Committee members in the public record

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official 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.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official 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.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official 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.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official 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.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official 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.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official 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.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official 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.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official 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.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official 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.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official 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.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official 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?

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official 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.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

Good morning, Planning Commission. I’m Michelle Hollinger with Victoria Homes. This project greatly affects my business, my father’s legacy, and the residents that live in Victoria Ranch Legacy as well. This Lot Merger is illegal because the parcels are not under common ownership. State law requires single ownership before approval. You cannot approve first and fix ownership later. The Planning Commission does not have authority to approve this merger; only the Board of Supervisors can vote. Leimgruber Road, the approval of re-zoning, the Commission cannot assume those actions will happen. A public road legally blocks this merger. Public roads cannot merge into private property without a formal vote by the Board. The proposed data center is not allowed under current zoning. Data centers, battery storage, and generators are not permitted uses on this land without re-zoning the CUP’s have not been approved. This project is not CEQA exempt and requires full environmental review, and a 950,000 square foot AI data center with generators and batteries is not a minor alteration. CEQA requires review of the entire project, including an EIR. I’ve also done some research. I’ve been to several presentations with Tom Dubose, and it was stated that data centers were looked at in 2011 to put in that M-1 zoning. Well, in 2011, AI data centers weren’t around; it was called facilities. So you really need to take a look at what an AI data center is versus a data center; there is a difference, and it needs to be taken a look at. I know that a review was done in 2023; well, that’s still two 4 years prior, and AI data centers were definitely different then than they are today. So, I implore you to take a look at this zoning and vote this merger a no. Thank you.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

Next speaker, Michelle Hollinger. [ASR loop artifact: phrase repeats 3x, 1260-1295s] Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Supervisors. Michelle Hollinger with Victoria Homes. I've been here several times before and had talked about good development here at Imperial. We've been here for 35 years. We've built almost 3,500 homes. We have a good reputation here. And we're staying here. We have 394 homes more to build. We have 20 acres of commercial land to build. We have multifamily to build. This proposed project has hurt my reputation, my sales. This. We have to build all of this. Without this, this school is not going to get built. There won't be any fees to pay. . . . . . So, I hope you can all all of you, I encourage you to come look. I encourage you to take the business cards I gave you, call me up. I will gladly give you a tour of the water tank, of the transmission lines, of the families that live here. Thank you for your time. ... All right, we are just about to say our goodbyes. So, I'm just going to get the next man to..

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

I'm Michelle Hollinger, Victoria Homes. So let's talk about the lot merger. So I'm going to hold up the sign again. As a developer, I'm against this lot merger being A2, okay? Once the A2 gets merged in this lot merger, it gets passed, that becomes a precedence. This is the central canal to the south of me. All the land south is zoned A2. It will give the developer a chance. Sorry, I can't really see you with my glasses on. It will give the developer a chance to use that county land to continue this proposed project. Please do not. Okay. Let that happen. Now down to business. The planning commission made a motion on December 18, 2025 to hold workshops, meet with the city of El Centro, city of Imperial and the community before it got back to them, this project. The planning commission did not approve the lot merger. They still need to take action. Okay. So the plan that I just made, the plan of the plan to get the school to be on the derogatory list, the plan to get the school to be on the derogatory list, the plan to get the school that if the Board of Supervisors hears the appeal and skips receiving a recommendation or discussion from the Planning Commission, the discussion is null and void. Period. That's your ordinance. I didn't just bring this up out of thin air. Next, I respectfully ask if this does go back to the Planning Commission like it should, that Commissioner Russell Rovin be accused from voting. He is directly linked to Ray Rovin, my competition, and also Duggan's Construction that would be a company that would be able to build this project. And lastly, I'm not sure Mr. Hawk why you would come up to me and say that you're not angry with me. Commissioner Hollinger, your three minutes are up. Thank you for your time.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

Good morning, Board of Supervisors. Michelle Hollander, Victoria Holmes. Unfortunately, I did not understand the rules of your special meeting. And I will abide by your rules. Regarding item 19 on the consented agenda, I respectfully ask that this item be removed from the agenda and moved to an action item so that the public can comment. It is frustrating to be up until 1 in the morning writing speeches, coming here early, wondering if my business is going to survive this with silence on the other end. It's about time that we have open dialect. So please, again, I respectfully ask that you open this up to the public. Please take it off the agenda. Make it an action item. Thank you.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

