real property tax for Imperial irrigation district. Imperial irrigation district. Imperial irrigation district pays us zero. They have a special projects fund. So they bought 42,000 acres of land, and they bought the western lands, the Bass brothers. And instead of paying property tax on those 42,000 acres, they put it in a special fund of 68,000 acres. So they're paying $28,000 a year that they distribute to 15 school districts. So I'm sharing this is because these are the constraints of the Imperial County experiences. I think you forgot one, Mr. Kelly. I think the detention center also zero in property tax. Zero. I don't think it's zero, but you're correct that it does have an exemption and a waiver to reduce, but it's not zero. Sorry for interrupting. So I would share with you this. It certainly doesn't add up to $51 million of lost revenue a year. And as you can see, we have the responsibility of having sheriffs, fire, roads. We get those demands, and I'm sure maybe some in the audience are making those demands. But why isn't my street being paved? Why are the hours of service not open on this day? Or why do you only have this amount of people stationed at this location? It's because the constraints are getting tighter. They are not getting better. 54% of our workforce works in the public sector, government and healthcare. 54%. So what Mr. Escobar is alluding to is that we do need to have something else. And I'm not telling you that data center is the answer. I'm not telling you that any other tech industry is the answer. But I'll give you this. For property tax per acre, alfalfa pays $15.60. That's $15.60. That's $15.60. And a tech, either a cathode, a data center, or a mineral recovery would pay $20,800 an acre. That would mean that we would be able to have more deputies, more firefighters, and more streets getting paved. At what cost? At the cost of 160 acres of alfalfa on very bad ground could be used. It creates 1,000 acre feet of water. And a data center or a mineral recovery plant would use less than that allotment. You're talking singular use rather than acknowledging all the people that are getting tax exempted are providing a service to this county. The tech industry is not going to be providing a service to this county. I'm not getting into it today. I am still giving you the answer. I am still giving you more information. Ms. Idell. Ms. Idell, please. We are trying to give you information. He's been talking for a while now. Yes, yes. Thank you. Thank you. We had public comment. Stop. I'm going to give you some more. You are about to. I've got things to do. I don't know about you guys, but I really do. Could we cut to the chase here? $150 a year on your property. $150 a year on your property tax is going to be coming on a ballot in November. And it's coming from the Imperial Valley Healthcare District. Are you all ready for every parcel another $150 a year? That has nothing to do with guidelines in discussion nor a resolution. It doesn't have anything. It is coming down the pipe. So everybody is getting squeezed more and more. It's not just this government. It is the households of this county. Yeah. And you are asking us to be more and more responsive and to be providing greater service. And I am trying to tell you that the constraints of where those revenues are coming from are not there. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 2, 2026 | John Hawk | 3:38:32 recording | How about if we make this short? Okay. Is that good? So let me just say that Susan Paradis made a good comment today. She said, you and I are not data center. We are experts. I don't claim to be one, and I appreciate her honesty. Michelle Hollinger made a comment that she was a business person, and I appreciate that, too, because I am. And I can just tell you that as a business person in agriculture, agriculture has taken a deep downturn. Commodity prices are low. It's a struggle right now. And so I think what a lot of the comments are here today is that, though agriculture has been the backbone of our economy for many years, it can't continue to be. I mean, we're in a tech age. We're in an age where we need more industry investing in our country, in our county. I'm excited about the progress that has been made up to this point for Lithium Valley. The fact that outside interests would invest in our county, that could be huge for us. But, you know, I don't think we have all the answers. I know I don't. I'm not sitting here saying that I know everything. There are a lot of mitigations to a data center, and we don't have the answers. In my opinion, I would like to see an expert come in that would be neutral, come in and say, hey, listen, you're going to have this issue that's positive, this issue that's negative. I would welcome that. From the point of labor, I would say I would like to, I would be in favor of an ad hoc approach. I would like to have a committee that would have labor and those of you that are advocating against the data center. I would love to have you sit down and work through issues like that, but not through yelling and screaming, not through being the loudest voice, not allowing someone else not to speak. We've got to allow people to speak and to hear their point of view. So that would be my contribution. And I appreciate the comments from the board. We don't all agree on everything, but I think when you look at the facts and figures and you look at what really generates income in our county, you're going to see that there's, we can all probably learn a lot. So with that, I would say, again, I'm in favor of an ad hoc committee, and I would like to see it, I don't know if we could bring it back in two weeks, but I think within a month to six weeks we could bring something back that we could really look at if people were interested in going and visiting the data center in another state or whatever. Whatever it is, I think we could work together on that. So I'm going to close my comments, Madam Chair. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 2, 2026 | Peggy Price | 3:41:40 recording | And several things have been discussed here today, not necessarily fits into the agenda. But I think it's important to address them with our request, our fact sheet and our resolution. So in our board item, we have asked that the staff to take this information, both the resolution and the guidelines, and come back in 45 days with information that helps make the guidelines enforceable, which is related to the ordinances. So before us, I don't know if the motion would be to approve. Or the requested action is discussion and action regarding the adoption of the resolution relating to data centers in Imperial County. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 2, 2026 | Jesus Eduardo Escobar | 3:42:39 recording | Chair. Yes. Before you take the vote on the existing resolution and the guidelines, I think we need to look at this. And then review the resolution as presented and bring it back with more teeth. And then review from the resolution, depending on what the resolution states, specific guidelines and potentially the creation of an ad hoc committee to be able to further the potential action of an ordinance down the road. And that's why I also recommended a moratorium of six months to give us time to be able to fully figure this out. