Draft Findings and Recommendations Structure
Imperial County Data Center Advisory Committee | Board package outline
Executive finding
Imperial County’s current code allows enclosed data centers in industrial zones but does not scale review to electric demand or address the combined infrastructure and compatibility effects of modern high-load campuses. The County should replace a binary allow/deny debate with a tiered, evidence-based system that identifies what fits, where it fits and what must be proven before approval.
Proposed findings
Finding 1 - The use already exists in Title 9
Title 9 permits an enclosed data center in M-1, permits data centers in M-2, and carries M-2 uses into M-3. A data-center yard requires a CUP in M-1.
Recommendation: retain a path for suitable projects but define the use, campus, yard, accessory generation, utility versus IT load and common-control phases.
Finding 2 - Current review is not proportional to scale
The located code does not distinguish a small server facility from a 20 MW or 300 MW campus.
Recommendation: adopt load tiers: administrative under 5 MW in selected industrial settings; CUP and infrastructure screen at 5-under 20 MW; enhanced CUP and IID record at 20-under 50 MW; specific plan/development agreement at 50 MW+ or for an aggregated campus.
Finding 3 - Twenty MW is a useful planning unit, not available capacity
IID’s 2026 tariff applies at 20 MW or more and an 80% minimum load factor, but no public map proves a 20 MW block is deliverable at a named parcel.
Recommendation: require IID confirmation of point of interconnection, deliverable MW/MWh, upgrade cost, power supply, schedule and curtailment before land-use approval becomes effective.
Finding 4 - Location should follow infrastructure and compatibility
Industrial zoning alone does not establish adequate power, water, fire flow, roads, drainage or separation from sensitive uses.
Recommendation: adopt a suitability overlay/atlas using parcel, zoning, 92/161/230-kV proximity, water-purveyor, flood, airport, habitat, agriculture, housing, school and environmental-justice layers. Treat transmission proximity only as a screen.
Finding 5 - Water claims need a common accounting method
Cooling technology, peak-day demand, annual use, blowdown, fire flow and drought operation can produce very different impacts.
Recommendation: require an independently reviewed water budget, named legal supplier, peak/annual volumes, cooling mode, fire flow, blowdown disposal and enforceable cap. Prefer low-water designs without making technology alone dispositive.
Finding 6 - Backup generation is a land-use issue
Large engine arrays can create noise, exhaust, fuel, fire and cumulative air effects even when called emergency equipment.
Recommendation: distinguish outage operation, testing, commissioning and routine/demand-response generation; require cumulative air/acoustic review, synchronized-test modeling, non-emergency hour caps and logs, and greater separation from sensitive uses.
Finding 7 - Existing noise limits are necessary but incomplete
Title 9 sets receiving-zone dBA limits, but modern data centers raise tonal and low-frequency noise and multiple operating modes.
Recommendation: add baseline, octave-band/low-frequency, tonal/impulsive, full-cooling, generator-test and post-opening verification requirements.
Finding 8 - Public capacity should not be reserved for speculation
The current use listing contains no data-center-specific proof of capital, equipment orders, milestone or expiration standard.
Recommendation: require parcel control, financing evidence, applicant-funded IID obligations, staged load-ramp milestones, automatic expiration and decommissioning security.
Finding 9 - Existing projects require individual legal analysis
“Pending” and “grandfathered” are not legal conclusions. Rights may arise from specific permits, vesting tentative maps, development agreements or common-law vesting, each with a defined scope.
Recommendation: have County Counsel publish a project-by-project entitlement table and written scope determination. Apply new rules prospectively and to pending matters to the extent legally allowed; honor proven rights only to their documented scope.
Finding 10 - The County can offer a constructive development path
A clear list of preferred study areas and evidence requirements can protect communities while reducing wasted applicant and staff effort.
Recommendation: create a pre-application fatal-flaw screen and publish the suitability methodology, application checklist, review sequence and standard conditions.
Implementation package
- General Plan policy amendment on data-center location, infrastructure and compatibility.
- Title 9 definitions, tier table, use permissions and anti-segmentation rule.
- Data Center Suitability Overlay and atlas.
- Enhanced CUP findings and application checklist.
- Model specific-plan/development-agreement terms for system-scale campuses.
- Operating verification and enforcement schedule.
- Transition ordinance and County Counsel entitlement table.
- Annual public report: permitted/operating MW, water use, generator testing, compliance and expired approvals, protecting customer confidentiality.
Remaining evidence before final adoption
- IID anonymized top-load bands, substation-area headroom format, queue, study backlog and resource assumptions.
- Water-purveyor capacity and fire-flow data for candidate areas.
- Air district rules and cumulative burden analysis for generator fleets.
- Fire authority standards for BESS, fuel and emergency access.
- Parcel-level zoning, ownership, airport, flood and habitat layers.
- County Counsel analysis of pending applications and claimed vested rights.
- Fiscal study of jobs, tax revenue, public-service cost and upgrade/security terms by project scale.
- Public testimony recorded by topic and tied to evidence.