Um good evening supervisors and the community of Imperial Valley. Um this is I think for the Planning Commission. First off, if a moratorium for this particular project cannot be done because the applicant application has been accepted, can a resolution or uh the board be able to request [CEQA] for this project? Um what year was the data center in an enclosed building put in M1 zoning? What year were these um CUPs, battery storage, bulk fuel storage facilities, data center yard, electrical power generation plants, major facilities relating to generational and transmission of electric electrical energy? Um this is to the Board of Supervisors. When did you know what a hyperscale AI data center was? So I'm looking for month, year. Um have you ever been to a hyperscale AI AI data center or a regular data center? Have you consulted with any hyperscale AI data center experts? According to the 2025-26 annual budget, I'm sorry, but how much is the county in debt? Then going to Mr. Rishi, and I'm sorry, Tom, I would like Mr. Rishi to answer these questions. Um do you or any of your businesses have any promises, agreements, or contracts with the following? And if so, which ones? County of Imperial, IID, City of El Centro, City of Imperial, City of Brawley, City of Calexico, City of Holtville, City of Heber, City of Westmorland, Seeley, and Niland. I might have missed one. I don't know. Thank you. Um do you have any promises, agreements, or contracts with IVC, IVEDC, Carlos Duran, or Rick Rodriguez? Do you have any grading permits for this project? Do you have a noise study? I think that one might have already been answered. Um do you have a contract or an agreement with a buyer? So as of what Tom said, there's four companies, no buyer. It's the bidding. Are you part of the legal team for the county? And if this application is approved, what's the streamlining? How fast is this going to go? Thank you.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

Good morning, Madam Chair, Board of Supervisors. Michelle Hollinger with Victoria Homes. Again, I'm going to state that I am pro-development, but it has to be responsible development. I thought that I could come up and actually... do this business-wise, but this is a joke. It's a joke. You guys are exposed. We've been telling you that for months, that the zoning hasn't been able to protect us, right? So, and I know that you're saying, oh, well, we started a resolution, and I have requested that. But this resolution is not 100%. I need your ducks in a row. That's the nicest way I can say it. You need to have a moratorium so that you can do that. So you can take the time and put 100% into protecting yourself and protecting the public. A job worth doing half is not going to cut it. I may suggest putting together a committee to having one of these colleagues of mine help you. I'm sure they'd do it for free. We've been trying. I work for free. Okay. Please, I urge you, do better. We deserve it. Thank you. Thank you, Michelle. Yes, yes.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

Good morning, Chair, Board of Supervisors. I just wanted to say that I am for extending the moratorium. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Hollander.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

Good afternoon, board, Madam Chair, Michelle Hollinger, Victoria Holmes. Okay. So let's talk about the advisory committee. I would like to say yes to this because some things need to change. I'm not sure about the 19 people and all that stuff. But the M1 zoning needs to change. The buy right development needs to change. There needs to be stronger ordinances. There needs to be safety for the public in this. So I would say yes to that. Oh, and then 10 miles for many residents. That would be great. As far as the moratorium, I would say yes as well. Okay. But it... Okay. It needs to include the three projects that I knew about, but Jake just said, what, ten? So it needs to include those two. You guys are going to get railroaded if not. Now let's talk about the proposed hyperscale AI data center in Imperial. This project should be null and void. My reason in being is back in 2017, you guys told us, staff told us, yeah, it went through SQL, it went through EIR, data centers are safe, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Well, there's no paperwork now to back that up? Seriously. Seriously. We've been through this for so many months. My fight or flight has gone off the charts. My business is at stake. You guys don't have the paperwork? Seriously? Staff is telling us that this was done. Staff was telling us that this could also cause chemical burns and respiratory issues. And you can't tell me that you guys didn't know about this. Unacceptable. You were supposed to be in charge of staff. Unacceptable. Staff is also telling us it's just a lot merger. When are you guys going to stop lying to us? Please. If this hyperscale AI data center in Imperial is no big deal, like what you're saying happened in Virginia when you saw that one, stop lying to me and prove it. Do the [CEQA].