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 2, 2026 | County Counsel (name unresolved) | 3:43:16 recording | So I have a question. I have a question for council. Do, can we state, can we, we can give an amount of days, right, to come bring this information back, which now we've included from the discussions today and the public comments, adding ad hoc committees. Yes. So we might need more, longer than 45 days is my point. You can change that date, how many days. The original resolution, the purpose of coming back in 45 days was related to potential ordinance amendments. But as you add additional ideas, you can shorten or lengthen that time and add on additional items. Okay. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 2, 2026 | Jesus Eduardo Escobar | 3:44:06 recording | All right. Did you make a motion? More in talking. I think we need to work on the resolution. I don't think, I mean, I wouldn't support a vote at this moment in time. For the resolution or the guidelines. I think we need a lot more information, a lot more teeth on the resolution to be able to work on specific guidelines that become ordinances within the county of Imperial. So my suggestion to this board and to county council and our CEO is to bring back this item in two weeks so that we can vote on a potential resolution, move that forward, and making a binding issue within the county of Imperial. Within two weeks. Could I ask Mr. Escobar, do you think we could have something in two weeks? I don't think the resolution is that hard to create. I think the guidelines is a living document. I think the resolution is something that we can definitely discuss. We will be dark next week, but we can definitely discuss it in two weeks. If additional changes are needed, we do additional changes, but I don't think we should put it on the back burner for two to three months. I think it's something we need to act on now. And that will take a while. We will set the framework for guidelines that become ordinances that we move forward upon in a much more effective and efficient manner. So I do think it's something we need to respond to ASAP. Oh, absolutely. I'm not trying to extend what we're trying to do here. So I understand you a little better then. You're just asking that we come back and include these other items that we discussed today, which include an ad hoc committee, that to be included in the resolution. Yes. Okay. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 2, 2026 | John Hawk | 3:45:49 recording | Supervisor Haag? Mr. Chairman, I think that two weeks would not be adequate. I think especially in the fact that we're traveling next week. I would like to see it extended to at least a month to have something concrete. And I realize you, did you make a motion or is that a? No, that was a recommendation. A recommendation. But I would try to maybe amend the recommendation. I would like to see it extended to at least a month. So why don't we go, why don't we go, neither you nor me, let's go three weeks. We'll dark next week and then we go. We'll be dark the third week. We'll be dark the third week. No, we'll wait and be here. Everyone will be back on the third if we're looking. If we're looking at June 23rd, we will have a meeting on June 23rd. Okay. Okay. I'd go for that. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 2, 2026 | Ryan Elliot Kelley | 3:46:38 recording | Supervisor Kelly? Yeah. I did want to, I wanted to highlight some, Mr. Chairman, I think that the, the, the Mr. Daniel made the comment that this were being exploited at, for data centers in Imperial Valley. So currently there are two data centers that are fully approved in Santa Clara County that do not have power. They were fully permitted, but PG&E cannot deliver power. There's another thing I know in the past, Mr. Rodriguez, you brought up about heat center or heat cluster. So there was a study, it was done, it's called the Cambridge study, and it has not been peer reviewed, but its findings were showing a three, a three degree increase of Fahrenheit within a thousand feet. And this is, this is air cooled data centers. So they did not have water. So you make a choice between power or water and cooling, and they're choosing, it's a cluster of data centers. So they're choosing the data centers in Pima County and it is an air cooled. It isn't different things. And so that's the Cambridge study that I believe was being referenced. And so it has not been peer reviewed, but that's, that was in some comments that have come up in the past. And then I also wanted to touch on a supervisor or chair price mentioned, you know, our process is that a resolution would lead to these guidance documents moving towards incorporation in the general plan. So our debate and discussion about what are those rules would be codified in the general plan and by ordinance. Anything that would, how these items are being discussed would actually change county code across the board. But hopefully they change for the better to protect the citizens and not for developers to come in here and . Okay. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 2, 2026 | County Counsel (name unresolved) | 3:49:07 recording | Supervisor Karnasingh? Yes. Just for county council, if you could please, it seems as though we need to have a resolution about their floodати quality level because they were worried about city followers being eller lines with ? Mr. annoying for sure. Like MDS is great. amending ordinance and general plan. So the idea here was to give staff direction to start that process. So if you amend Title IX, it needs to first go to the planning commission and then it goes to the board for approval. With where we are today and putting this out three weeks for a new resolution, that's to add some additional items. For instance, an ad hoc committee. Presumably that ad hoc committee could come up with other ideas. And so those would have to then be incorporated into a future ordinance if they're approved. So the process is resolution, giving direction, ultimately going to the planning commission, and lastly to the board of supervisors. But here if we're putting it out a few weeks to amend the resolution to add a few other items, that's just another step that will ultimately lead to that process again. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 2, 2026 | Jesus Eduardo Escobar | 3:50:42 recording | Just to be clear, Chair, some of the issues that I brought up were a six-month moratorium, obviously the ad hoc committee, obviously delineations with residential churches and schools, et cetera, et cetera. So those should all be part of a future resolution for us to be able to vote upon and to carve out with Lithium Valley. So I think the idea here is to have a more robust resolution to be able to further follow the specific guidelines. That, at the end of the day, is the solution. Just like at this point I said it was much easier in terms of planning or developing projects if we could build our goals with actually understanding them as well as understanding them as well as knowing who they really are and their collaboration with other governments is something that we need to change and develop as well in terms of understanding how they come together and support each other in certain areas of our communities. Okay. