Imperial council extends temporary moratorium on data centers amid labor, siting and environmental study

The Imperial City Council on Wednesday unanimously approved Urgency Ordinance No. 835, extending an interim 45‑day moratorium on data‑center development so staff can finish defining data‑center categories, map feasible industrial sites and evaluate environmental and labor impacts.

The council opened a public hearing on the extension after staff said zoning does not currently list data centers as permitted or conditionally permitted uses and recommended more study of definitions (small, medium, large), distinctions such as colocation and enterprise data rooms, and siting constraints including a 1,000‑foot buffer from residences and schools. City staff identified one heavily industrial area in the city that might meet preliminary suitability tests but said more work, including environmental review, would be required.

The moratorium extension drew extensive public comment. Unions and trade representatives told the council they oppose blanket bans and urged clear, enforceable workforce standards and community benefit agreements that would secure local hiring, apprenticeship opportunities and use of certified electricians. Corey Schumacher, policy director of IBEW Local 569, told the council his union represents roughly 3,800 electricians and urged mandates for clean‑energy generation, energy storage and certified electricians across a data center’s life cycle. "We support requiring data centers to have community benefit agreements with strong labor standards," Schumacher said.

Sean Ellis, political director for UA Local 230 and vice president of the Imperial Valley building trades, said local workers travel long distances to find steady work and that a well‑structured project could provide sustained careers. "In principle, we're against any moratoriums and any bans, but . . . if an ordinance is passed where you can have good community benefit agreements, skilled and trained workforce, project labor agreements, an opportunity to take the data center and the power of that data center . . . to create jobs," Ellis said.

Other public commenters urged caution about siting, water and wastewater needs and asked the city to extract community benefits similar to examples cited from other jurisdictions. One staff presenter, Othon Mora, told the council recent research found small‑scale data centers statewide sometimes required environmental impact reports for associated infrastructure such as backup generators and wastewater facilities.

Councilmembers who spoke said the extension is intended as a pause to allow staff to gather information and craft zoning and mitigation measures, not as a permanent ban. Several members stressed that CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) and other environmental reviews will be required before major approvals. After discussion, a councilmember moved to adopt Ordinance 835 to extend Ordinance 834; the motion was seconded and carried 5‑0.

Next steps identified by staff include completing definitions for data‑center categories, mapping potentially suitable industrial parcels, evaluating buffer distances and school/residential proximity, and outlining potential environmental review pathways. The council asked staff to return with recommended zoning language and community benefit options for further council consideration.