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

My name is Flavio Grijalva, and I'm here as a resident of Imperial County today. I'm here to speak in strong opposition to the proposed large-scale data center near the residential neighborhoods or anywhere within the County of Imperial. This project has been advanced without addressing the serious concerns raised not only by residents, but by the City of Imperial itself who started it. When the City, the jurisdiction directly impacted, formally opposes a project of this magnitude, the County has a responsibility to stop, evaluate, and respond. Moving forward without doing so is irresponsible governance and dismissive of the community you represent. A data center of this size brings major impacts that have not been adequately addressed. You've heard it already multiple times. First, the energy demand is enormous. Large data centers consume electricity equivalent to thousands of homes, operating 24 hours a day in a region already facing grid challenges. This project risks higher rates, grid instability, and increased reliance on fossil fuel generation, all of which directly affect Imperial Valley residents. Second, the water use is incompatible with our region. Data centers often require millions of gallons of water per year for cooling. In an arid valley where water security is a long-term concern, adding a new industrial-scale water user next to homes is not responsible planning. Third, diesel backup generators pose a real public health risk. These generators run not only during emergencies, but also during routine testing. Communities near similar facilities have reported increased noise, particulate pollution, and respiratory impacts. In a valley that already struggles with air quality, placing a diesel-intensive facility next to a neighborhood is unacceptable. Fourth, the noise and 24-7 operations will permanently change the character of the surrounding communities. Cooling systems, fans, and generator testing create constant noise and vibrations. Once built, these impacts cannot be undone. Fifth, the economic benefit to Imperial County is extremely limited. Data centers create very few permanent jobs and often receive substantial tax incentives. This means residents absorb the impact, while most of the benefits leave the community. This pattern is not new. The Board previously approved one of the largest solar farms in the Western Hemisphere, as well as the Ocotillo Wind Farms. Those projects brought limited jobs, minimal economic impact, and none of the energy generated goes to Imperial County residents. It is exported outside of the county. The data center continues that same pattern. Large industrial projects placed in our backyard with the benefits exported elsewhere. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Board to reject the sitting of data centers near residential areas, or really anywhere in the county, and to fully address the City's concerns, who are issuing moratoriums on this, require a comprehensive environmental and public health impact review, and explore alternative locations that do not place this burden on the community. Mr. Grijalva, your time is up.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

Good afternoon, Chair and Board members. Once again, thank you for the appointment. I will kind of say this. I'm here today to urge the Board to extend the moratorium on the new data center development in the Imperial Valley until the county can fully evaluate the impacts these facilities will have on our residents, our infrastructure, and our long-term environmental health. Moratorium is not a rejection of economic development. It is a responsible pause, a chance to make sure that we're not in a position to be a burden to the community. We're not hopefully return to our conditions that have only left us by creating problems our communities and giving back to our communities to make sure we're not repeating past mistakes that have left Imperial Valley communities carrying the burden while benefits are exported elsewhere. Data centers are not small projects. They're industrial-scale facilities with massive energy demand, high water consumption, constant noise, and generator emissions. These impacts are real, and they are permanent once construction begins. We have seen the pattern before. The counties approved one of the largest solar farms in the Western Hemisphere and the Ocotillo Wind Farms. These projects are now being containerized in the projects brought limited jobs, minimal economic benefit, and none of the energy generated goes to the Imperial Valley residents. It is exported to other counties while our communities are left with the environmental footprint. A moratorium is a chance to break that pattern. Moratorium is not a barrier to progress. It is a safeguard for the people who live here. You guys have elected to have the data center committee. I think allowing that committee to progress moving forward, extending the moratorium longer than you need to while all of the information is out there, I think allows the residents to see how everything stands, allows the committee to see how everything stands, and allows you guys to see how everything stands without having to feel a rush. I said my biggest thing has always been the solar panels. As much as I love my union people. My labor work. When people talk about it brings jobs, it brings jobs 99% of the time for outside workers. It's not staying here. Tax money isn't staying here. And then once they're done, that's it. I think the solar farms are on average getting run by 57 people at most. It's not the impact. The opportunity that I wanted with the data center was for that. To be able to get as much information, produce it to the community, produce it to the board to understand. We cannot live in a community where it's just, hey, if that appears to be a good opportunity, let's just take it. We can't. We need to start looking further out for our community, for our people. We're here in the Superior Valley, not the outsiders. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vujalva. Any other speakers?