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 2, 2026 | Speaker unresolved (likely Martha Cardenas-Singh) | 3:51:32 recording | All right. Thank you. Am . and then return back with a report. And the community committee, however you want to do this, I was thinking two different ad hoc committees, one with labor, public safety, it could be business owners, nonprofits, and then the other one, the community, field trips to data centers. This is all the things that I was envisioning that these ad hocs would do to provide. We want their feedback. We want them to actually go out. We want an industry expert also to participate in this process. So it's not to mislead anyone. We're not trying to make things happen in three weeks. We're just trying to formulate different groups that can provide and participate in the process. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 2, 2026 | John Hawk | 3:55:15 recording | Mr. Rock? I'm not in favor of a moratorium at this point. I think we need to move forward with our ad hoc, that we move forward with what the ideas, what the resolution could be shaped like, and then we look exactly at where we want to go as a Board. And just for clarification on a moratorium, because we can set dates, right? We can extend the time that we're working on this. I just, considering unintended consequences and, I mean, we're trying to achieve guidelines and ordinances that we are, so that we are able to enforce these guidelines. I just want to be clear that. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 2, 2026 | County Counsel (name unresolved) | 3:56:05 recording | One point I do want to make with a moratorium, that's an urgency ordinance. It's not something that you can add into a resolution. So, and as that's approved initially, it's for 45 days. And it's reviewed at 45 days. And depending on the method you use, you can either extend it to round out a year or two years. Those are the two primary ways. So, if there were Board direction, that would be a separate document, an ordinance, and wouldn't be within the resolution that we're amending. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 2, 2026 | Ryan Elliot Kelley | 3:56:36 recording | Madam Chair? Yes, Supervisor Kelly? So, I know that Council and Executive are both looking for directions. So, we have asked for the resolution to come, return in three weeks. And an ad hoc committee be established. I would ask that the Chair and Vice Chair help the Executive Office, the Administrator, the Administrator, the Administrator, establish these ad hoc representation. And I know that Supervisor Escobar has made the request on a moratorium. If it's necessary in three weeks' time, a 45-day moratorium, or whatever's requested with support of another Board member that that happen. But I would want to have those items together in conversation. I encourage anybody that's in attendance or listening that the guideline pieces, that was for, hopefully for discussion and debate today. So, the items that are there that talked about storage or scrubbers on natural gas diesel, or not diesel, natural gas generators, setback, you know, we spent a lot of time talking about those. Some issues haven't gone forward yet with regards to engines being rebuilt because those engines weren'thomme socioeconomic Mittel length dilemmatic melodies due to corrosion despite Olha warten Andy Tackford we should have that answer as well in three weeks. Yeah. I think that's good. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 2, 2026 | Martha Cardenas-Singh | 3:58:39 recording | I submitted to. Okay. Supervisor Singh. Cardenas Singh. So just for County Council if I may. In the ordinance, I'm sorry, in the resolution that we're going to be working on, could we go back and have it retroactive or would it only be face forwarding? Or would that be determined once we start moving towards an ordinance? Because that's a question that we've been hearing a lot in the audience. So I just want to be able to get just some direction |
| Board of Supervisors, June 2, 2026 | Martha Cardenas-Singh | 4:00:08 recording | And I have one other question or comment. My original resolution had a moratorium written in it. I still stand behind that. I feel uneasy hearing it'd take three weeks an conclusion from there would there would be a formation of us having Ad hoc committees who would meet So we're talking a timeframe that could be anywhere from three to four months. We did get notified and we were informed. We heard it through the public. I received a phone call that there is the potential of another data center that is taking place or at least that there's an application in the process. And for that, that's why I'm asking about the specifics and the timeline. Again, it was written in my document for a moratorium to be reviewed and I would like that to be considered because we have other projects that are on the forefront that could be coming before us for a data center and we're still working. I think the two could work parallel. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 2, 2026 | County Counsel (name unresolved) | 4:04:49 recording | Chair? Chair, perhaps, if I may, my understanding of the direction is that to come back in two weeks with two separate documents, the first one is this resolution amended to direct staff to continue to review options as well as form an ad hoc committee to study this issue more. And we can discuss at that date what the appropriate time to return the ad hoc recommendations to return to the Board would be. And then separately, a proposed urgency ordinance, which is the moratorium. And that, there's two options for that. I assume the desired option would be immediate implementation with the 45-day public hearing put out there. And both of those can be ready as a one agenda item in two weeks' time. Okay. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 16, 2026 | Jesus Eduardo Escobar | 5:07:23 recording | Supervisor Escobar, I see that you have some comments. Please. A question over council. Council, are we to take items individually or can we take them together? I think they can be taken together or separately, whatever the preference of the individual board member making the motion is. Thank you. Thank you. Three months ago, I voted for a lot merger because that was a legal thing that should have been done and wasn't. But when you do something that is legal, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's right. And when you do something that is right, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's legal. I think that's the issue that we have at hand now. I think what most of us will agree to is the location of the existing data center is a ridiculous location. Having said that, my question to County Councilman, if the moratorium passes, does it include future development of data centers or current and future development of data centers? As written, the language includes both future applications and pending applications. The law states that you cannot include pending if that individual project has applied. Does this sheepрон climb across previous specification headquarters � warning closed caption that governments shall refuse implementing了吧 poison android 例えば for something that we know little about? Or do we want to go through a expert opinion, which is what NEPA at the federal level or CEQA at the state level is? I think that's really a black and white. I think that's something that we need to do. Does it make it easier for developers to come in with a by right development? Absolutely. But does it make it right? Absolutely not. So I think that's the second thing that if the advisory