Data center resolution (Item 18)

Called the resolution a Trojan horse, questioned the 1,000-foot setback, and said firefighters lack training and equipment for data center fires.

Urged the Board not to pass the resolution, calling it cover for the next data center application, and challenged Escobar and Cardenas-Singh to initiate a moratorium.

Demanded to know who wrote the guidelines, called for enforceable ordinances rather than guidelines, and urged a ban.

Read a statement from Congressman Raul Ruiz opposing the data centers and urging local officials to protect public health and water.

Presented detailed written recommendations, questioned whether the resolution applies to the current project, and urged an independent consultant.

Criticized the 1,000-foot buffer, the absence of health impact assessments, and the unidentified authorship of the guidelines.

Argued guidelines and resolutions lack legal force and demanded an ordinance plus an immediate moratorium.

Urged rejection of the resolution in favor of a one-year moratorium and a binding ordinance, noting the by-right loophole in specific plans.

Called the resolution a press release rather than a safeguard, criticizing its discretionary 'county determines' loopholes and lack of a moratorium.

Spoke in support of the county's guidelines effort and encouraged an advisory committee including labor representatives.

Called herself pro-development but said the resolution is incomplete and urged a moratorium to get it right.

Speaking for Imperial Valley Equity and Justice, said the resolution falls far short and noted Lithium Valley allows 1.3 million square feet of data centers by right.

Urged a no vote on the resolution and a yes on a moratorium, citing the cities' actions and the by-right CEQA bypass.

Opposed the data center, citing energy demand, water use, diesel generators, noise, and minimal permanent jobs.

Compared the county's 'encouraged' standards unfavorably to China's mandatory data center requirements and urged a ban.

Asked for a moratorium, noting the public still lacks basic information on energy, water, and costs after seven months.

Spoke for growth and jobs, urging the Board to create economic opportunity locally rather than exporting energy and water benefits elsewhere.

Opposed the resolution as insufficient, urging a moratorium until independent studies on water, power, and agricultural impacts are done.

Called data centers extraction, not progress, and urged rejection of the project and a moratorium.

Questioned why the item was scheduled on election day and accused the Board of self-interest.

Argued that if 200 residents show up to speak, the Board must hear all of them — public participation is a right.

Thanked the community for raising voices, opposed a total ban, liked that the resolution puts costs on developers, and suggested a broad advisory committee.

Speaking for COLAB's 200 member businesses, supported the guidelines framework as the right approach over a moratorium.

Called the resolution shameful and self-serving, demanded a 3-5 mile buffer, and urged a moratorium as the Board's last chance.

A mother speaking with her young daughter urged the Board not to build the data center, saying it will make people sick.

Defended data centers for the economic development corporation, correcting what he called misinformation on water, generators, and tax benefits.

Speaking for the state building trades, opposed a moratorium, praised the recent local-hire ordinance, and asked for a seat on an ad hoc committee.

On her third appearance, asked why the Board won't listen, questioned water affordability, and said no to the data center.

Said the resolution doesn't go far enough, doesn't require CEQA, and asked the Board to consider a ban or at least a moratorium.