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

Good morning Planning Commission my name is Kristian Salgado I’m a resident of Calexico before I get into my comment I would like to share that I have experience sitting on advisory boards like this I sat on for three (3) years at the Imperial County Pollution Control District hearing committee I understand the bureaucratic process the staff recommendations the need to do your due diligence it’s usually boring and not this exciting and you have to draw your own conclusions it’s tough it’s part of the checks and balances of democracy and I do appreciate all the residents you’re not elected officials that take on this huge civic engagement even at a young age I’ve done it with the hearing board for some time and I also want to emphasize that today’s meeting is not a conversation about wanting jobs the hard working individuals the ones that uphold the Imperial County industry the tough jobs, the dirty jobs I actually got a chance to speak to some of them earlier and I’m actually glad that they’re here today because I do think that their concerns echo a bigger issue in our county around economic restoration and true economic justice so I do appreciate all the individuals that are speaking up on that topic of jobs but really what my comment is here today is straightforward it’s really wanting the county and the Planning Commission to uphold policy the Subdivision Map Act I can go on about that I can go on about CEQA I can go on about the state planning and zoning regulations and I can go on about the county municipal codes about approving this merger I think it’s important that this commission upholds all of these components and does not approve this merger because it does set I think a very dangerous precedent moving forward on how we’re allowing today is just one data center but any other data center that wants to take up shop in Imperial County so I also want to say with my last time I’m in absolute awe of Imperial County residents the CEQA knowledge now that the county residents have is quite phenomenal and their ability to come up here and speak on behalf of what their concerns are I also want to end that this is a clear exploitation of loopholes on behalf of the developer this is a playbook being used across the United States it’s very detrimental it is requiring local reform because the state and federal government is not catching up thank you for your time and have a great day.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

Next speaker, Christian Salgado. All righty. So good afternoon, chair, members of the board. I have returned once again. I want to talk about and asking you to deny the lot merger for the AI data center. On its surface, the lot merger may seem like a routine administrative step, but in this case, it clearly is not. This merger is directly connected to a project of massive scale and impact, one that this community repeatedly raised serious concerns about. So I have a few questions. And I believe they deserve clear answers before approval is considered. How can this lot merger be treated as a standalone action, what is clearly enabling a much larger industrial project? Has the county evaluated whether approving this merger now is effectively segmenting the project to avoid full environmental review under CEQA? What analysis has been done on the accumulative impact, water use, power demand, emissions, and proximity to homes and schools before moving forward? Have all relevant agencies, including DTSC, APCD, IID, been fully consulted and documented in the records before this decision? And most importantly, how does approving this lot merger today protect the residents who will be living next to this project tomorrow? Because from the outside, it looks like this process is moving forward piece by piece without giving the public a full picture of the fair opportunities to evaluate the true impact. This community is not alone. We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for transparency, for proper process, and for the decisions to put people first. Avoiding this lot merger now would send the message, sorry, approving this lot merger now would send the message that the county is willing to move forward without fully addressing the risk and unanswered questions tied to these projects. So I close with this. Until there is a complete, transparent, and legal sound review of full projects and its impact, I respectfully urge you do not approve the lot merger. So motion to deny the lot merger. And then vote on that. Motions, once it is approved, then you can move forward. And then I just, for my last statements, I've been coming here time and time again. I am, I swear, like I see so many people now and they're like, oh, the data center. And I come today kind of disheartened. And it's because what is the alternative our county has? So I believe today you guys will approve this lot merger. I have no doubt about that. And the only alternative is the county will probably get sued. If you don't approve it, you're going to get sued. This is also a trend happening in other data centers and cities and counties where developers are using the same strategy. So today when you approve the merger, you guys are going to approve the merger. I have no doubt about that. And it's really discouraging to all the residents that have been coming for five months and made our stance very clear. Thank you.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

Good afternoon, Chair Price and members of the board. Over the past five months, I have spoken repeatedly in opposition to the Imperial Data Center project. So out of respect for the residents, I'm going to keep this very short. At this point, I am asking you to stop wasting residents' times and fulfill your responsibility as elected officials. I am asking you to reject this project until enforceable protections are in place. That's really what we want, enforceable protections. I am asking you to pass a six-month moratorium. This is not the first time I brought up a moratorium on data center development in Imperial County. You have the authority to do this. You really do, regardless of the litigation that's going on. Across the United States, communities are pushing back against these projects. This developer is not an exception. He reflects a broader pattern of companies exploiting by right zoning while avoiding meaningful oversight. No data center should be approved by right. This is something that everybody is saying. It should not be ministerial. It should not be exempt from CEQA. Other communities are already showing up the chena, the d-1, the s-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the t-1, the the high impact facilities belong in their communities. And importantly, this response comes from a proposal that's far less bigger than this one, 50 megawatts, 30, sorry, 330 megawatts. It's apples and oranges and their residents are just as upset. So I said I was going to keep this short. My questions are, can the board sincerely consider a moratorium and what would the process to do that? And let us know that in a question and also sincerely give us the process if this has to be a ballot measure that the residents have to vote on, if not June, in November. Thank you.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