committee is created, it's something that they're going to have to really deliberate on and be able to bring it to us for approval. Because if we want to follow further development and we want to do it appeasing most, because granted, I'm not going to appease, and I'll speak in the first person, I'm not going to appease every one of you. I'm trying to make things right, especially when in popular opinion and maybe even in my opinion, I'm not going to appease every one of you. I'm not going to appease every one of you. I'm not going to appease every one of you. I'm not going to appease every one of you. I did a wrong thing two or three months ago. So what we need to do is fix the situation at hand and require moving forward or recommending to this board without any pressure, because they are an advisory board to us, that they look at CEQA for future development in Imperial County related to data centers. There is a lot of mistrust. There is a lot of fiction and not fact. There's a lot of perception without reliable information. And I think this is what the committee and this moratorium will do for everybody. Is it going to make everybody happy? No. But we need to put a lot, we need to draw a line in the sand to how we can appease the majority of our community in the most ethical and respectful manner. And I do not think that we've done it so far because there are so many cobwebs. Is it perfect? No. Can you criticize it? Absolutely. But it's a step in the right direction. And it's better than what we have currently. We're trying to provide clarity. We're trying to provide transparency. And I went for a fact, have not been bought by any billion dollar corporation, as a few people have said. So let's stop with the BS. Let's move forward to the future. And I think that's the most ethical direction possible. And I will make a motion that we approve item 16A and 16B as presented. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 16, 2026 | County Counsel (name unresolved) | 5:12:07 recording | Supervisor. One quick question. I apologize. One quick question. As a matter of protocol, just to be clear, and so everybody's fully understanding of the moratorium. Could you walk us through the steps of the moratorium? If approved, the moratorium would take immediate effect. And that would prohibit the issuance of any land use entitlement related to data center facilities. Reference has been made to a section of the ordinance that allows during the moratorium for applications to be processed. I recommend from a legal perspective, you can't have a focused on these documents to keep that in there. There is case law related to the extent a moratorium can go. It is a temporary measure pending a more permanent solution once you have the advisory committee and you make changes to the ordinances. So from a legal perspective, I recommend you keep that piece in there. It would last for 45 days and it expires at the end of 45 days. If you want to extend it in the manner in which we have proceeded, which is going immediately to an urgency ordinance as opposed to a public hearing, you would need to have a public hearing towards the end of July to consider extending it for an additional 10 months and 15 days for a total of one year. That's something I think you will need to seriously consider if you have the advisory committee doing work beyond that 45 days. CHAIRMAN BRYANT LIMAGE. For clarity, we cannot extend it for 365 days today. We need to wait that 45-day period, correct? MR. Correct. That is the way the statute works. This is a temporary measure while you study your land use regulations for the more permanent solution down the road. CHAIRMAN BRYANT LIMAGE. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 16, 2026 | Martha Cardenas-Singh | 5:14:09 recording | Thank you. MS. Supervisor Cardenas-Singh. MS. Yes, there has been some questions and I just wanted to see if we can provide a little clarity. One of the recommendations was to look at the possibility of extending from the October 1, 2026 date to January of 2027. That was something that was requested. Another question was also about it being a 20-member. It's never an even number. It's always an odd number just to ensure that when there's a vote, should that take place, that it's an odd number. There also was a request to have an MS. Yes. MS. I don't know if that's an economic representative. I don't know if that would qualify under business or if it would actually be its own separate category. And just echoing that many of the sentiments that have been shared by Supervisor Escobar, just looking forward to hearing really from independent industry experts who can provide objective data and analysis regarding the impacts that these facilities may have on our residents and on our community. MS. Yes. MS. Well, I think that's the real question. And I think that's the real question. MS. There are also other questions that have been raised that have been raised by the residents. In addition to that, I also believe it's critical that all proposed data center projects be subject to a full requirement of CEQA. These projects have, can and have significant environmental and community impacts and they should receive the level of review, transparency and public disclosure that CEQA was designed to provide. Residents deserve to understand the potential consequences of these developments before decisions are made. MS. Yes. Furthermore, I believe we should eliminate by right land use approvals for data centers. Facilities of this scale and intensity should not move forward without meaningful public review and discretionary oversight by local government. Our communities deserve a voice in decisions that may affect their neighborhoods, infrastructure, and the quality of life for decades to come. The information in regards to the formation of the Data Center Advisory Committee is an important step in the right direction. This committee will provide an opportunity to gather the input that is necessary from experts, evaluate potential impacts, and examine appropriate development standards, and develop recommendations that reflect the needs and the priorities of our community. Equally important, this process will ensure meaningful public participation. Our residents deserve the opportunity to be informed, ask questions, express those concerns, and provide feedback on projects that would significantly impact our communities. So, for that reason, would you, Supervisor Escobar, be willing to extend the period from October 1st of 2026 to January? I have no issues. The issue would be a county council. I don't have any issues with that. Yes, you can. There's a number of, you know, pieces of information within the resolution that you can amend from the dais, and the date by which they should report back is one of those. I have a motion to change my motion to include that modification. And may I add just one other item? We have community advisory committees. We have many committees that we have throughout our county in which we have representatives. The agendas are posted. It is open to the public. Minutes take place, and we actually encourage the participation. I will assume the format will be the same as with any of our advisory committees, that that is the standard format that we use for all. The, because this committee is formed by action of the board, it is subject to the Brown Act. Great. Provides comfort. