Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Records Transparency topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents at Imperial meeting press county and city for clearer records after data-center debate

Imperial City Council · May 11, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Public commenters told the council they see conflicting narratives from county and city officials about a proposed data center and urged the city to publish communications and clarify the record as litigation proceeds.

At a May 20 special meeting, several residents urged the City of Imperial to make communications and records about a proposed data-center project public and to clarify differing explanations they have heard from county and city officials.

One resident said Supervisor Peggy Price’s formal response to a recall notice referenced prior communications involving the city and a different project site, which the speaker said confused residents who later learned the current project was at a different location. "Residents deserve transparency. Residents deserve clarity," the speaker said, arguing that the timing of outreach and notices had left some feeling excluded from key steps.

Peter Rodriguez read a prepared comment asserting that parcel mergers require rezoning when multiple base zones exist and cited county code 9051 and the Subdivision Map Act. He said he and others have email records of conversations with county staff dating back months and asked the council to ensure records are available for public review.

City staff responded that the communications referenced in the presentation are public, promised to post the PowerPoint and related emails online, and invited residents to contact the community development department for additional information or records requests. The council did not take formal votes as part of the public-comment exchange; the meeting concluded with an adjournment at 6:06 p.m.