Good afternoon, Imperial County Board of Supervisors. For the past six months, a growing coalition of concerned residents have consistently appeared before the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission to oppose the Imperial Data Center project and raise concerns about zoning ordinance that frankly encourage and facilitate the rapid and irresponsible expansion of massive AI data center development throughout unincorporated Imperial County. We are very grateful to the board of supervisors for their support. We are deeply dissatisfied with item 18, the discussion action regarding adoption of a resolution related to data centers in Imperial County. While we appreciate the acknowledgement that data center development requires greater scrutiny, we strongly urge the board to reject the proposed resolution in its current form and instead take meaningful action by adopting an immediate one-year moratorium on all new AI data center applications and approvals within unincorporated Imperial County. My pants are bugging me. On August 14th, March 14th, meeting was今天 . With public assembly beginning at 9am an грimen County Council member entered into office with full expectation that his county may adopt an amendment or refresh trailing block code had already been implemented by individual.​ With public assembly beginning at 9am an 그렇 killer struggle ensued which원 Pacima County Council member Last August In December 2020 the OS debt fee年 expensive 凘 凛 laws STAThouse reports developers will be subject to new legal obligations and that those obligations will be upheld by the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, and other county agencies. A resolution is nothing more than an expression of a policy with no explicit binding requirements included in its language. Residents are well aware of the overwhelming interest in AI data center development in our county, including new applications that have been submitted. This interest extends beyond the Imperial Data Center project, beyond Lithium Valley, and includes every county-approved specific plan. Ranchos Los Largos, the Mesquite Lake, where developers could potentially argue that such project could be permitted by right and therefore avoid discretionary review under CEQA. Furthermore, this resolution does nothing to address the Imperial Data Center project, which bypassed proper environmental review, was granted a lot merger by the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, and other county agencies. This resolution is not only a violation of the αλλά sina Waiting chairwoman woman and members of the board.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

Again, my name is Christian Salgado. I want to thank you for allowing me to speak earlier in today's meeting. And prior to giving my position, I want to thank Martha Singh and Mr. Escobar for the dialogue that you provided during the last meeting around the moratorium. I'm here to urge you to vote yes. On both item A and item B. Both items must be approved together to properly position residents to help develop the safeguards needed to protect our communities. If item B does not pass, residents will be left in the same position we are in today with data center projects continuing to move forward before appropriate regulations and protections are in place. An advisory committee alone cannot prevent this from happening. It must be accompanied. [turn interrupted: broadcast technical difficulty, 5-10 minute recess; she was called back first and restarted her full comment at about 3:52] All righty, I'll get started. Thank you so much for all your hard work. Good afternoon, chair and members of the board. My name is Christian Salgado. Before I give my position, I'd like to thank again Ms. Singh and Mr. Escobar for the dialoguing leadership that was had last meeting and putting forth the moratorium and continuing that discussion in addition to the ad hoc committee. So today I'm here to urge the board to vote yes on both item A and B. I think it's essential that both items must be approved together to properly position residents to help develop the safeguards needed to protect the communities. If item B does not pass, residents will be left in the same position we are in today with data center projects continuing to move forward before appropriate regulations and protections are in place. An advisory committee alone cannot prevent this from happening. It must be accompanied by the moratorium that will allow the committee's time to do its work and develop meaningful recommendations. I support the creation of a data center advisory committee although it is not a replacement for the broader community involvement. In addition to 19 members appointed to the committee, its meeting should be publicly noticed, agendized, and open to the public. The process should also include an independent facilitator and consensus-building organization that can help guide the discussion, ensure transparency, and encourage meaningful participation for all stakeholders. The data center advisory committee should also have a dedicated page on the Imperial County website that provides residents with access to meeting agendas, minutes, supporting documents, educational resources, and other relevant information. Transparent public access must be prioritized through this process. Furthermore, all recommendations developed by the data center advisory committee should be released for a 30-day public comment period before finalized. After considering the incorporated feedback, the recommendation should be revised as necessary and then move forward to the Board of Supervisors for discussion and consideration. The committee should also be given the adequate amount of time, so I think we need to push that October the 1st, 2026 deadline to January of 2027. During this process, the moratorium should remain in place. Therefore, it'll be necessary that the board extends the interim ordinance to ensure that these projects move forward responsibly. Furthermore, the proposed moratorium fails to achieve the full purpose. I think it should include just completely voiding the Imperial Valley computing computer manufacturing data center and the Mesquite data center. In addition, what else do I want to ask? I want to make it clear that the developer... Oh yeah, this is for you guys. So I want to make sure and clear to the developers and financiers in this room that the data centers will not be successful in Imperial County and that the Imperial County data center sham is example of what to expect if you do business in Imperial County. It is not because residents oppose data centers, it is because the Board of Supervisors has neglected for months to do the right thing by enforcing respectable data center development. That's all we're asking for is CEQA. Now we're having to get to a ban because we can't trust our local governance to do the right thing. So again, I look forward to applying and being part of this committee. Thank you.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