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 16, 2026 | Ryan Elliot Kelley | 5:18:12 recording | Supervisor Kelly. Thank you, Chair. So I support the advisory committee, and Ms. Brister brought to us verses from James. I'm reminded of 1 Corinthians 12, the foot, the hand, the head, the parts of the body. They all need to be working together. They can't work alone. And so this committee is an opportunity for all different parts of the body to work together to try to find how this could be a possibility, how we should protect all of our resources and our interests with a robust discussion. So I do support the advisory committee. And I do support the moratorium to be able to give us the time to be able to have that conversation. Thank you, Supervisor Kelly. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 16, 2026 | John Hawk | 5:19:24 recording | Supervisor Hawk. Yes. Could I have a point of clarification? So the motion is to carry it until January. Is that correct? At this time, the motion is to approve both items with one amendment, and that would be changing the date by which the advisory committee reports back from October. I believe January 1, 2027. And so the rationale behind that is to, one, the formation of the committee for them to work together and start building a work in progress and that it's not rushed and it's not hurried. It gives them an opportunity to work on those items that are so important. I can't express how important it is to have industry experts to be part of the committee and share their expertise. I'm sorry. Okay. Let me just begin by saying that from day one back in January, early January, I made the comment that the location is not the best. In other words, I wasn't in favor of the location, but I had the tension within to do what's right and following existing law as our ordinance needs to be doing. said, looking at our laws, and I felt like we needed to obey what we knew was right, specifically the California annexation state law of 1974. Wait, is that not the annexation? Anyway, whatever it was. So I felt like we needed to follow that, and yet the tension that I had was the fact that from an ethics point of view, that I never wanted anyone within their homes to feel unsafe or feel that they were not in their castle and feeling safe. So there's been, in my mind, there's been a lot of turmoil. I've seen the good and the bad, and where I want to obey statutes as they are written, and not to change them midstream. I also understand that when you look at issues like being next to a train yard, and with the contents on the train, with a refinery, with a natural gas line, and with an air flight pattern, that I felt like there would be, I would be violating things, do I live to the letter of the law, or do I look at what is good, for the benefit of the people. And so I erred on the side of saying I do support the ad hoc committee. I do support it. I don't know that I want to go as far as I felt like it would be a 45-day moratorium. I will support that. I think the motion is to January 1st, and where I don't agree with going that far, I will. Supervisor Hoff? I'm sorry to interrupt you, but for clarification, that is on the guidelines. Bringing the information back from the ad hoc? Not on the moratorium? So the January 1st, 2027 date is the date by which the advisory committee should report back to the Board of Supervisors on recommendations for any changes to how land use regulations are impacted by land use and land loss. data centers or data centers impact. So we're talking a moratorium? So we have if the moratorium were to pass today, it would be in effect until about July 31st unless you hold a public hearing before then and extend it. So right now the date for the 45 days on the moratorium is toward the end of July. Okay. Separate from that is the establishment of the ad hoc committee and direction within the resolution is to them to come back currently, the draft was October 1st and the motion is to approve it but to give them until January 2027 to come up with recommendations and come back to the board with those recommendations. I see. I see. And there's a potential at the end of July to extend the moratorium that would include that whole time period. So the moratorium goes to October what? The moratorium if approved today would go to the end of July with the opportunity to hold a public hearing to extend it beyond that. To the end of July? The current moratorium is a 45-day moratorium that would last until approximately the end of July but there is an opportunity to hold a public hearing toward the end of July that would extend the moratorium from the end of July all the way through next June. I understand. Okay. So let me just conclude by saying that when I did have the opportunity to walk in Imperial as I campaigned, I met a lot of wonderful people. I met some people that did not agree with me but by far the most people that I talked to did say I'm not against the data center, I just don't want it here. And so and I understood there were some that didn't want it at all. Okay. But that was the feeling that I got that if there was a data center they didn't want it in Imperial. And I understand that. I've talked to my kids. I've talked to my wife. I've talked to people all over and I feel that that is acceptable. And I think that's from an ethics point of view where I stand. So I will support this. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 16, 2026 | Peggy Price | 5:25:41 recording | All right. Okay. All right. This has been a very difficult time for us. I'm not going to reiterate what we've already stated up here and the discussions that we've had again today. I think that. Staff did a good job of following direction provided a couple of weeks ago from all of us. And we were listening. And that's what this is here is our way of helping the community help us through this resolution and this urgency moratorium. I do approve. The. The. On the resolution. I do have a couple of suggestions just for discussion. And I do approve the urgency moratorium for 45 days. On the resolution. The only thing that you know working with large communities committees and this one is is is pretty large. I did notice that. I know with some committees we have a city select that. that has two representatives that represent all of the cities. I'm just making the comment. But I did notice that we might be missing a couple of areas, and it's just for discussion, but one would be, my suggestion would be public safety and economic development was brought up today. So just a recommendation. I think there was even some discussion about, there was a lot of discussion about water, so I don't know if we want somebody from agriculture. It's just, I'm just, it's just a suggestion, and instead of making the committee even larger, is that we could perhaps have two representatives from city select to represent all of the cities here. So it would, you know, reduce, I think, about what, five, maybe four from the list. So it's just a suggestion. I don't know if anyone else, what you think about it, but I would like to just have that discussion. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 16, 2026 | Ryan Elliot Kelley | 5:28:20 recording | Yes, Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Chair. So I did have a suggestion in regards to public safety. Instead of creating membership, but to have access to county fire and county sheriff as well as the Ag commissioner to be available to the committee and also be, I mean, maybe ex officios or so, somebody from those departments to be able to have their perspectives also included. That's all I have. as you were coming up with some suggestions. And I thank you for bringing this forward. You're welcome. