Imperial council directs staff to return with data‑center moratorium after hours of public comment

The Imperial City Council voted to direct staff to prepare a moratorium on large‑scale data‑center development and bring the ordinance back for potential adoption at its June 3 meeting, after a lengthy public comment period in which residents urged action to protect water, air quality and local safety.

Residents and community organizers told the council they feared the proposed facilities would consume scarce water resources, produce noise and emissions and present fire and hazardous‑materials risks because of large on‑site lithium‑battery storage. “A moratorium is not fear. It is responsible governance,” Gina Snow said, urging the council to pause approvals while policy and zoning are updated. Abraham Zavala of Tectonic Justice said a moratorium would buy time to consult technical experts and stressed that current state and industry practices do not force transparent water‑use disclosures for such projects.

City staff framed the meeting as a listening session and described the city’s existing permitting process for large projects. The city attorney summarized two written public comments in the record—one from a regional West Shore advisory group calling for a moratorium, stronger CEQA review and protections for water and agricultural land, and one asking for a 1,000‑foot setback, noise rules, a water‑supply assessment and a decommissioning bond.

Council members said they supported a temporary pause while staff and the public work through potential zoning and general‑plan changes. One councilmember said the moratorium would allow “more public workshops and update our general plan and ordinance” before any new approvals. The council approved a motion to have staff return with the moratorium proposal and any required emergency findings for the June 3 meeting; the motion carried 4–0.

The direction to staff was procedural—council members and staff stressed that, under current law, large projects within city limits would still require CEQA review and the normal planning process. The city attorney said the moratorium process is available under state law but described it as “a limited process” that requires specific supporting findings; staff said backup materials would be included in the June 3 packet.

What happens next: staff will prepare the proposed moratorium resolution/ordinance and the supporting materials described by the city attorney for council consideration on June 3. The council’s direction does not itself impose a moratorium; adoption would require a subsequent formal vote after staff presents the ordinance and the emergency‑finding packet.

Votes and formal direction: The motion to direct staff to bring a moratorium to the June 3 meeting passed by voice vote, recorded as 4–0.