My name's Andy Schwartz. I'm president of Imperial County Building and Construction Trades Council and also a business representative for the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12. I understand that it's going to be a tough time going forward. We do support this agenda item. And – We'll be there to help out however we can. Thank you very much.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

Good morning. My name is Shleah Edwards. I am a resident of El Centro. I would not feel right if I did not speak when I had the opportunity. I am clearly against the building of the data center being placed here. My concern is the same as many: the detrimental effects that the data center may bring. Even more concerning is the secretive way in which governing bodies have made deals and agreed to such a project without being transparent with the community. There is legislation in place that requires California public agencies to evaluate and disclose the environmental impacts of such projects, such as an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). To my knowledge, one has not been provided, and if everything was positive as the developer claims, I do not see why they would have an issue sharing it. We are already limited on resources, voltage, and consistency of demand and supply, which are issues every summer when we are asked to limit our air conditioning and power use to prevent rollouts and blackouts. Adding a three hundred thirty (330) megawatt facility to the demand is unsustainable and will not be without risk. Our electrical bills went up not long ago to cover expenses for some of the IID infrastructure that was not maintained, and I can only imagine how much it will increase if a data center is built here. If one must be brought here, at least place it in a location away from residences, regardless of the industrial zone classification made years ago. Look at the humanity aspect of it. The quality of life will be negatively affected for the people here. I have printed out here. Do not let the data center destroy our communities.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

Next speaker, Sheila Edwards. I'm not paid to be here. You're in a hurry. Oh, yeah. Thank you. Sorry. OK. Hello. My name is Sheila Edwards. I live here in Old Central. I am against this lot merger, and I urge you all to vote against it. I would say majority here with me feel the same, but as you can see in this room, majority are not from here. A lot of us were not even allowed in. Some that have been here since 8 AM, they're outside. But there are a lot in this valley that are against this merger and what it leads to. A lot of mergers often call for CEQA, and when it leads to something massive like the data center or full environmental review. Mr. Tyson and many others brought up CEQA as well and per California.gov. The first step in determining whether a public agency action is subject to the provisions of CEQA is to determine whether the actions is a project. And that's what we're doing. As you find by CEQA, PRC section 21065 and CEQA guidelines section 15378, the guidelines you find a project as the whole of an action which has a potential for resulting in either direct physical change in the environment or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical And clearly, the lot merger, the data center, that would lead to two such things. Also, a quote from the next speaker, a quote by Representative AOC. It says if leaders and those in charge of decision making view us people as an endless untapped market to be manipulated and exploited. They will sell us out if they can turn it a profit. Please represent us and don't let us be used for profit. Thank you.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

Hello, my name is Sheila Edwards. I'm a resident of El Centro. I am here to urge you all to vote against this resolution and vote for a moratorium on data centers. We know it can be done. As evidenced by the councils of Calipat, Brawley and Imperial that recently passed moratoriums for their cities. Back in April, many of us watched you all approve a lot merger, four to one. This essentially helped give the project legs to advance. A major concern is the zoning regulations in place. As it stands, they call for data centers to be approved by right, meaning approval without the evocation of CEQA, no environmental reviews or reports. Common sense and decency dictates that. Such reports and reviews be performed as they are tools to gauge potential threats and harm that could negatively impact us residents and our environment. From what I've heard, from what many of us have heard today, this resolution is a farce. On the surface, it's presented as a resolution to generate protections from data centers, but when we delve deeper, it comes off as a ploy to pull the wool over our eyes while making it easier to expedite future data center projects. For months, we have been working on this resolution, and we have been asking for transparency. It's disheartening to think that our hope and trust are being taken advantage of. Please don't let that be the case. Please hear our pleas. I implore you all to vote no on the resolution and yes on the moratorium. Thank you. Following Mr. Grijalva, Reyna Adame. Good afternoon, Chair, members of the Board.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