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 16, 2026 | Speaker unresolved | 5:29:16 recording | I'm sorry, I'm just trying to go in order of the request. Just real quick, and I don't know if this is correct or not, I'm just talking about options as we're talking this out. The Cal cities, so through their association, we have a district regional group, and that's where all cities come together. It is not uncommon that Cal cities then votes for a representative or two. That might be a possibility or we just have a representative from each city. So there is an association that already exists, which is Cal cities and the district in which they're all represented. Are they local? Yes, so all cities come together and they have district meetings. And so through that process, there could be a selection. It's just a potential opportunity. Or every city could be facing a data center, and so maybe they would wish to have their voice and their city represented. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 16, 2026 | Jesus Eduardo Escobar | 5:30:21 recording | Thank you for those comments. Supervisor, I would be happy to modify my motion with the modification being that we indirectly include our sheriff, our fire department, and our ad commissioner, as mentioned by Supervisor Kelly. I would not agree with city select or reducing these seven city appointments. Even though it's a larger advisory committee, I think it's important that every city have a voice. Mm-hm. This is a very important point. This is a very, very delicate situation. And I do not feel it appropriate that maybe, hypothetically, a Brawley and a Holtville would be the only members excluding Westmoreland, Imperial, El Centro, Calexico, etc. So I do feel very strongly about keeping the seven cities, one individual member. But obviously making sure that they have access to information. And if the information is not readily available, but I'd say a sheriff or a fire department, that that information is provided at the earliest convenience. Good point. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 16, 2026 | John Hawk | 5:31:33 recording | Supervisor Hawk? Yes, I have an idea also, and it may not work. But I am not a big fan, I'm not a fan of having membership of 18, 19, or even as community benefits as, I think, 22 members. And I just think it's onerous for a board to have a board member that's not a member of the community. I think it's onerous for a board member to try to meet like that. I just floated an idea about maybe having two representatives from each board district, like two from District 5, two from District 4, 3, 2, and 1. Ten people instead of having, and that would represent the district representing each of the small cities that are in that district. For example. Okay. So, you would, in my district, it would include Bard, Winter Haven, Palo Verde, part of Brawley, and that type of thing. So, in other words, that would cut down the number of the committee down to 12 if every district had two representatives that were approved. And they could look at, within their district, who would qualify for that. Okay. So, that would be, for example, organized labor, healthcare, education. And I don't know. That's just a thought that I'm thinking. One way to get the committee down to a number of 12 rather than 19. So, I open that up. Is that it all? |
| Board of Supervisors, June 16, 2026 | Jesus Eduardo Escobar | 5:33:10 recording | I respect Supervisor Hogg's comments. But at the end of the day, we want to be inclusive. The last thing we want to do is pick the people on a committee. I think that's what we've been criticized. Yeah. What's the word I'm looking for here? A lot. We've been criticized a lot for being exclusive versus inclusive, and I think, though I respect the idea, this would basically move us in the direction we do not want to move to. So I would not be willing to change my motion in that regard. And I appreciate the comments as well, and I understand the good intent. But I think I'm comfortable with the way that it's written. |
| Board of Supervisors, June 16, 2026 | Board action (Chair, Counsel, Clerk) | 5:33:57 recording | I just had a couple of ideas, as Mr. Hauk did as well. So I'm glad we've had the discussion, and I just want to be clear on the current motion as it stands is. . . Do you want me to repeat it? I was going to take a stab at it, but you're welcome to. Go for it. Go ahead, Mr. Hauk. Approving A and B with the exception of extending the report back on Item 3G, we're extending October 1, 2026 to January. Is that part of your motion? Do we need a date for the January 2027? Well, I suggest we have January 1st. There's also language in there that talks about or assumes thereafter is reasonably practicable. So. . . New Year's Day? Sorry? New Year's Day? Oh, yes, true. It's on New Year's Day. So that's a deadline, but as soon as thereafter you can get back. You can pick a different day if you'd like, but it doesn't mean that January 1st is. . . All right. It would be the next business day. All right. Okay. Point of clarity, Chair. So would we have a. . . Did you mention the sheriff on there or public safety and agriculture is also. . . Did we want to add. . . They'll be accessible to the group. So through the. . . For technical questions. Ag commissioners. Ag commissioners and the fire department and other public safety. . . Public safety. Sheriff's office would be available. Okay. All right. Okay. So. . . And I believe January 5th is the first. . . Board meeting of 2027 in case that's a preferred date. For posting purposes, though, it would be January 2nd. Friday, January 2nd. You want to just check that date? The 1st is a Friday. The 1st is a Friday. Okay. All right. We would post the 30th. Okay. Well. . . We'd be the following meeting. Mm-hmm. Or 1230. Is that what you said? 1230. We post on 1230? We post on 1230? Mm-hmm. For January 5th. Okay. So maybe we just move it to the following. That's. . . So the deadline for the document then would be or the report would be? If you wanted to consider the recommendations and report from them. Mm-hmm. If it came in on, it would have to be in by December 30th to actually consider for the January 5th meeting. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT, Right. CHAIRMAN BRYANT, Just a quick clarification as we're going back and forth on calendar. If the committee has not completed their task by the date, it could be extended. And if they've completed their task before the date, they can deliver. So I would hope that we don't have to continue to talk about the calendar. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT, Okay. All right. Okay. That sounds like a great idea. So let's go with January. So we'll just say January 1st of 2027. Okay. Okay. Do you want to restate that for the record from our council, please? COMMISSIONER WRIGHT, The motion is to approve the resolution. Okay. CHAIRMAN BRYANT, Really the conclusion has always been rather ��요 ? COMMISSIONER WRIGHT. That is the motion. We do have a motion by Supervisor Escobar. We have a second by Supervisor Cardenas-Singh. Please vote. Motion passes. |
