Imperial Data Center

The City of Imperial's city manager said its lawsuit is about process, not whether the project happens, and described settlement discussions with the county and developer.

A LiUNA Local 1184 representative backed the project for union jobs, a project labor agreement, and apprenticeships amid high county unemployment.

Demanded the board pause all action and require a full EIR under CEQA, citing transparency concerns and proximity to neighborhoods and schools.

Asked the board to consider a six-month moratorium on data center development and cited Monterey Park's actions.

Speaking for a 30,500-signature petition, raised the former Caspian site contamination, CUP requirements, and demanded answers on moratorium, setbacks, and CEQA.

Called to speak following Francisco Leal.

Called the developer an 'economic parasite,' questioned who would own the project, and demanded rejection of the ministerial classification and a moratorium.

An Imperial city resident disputed DTSC contact claims and argued the electrical substation and battery storage require conditional use permits.

Declared 'not in my backyard,' questioned the CEQA exemption, and criticized litigation between the county, IID, and City of Imperial.

Said the community's futures are at stake, questioned when the project was approved 'behind our backs,' and vowed continued opposition.

Called the economist's tax-savings figures insulting and urged the board to reject the project, saying residents' concerns were being ignored.

A lifelong resident who said the board would be 'instrumental' in destroying the community if it approves the project.

A school teacher who cited rising July temperatures in Loudoun County since data centers arrived and urged investigation of local heat impacts.

Asked what protects residents if energy demand surges, citing South Lake Tahoe, and noted rising temperatures and greenhouse gases near data centers.

An El Centro resident asking what safeguards exist on air, water, and electric rates if no CEQA review is required.

A Victoria Ranch resident who said residents are being asked for decisions without full information and are 'tired of being gas-lit.'

An SDSU Imperial Valley student who opposed the project over water use, toxins, asthma rates, and energy strain.

Asked whether the board can require CEQA by resolution, when data centers entered the zoning code, and about developer agreements with local agencies.

A 21-year-old who said the backlash is unprecedented and quoted Loudoun County residents' regrets about living near data centers.

An El Centro research scientist who called blanket approval 'grossly negligent' given Colorado River shortages and asked where water cuts would fall.

Argued the project serves tech oligarchs' profit, demanded binding obligations, local hire, and public agreements.

A Victoria Ranch resident 'a sneeze away' from the site who asked why no battery storage CUP is required and complained of late notice.

Asked about the project's greenhouse gas footprint and questioned trusting AI corporations given layoffs and military contracts.

A parent who said the county's information is misleading and that long-term health impacts of hyperscale data centers are unknown.

A lifelong resident and educator who said the board is ignoring overwhelming evidence in opposition and urged members to oppose the project.

Cited the county's failure to meet federal air standards, questioned the developer's background, and said the Planning Commission vote actually failed.

Lives on the fence line; worried about the berm, dust, and her grandson's asthma, and asked who pays the economist.

A 38-year LiUNA member who supported the project for construction jobs, describing members struggling to find work.

A public health expert who detailed the county's existing air nonattainment, water stress, heat, and noise impacts from data centers.

A student who questioned local job guarantees, BESS fire liability, AI industry viability, and the developer's background.

Called it a million-square-foot footprint too close to homes and schools and asked for a binding contract on promised benefits.

Read firsthand accounts from Memphis residents near the xAI data center about health and noise impacts.

A Calexico lifelong resident who called AI 'a bust,' questioned the Monterey Park moratorium analysis, and urged passing a county moratorium.

Argued the county isn't neutral on the data center, citing county-hosted events for the applicant, and said the project's noise and emissions don't fit M-1 zoning; also questioned how the air district's review flipped from discretionary to ministerial.

Said he's had an active public records request for 120 days with no answers, and demanded a full timeline of county-developer communications.

Asked the Board to make data centers a discretionary review and keep them at least three miles from homes and schools, warning against rushing into an AI bubble.

Said the air district called the project discretionary but planning deemed it CEQA-exempt; demanded full cumulative impact analysis and asked where the Board's leadership is.

Opposed the data center near her Imperial neighborhood, citing the Kinder Morgan fuel tanks a quarter mile away and battery explosion risk; suggested relocating it to the outskirts.

Urged a moratorium on data centers, noting other communities are pausing approvals and that a 90-month generator lead time proves the project isn't ministerial.