My name is Gilberto Manzanares. I'm coming here to oppose the lot merger, which will clear the path for California's largest data center to essentially start getting built without any proper environmental review. It is astounding to think that splash pads built in this county for little kids require CEQA, but not this data center. Mr. Escolar, you mentioned a few months ago, anyone who opposes proper ethical economic development was an enemy of this board. Do we look like enemies to you? I think that because of this lot merger that will allow the data center to be built, we're simply asking for what you told us, proper ethical economic development. I am quite sure six months ago, quite a few of you did not know what a data center is, and yet you refused to table this item, which is in your legal authority. Let's not pretend that you guys' hands are tied. I understand. this lot merger, you will get sued. We've been throwing around words about holding hostage, green mailing, whatnot. You're getting held hostage right now by the developer himself, not by us. None of us are getting paid. I'm not getting paid despite what all the lies that are making up. I've taken days off work to be here each and every time. So once again, all we are asking, and it is within your power, to table this item, because that is the original motion that the Planning Commission told us. In December 18th, the Planning Commission made a motion to approve, which failed. The second motion, table this item until we get what? Do you guys know? Proper town halls, including IID, City of El Centro, City of Imperial. Not one of those has happened. And yet, one day after the one meeting, the propaganda session that this county had, immediately you guys announce this meeting to approve it or to put on the agenda to approve. So I ask once again, what happened to that original motion? Do not lie to the people and tell them that you legally have to approve this because you know, as well as I do, that you can legally table this and put in place a moratorium to protect us all until we all, us and you, understand what this data center can do for our communities. Thank you.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

Good afternoon, board, board members, members of the public. My name is Gilberto Mastanares. I'm a member of Valle Impera Resiste, which is a collective of residents who advocate for socioeconomic and environmental justice in the Valley. I want to speak in support of this proposition, a large low tariff, in order for it to move forward. The people of Imperial Valley should not be asked to subsidize some of the world's largest corporations. We live at a time where hardworking families are struggling with the cost of housing, groceries, gas, and more. But at the same time, across this country, we continue to see corporations receiving special treatment by offering tax incentives, subsidies, infrastructure, and other benefits in the name of economic development, despite data showing that they're benefiting from historic records of profitability. At some point, we have to draw a line about what is fair. If a corporation wants to come into Imperial Valley and build a facility requiring hundreds of megawatts of electricity, then that corporation should be responsible for the costs necessary to meet that demand, not the ratepayers. Those costs should not be passed down to struggling, hardworking families in Calexico, Brawley, El Centro, Imperial, and anywhere else in our Valley. We believe this tariff represents an important step in the right direction towards economic justice. If these corporations can afford to build facilities that consume hundreds of megawatts of electricity, they can also afford to pay for the infrastructure necessary to operate them. Our families should come first, and making large low customers pay their own way is the place where we can start. Thank you.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