| Board of Supervisors, July 14, 2026 | County Counsel (name unresolved) | 1:39:49 recording | Chair and board members, before you today is a proposed urgency interim ordinance. This item has been properly noticed as a public hearing. If adopted this ordinance would provide for additional period of temporary prohibition on approval of Data Center facilities within unincorporated areas for ten months and fifteen days as authorized by Government Code 65858. On June 16 adopted 45 days ordinance after after a finding that there existed a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, while the county studied potential amendments to its land use regulations governing data center facilities. Government Code Section 65858 authorizes the board, following notice in a public hearing, to adopt an urgency ordinance providing for an extension of the temporary moratorium if the board determines that the factual circumstances continue to exist. Since the adoption of the initial ordinance, county staff has continued the work directed by the board. The data center advisory committee has been established, and as was done today, members were appointed. That committee will evaluate potential amendments to the general plan, zoning ordinance, and related land use regulations, while receiving additional public input regarding land use compatibility, water resources, electrical infrastructure, and other matters affecting the public health. That work remains ongoing and cannot reasonably be completed before the expiration of the current interim ordinance. The purpose of today's ordinance is to preserve the status quo while that work is being completed. Without the proposed extension, application for data center facilities that are currently permitted by right could be approved before the board has an opportunity to consider whether amendments to the county's land use regulations are appropriate. The item is a notice public hearing. After receiving public input, the board will consider whether amendments to the county's land use regulations are appropriate. The item is a notice public hearing. After receiving public input, the board will consider whether amendments to the county's land use regulations are appropriate. The board may close the public hearing, deliberate, and if it chooses, adopt the ordinance. Because this is an urgency interim ordinance under government code 65858, adoption does require a four-fifths vote of the board. Happy to answer any questions. |
| Board of Supervisors, July 14, 2026 | Martha Cardenas-Singh | 2:03:53 recording | We have Supervisor Cardenas-Singh, please. So just for clarity, as we are looking at this moratorium, it would allow us, one, a 10-month pause to be able to, one, take a look at the impacts that data centers can have. We would have an advisory committee that would make suggestions, recommendations. We would have industry experts. Today we heard we are also going to have the IID that will serve in the capacity of advisory as to this advisory committee and accessible. We also talked about having that opportunity to just really take a deep dive about the impact that this is going to have in our community. So with this moratorium, I just want to say thank you. And I want to provide clarity. County Council, no data center project, past or present, would be moving forward under this 10-month moratorium, correct? No final permits or approvals will be issued under this moratorium. Okay. |
| Board of Supervisors, July 14, 2026 | Peggy Price | 2:05:05 recording | All right. For myself, I just wanted to make a couple of clarifications. The sound that you hear in this room today I believe is from the HVAC system, just for clarification. Completely understand the comment. That has absolutely nothing to do with your building. That is a system of autism that we hear a lot. I appreciate it. I just was for clarity that that's... Yeah, that has nothing to do with what your building does. That is us. Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. And the applications for our data center and there was also a comment challenging our legal counsel, but this is somebody that has their law degree, works for the county, represents the county, so no question there. And just again, we have done research. Research and homework about data centers. Is there more to learn? Yes. That's why we're here today. We need to learn more about local impacts as well. So then we imposed a temporary moratorium. And we also implemented or proposed data center guidelines. And with that, we gave staff direction to form an advisory committee. So that the public could participate in this process. And so here we are today. We have formed an advisory committee. And now we're on to this critical piece of this process. So I just wanted to give a little bit of clarification and a little bit of the history of where we are today. So those are my comments. |
| Board of Supervisors, July 14, 2026 | Jesus Eduardo Escobar | 2:07:01 recording | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Just two quick comments. Just for clarity's sake, it's 10 months and 15 days because it's already added on to the 45 days. I just want to make it clear to the public that's why it's 10 months and 15 days. It will round out to one year. Thank you. The second comment is, and I've used this analogy in the room, and that's the elephant in the room. There is an existing application for a data center located directly from the county. It's a residential development in the county of Imperial within the vicinity of the city of Imperial. Will this moratorium of one calendar year affect the further processing of that application? And I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I want to make it abundantly clear that there will be nothing issued and that land cannot move forward because of the lack of permitting that will not be allowed for one calendar year. |
| Board of Supervisors, July 14, 2026 | County Counsel (name unresolved) | 2:08:04 recording | That's correct. I do want to point out that that is not the only project that has submitted documentation to the county. This is an active litigation. The moratorium is an active litigation. I want to be clear that this applies. This is not pertaining to one particular project, but to all projects. And for all projects, this would prevent the issuance of permits for the duration of the moratorium and whatever the outcome of the process is that could change the different land use regulations, anything currently would be subject to those new rules should they be adopted. Thank you. |
| Board of Supervisors, July 14, 2026 | Board action (Chair, Clerk) | 2:08:54 recording | All right. Any other comments from the Board? Seeing none, we do have a motion. By Supervisor Kite. Supervisor Kelly, seconded by Supervisor Escobar. Please vote. Motion passes. Thank you. |