Good afternoon. Well, first of all, I'm actually just surprised that we're having this meeting today, right? We wouldn't have been here if it wasn't for the people. Let's be clear, this county was not about to do this on their own, okay? It took seven months, and that's incredible, of people asking days off work. I lost count how many days I took off work to be here because this county refused to have these meetings which overwhelmingly, as you all cannot deny, have gathered an increased attention from the community. This shouldn't have happened at 10 a.m. It shouldn't have taken us five hours to finally have this discussion. This needed to happen after 6 p.m. on any day of the week. It should have been a special meeting. The one time, let me remind you, the one time that this county allowed us to finally hold this meeting about data centers at 6 p.m., how full was this room? Don't forget that image. This room and that one and that building was full. First of all, let me just set it in the record. It's a disgrace that we're even having this conversation of a moratorium finally after seven months in working hours. That's one. Two. I want to appreciate that at least Supervisor Peggy Price and Martha Cousins-Lasin have had the honesty to tell us that they didn't know what a data center was before being elected. I can appreciate the honesty, honestly, because many of us did not know. So this is why a moratorium like you're proposing is needed because I, however, approving the committee but not the moratorium is some of the dumbest things I've heard, honestly. I just recently took my CPR certification, the renewal again, and when I heard these comments, oh, approve this but not the moratorium, imagine if I would have taken my CPR test on an actual choking victim, right? So, Mr. Kelly, you were a firefighter. I imagine, I hope not, that it wasn't the case during your training. It was during an actual live burning building. I hope that it wasn't the case, right? You need the committee, which quite frankly, I'm a little bit on the edge of, but I'm not going to do that. But it was really hard for us to listen to all your thoughts about but you also do need the moratorium. And it is an emergency because how many projects are there? Right? We started, it was one neighborhood. And because this county refused to finally just, you know, take consideration, take time, please the moratorium, let's talk about things. Now you're hearing data center bans. If you're hearing data center bans and it's making you nervous because increasingly more and more people are calling for that. you have no one to blame but yourself. Because all people wanted at first, let me remind you, was CEQA. That's all people wanted. People wanted CEQA and now you're hearing bands, and that's up to you. Thank you so much. Female Speaker 1 and audience applause

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

Good morning Dennis Morita City Manager in Imperial. I emphasize City Manager because there was a time in a prior life where I might be speaking to you as the City Attorney. I am happy to say that the legal issues can be left to the lawyers. As you know the elephant in the room is the fact that the City of Imperial filed a lawsuit against the County associated with the data center project. I am also mindful that you are in charge today to assess a lot merger and as I listen to the comments you are getting you have gone arguably far beyond that, but I appreciate your patience in listening because that in large measure is what got the City where it is today. My hope is that we can arrive at a process that would properly analyze what potential impacts this development might have and that there can be a reasonable and reasoned discussion. We are speaking about a data center but so far there is a conspicuous absence of data about what it all means. What does a thirty (30) foot tall building mean that is almost one million (1,000,000) square feet. What does a three hundred thirty (330) megawatt substation mean. What do cooling towers mean. What does battery storage mean. The public needed to be engaged in that process, and it appears that the City was helpful in achieving public involvement. At the end of the day, I hope that we can all arrive at a process that 20 would allow the data to be analyzed and that we can arrive at a reasoned decision. Because my sense is as I sit back and see a grading permit a notice of exemption related to a grading permit, I see this process. I see a permitted use in the County zoning ordinance. I see conditional uses related to something called the data center yard. I see information in the airport land use and its involvement. So I hope we can arrive at a process that would afford all the stakeholder’s meaningful input. Thank you.

Official source · Corpus workbook

Unofficial transcript text; check the official recording

Good evening, honorable board. I frankly didn't expect to be called first, but here I am. Dennis Morita, city manager, city of Imperial. Thank you for this opportunity. I'm not here to ask you questions this evening, so you will be relieved to hear that. I want to start with the obvious. City of Imperial filed a lawsuit against the county and the developer and those real parties and interests that own property in the area. I want to be clear about the fact. That petition isn't about whether the development can happen. It's really about the process by which that development can happen. And I think that's an important distinction because the outcome of that lawsuit, if the city of Imperial were to be a 100% winner in that petition, that project could well go forward. It's about, again, about the process that is going to happen. And I think that's the main reason why we're going to apply to that project. With that in mind, the focus of discussions, as a footnote, the law requires that the parties have discussions about a potential settlement. And so indeed, the parties have engaged in those discussions. And I would just say that. Okay. So part of this process for the city would involve identifying areas of concern. And you've seen by some of the prior presentation how those areas are proposed to have been addressed, noise, traffic, and those kinds of things. It is the hope of the city and expectation that if indeed a settlement is to be achieved, it would be that we would be arriving at a mechanism. And that is the mechanism by which impacts could be identified and a process to arrive at mitigation of those impacts. And then at the end, a vehicle for enforcement. Now I say all that, but make no mistake, the city does have real differences with the county and the developer as to the standards that would apply in determining the process. Okay. And of course, I don't think anybody's mentioned CEQA now that I think about it. So I'll say it out loud. Is CEQA going to apply to this project? And that's where there's a real difference. And so one of the things that settlement would achieve is that it would bring certainty to both parties as to how things are going to happen. That means I have five seconds left. So that is the advantage of it.