| Board of Supervisors, April 14, 2026 | John Hawk | 1:17:58 recording | All right. We'll start on the end then, Mr. Hawk. Okay. I would just. Uh. Okay. I'd like to say that, um, as a member of the community and also, uh, a board member that, um, I think one of the things that I would like to see, and I, I think all of us would like to see is a spirit of unity within our county. There are many things that can divide us. There are many things that can unite us. And, um, I would just think of the things that we do agree on the things that we, that make a community great. Uh, just T-ball games, the things that we do with our families and all those types of things. And, uh, it does, it does hurt me when I see the community divided. Um, but I understand that people have their own, their own issues that they are passionate about. And I think as a board, we understand that one of the things that, uh, the young lady that I can't remember. Her name mentioned son Risa. That is an issue that is, that is on all of our hearts. Uh, it's the only, it was the only assisted living facilities in the county. And, um, so many of us spent time there trying to see if there was any way to work out the issue of keeping the residents within Imperial county. Many of them had to re be relocated out. Uh, that hurts families that hurts those that visit the people that are right here, locally. Now they'll have to travel. The county is working on that. We're working on ways to solve that. Uh, obviously there were issues with son Risa and before blossom Valley. And, uh, hopefully the right ownership can take over and reopen that and bring our residents back. It would be nice to have more than one facility in the county. It would be nice to have two or three where residents could visit, drop lunch by, visit with loved ones. And all the things that do bring unity within our county. We still have a great place to live here in Imperial county. It's a great honor to be here to raise our kids here. And let's not focus on the things that divide us, but look at the things that unite us. Thank you very much. |
| Board of Supervisors, April 14, 2026 | Jesus Eduardo Escobar | 1:20:24 recording | Supervisor Escobar. Thank you, chair. Uh, I want to thank Cassandra from the American Legion auxiliary group for coming over and, uh, she brought them some things to mind. We, um, we had a very, um, passionate meeting a week ago. And the fact that we can, uh, present on both sides and listen to both sides and agree to disagree or agree to agree is really based on our armed forces. Um, I personally dislike what's happening in DC. Uh, but at the end of the day is really the armed forces that allowed us to be able to disagree, to agree and to move forward. And that's something that we should be very thankful about that. We're able to agree and to disagree in this country. No matter how passionate we are against a state government or a federal government. And at the end of the day, that the fact that we can agree to disagree and move forward is, is in large part based on what our armed forces have done for us as a country, as citizens of this country for so many years, |
| Board of Supervisors, April 14, 2026 | Peggy Price | 1:29:21 recording | So for myself, I just want to report out that we have a weekly meeting discussing various legislative items, and we had a great meeting on Monday. With the executive team, myself, and Supervisor Kelly, we went over various items that are alive and working through the legislative process. And so not to go into much detail on all of those, but had a good meeting there. I did want to address, we had, again, our, from our American Legion, Cassandra Gregory, I don't know if you're still here. Just wanted to thank you for bringing those things to our attention and the fact that she is also participating in our Veterans Advisory Committee. And she brings a lot of experience, especially from the work that she's done. After she retired from the county, she went to San Diego and did a lot of work over there. And so we're happy to have her as part of our advisory committee. And, you know, our Seeley Community Advisory Committee meets, I think we're going to go quarterly now, but I did want to, because we didn't get that post out, there was a lot of great work that was being done. I do want to thank Public Works for your efforts there for providing a soccer field out at Sunbeam Lake for our families there. And I just wanted to say thank you. And for presenting a sidewalk and road improvements for Seeley. So that's in the works. It's been, I think we've been working on that since April of last year. So I did want to thank Public Works staff and the advisory committee for working together on that. And then, you know, I did want to address some of the comments made during public comment regarding our meeting. And I did get clarification from our staff, whom I do trust in this situation. We worked very hard to make it an organized meeting that was safe for not only our presenters, but also for the public and our staff that were working here that day. And I want to thank everyone for their cooperation and the work that they did. And I did ask for your input. I did ask about if we had elderly people outside. And that was clarified that there were two members of the community that took up the offer to be in a space that was cooler than standing outside, which the room that we cleared out for them. So there were not groups of people out there that was, you know, that was misinformation. And I think we did the best that we could for the meeting. And then I'll share without going into too much detail, but I'll go into details that I did provide an op-ed that explains myself. And I appreciate it if you take a look at it and give it a read. So with that being said, I'm going to go ahead and get moving to our meeting. |
| Board of Supervisors, February 17, 2026 | Board action (Chair, Clerk) | 0:31:53 recording | ITEM 6, APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR. I HAVE A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR KELLY, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR HAWK. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSED. |
| Imperial County, September 3, 2026 | Staff (unresolved; Jim Minnick or County Counsel) | 0:39:32 recording | I don't think that's how it's. That's not the way I understand it's being written. That's not the way I understand it. Well, it's not? No. The project goes before the planning commission. Let's assume it's a planning commission level hearing. Right? At the conclusion of that hearing, you have 10 days to appeal any decision by the planning commission. That doesn't change. Excuse me. I'm sorry. You need to come to the podium and you need to state your name for the record. Mr. Tyson, if I can ask you to sit down, and I think we'll have plenty of time to address more questions as we go, but I do want to allow people as they turn in their comment cards to keep asking questions, and then we can come back to additional ones. Yeah. My question is, can I ask you to fill out the form, please? Yes. Thank you. |
| Imperial Irrigation District, September 15, 2026 | Board action (Chair; mover unnamed) | 0:32:11 recording | With that, I will ask for a motion. So moved, Madam Chair. We do have public comment. I will draw my motion to after public comment. Thank you. No other further comments? Okay. With that, I will ask for that motion. Madam Chair, I do welcome the comments that were made here today, but do want to move forward with the recommendation from staff that we consider adopting the new large low tariff as presented. I'll take that as your motion. That's my motion. Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. |
| Imperial Irrigation District, May 15, 2026 | Board Chair (presiding; name to verify) | 0:50:15 recording | All right. I do also just want to remind the general public that we are not the citing authority, and we are doing everything within our capabilities to protect our rate payers. All right. |