City of Imperial officials say data-center applicant withdrew after staff required CEQA review; residents press for transparency

City of Imperial officials told a special council meeting May 20 that a proposed large data center near the city was withdrawn by the developer after staff repeatedly advised that the project would require discretionary review under the California Environmental Quality Act and a zoning amendment.

City manager Dennis Morita introduced community development director Othon Moda to present staff communications with the prospective developer, which Moda said began with an initial contact on Dec. 11, 2024 and moved through pre-application meetings and multiple revised site plans in May 2025. "We provided the applicant a comment in regard to CEQA," Moda said, adding that a later feasibility filing showed the project included battery storage that the applicant advised had increased to 600 megawatts.

Moda told the council staff judged the proposal was not a permitted use under current city ordinance and that the developer would need a zoning text amendment, public hearings and the CEQA process, including an initial study. He said staff gave the developer a typical timeline of six to nine months for discretionary review. Morita said the developer subsequently withdrew the application in August 2025 after correspondence with county officials led the applicant to believe the project might be a permitted use outside city jurisdiction.

The clerk reported the council briefly met in closed session earlier in the evening about pending litigation titled in part "City of Imperial v. Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing," and said "direction was given to council"; the clerk did not provide additional details about closed-session actions.

During public comment, a resident raised concerns about differing public explanations from county and city officials and said residents deserved "transparency" and clarity about how the project and related decisions had proceeded. Peter Rodriguez, another speaker, urged the council to review zoning procedures and said parcels could not be merged without rezoning, citing county code 9051 and the Subdivision Map Act.

City staff said the presentation slides and relevant communications are public and will be posted online; the clerk invited residents to submit additional records requests to the community development department. The council adjourned at 6:06 p.m.

The presentation and public comments did not result in any recorded votes; the meeting included a brief closed-session report and a staff presentation of the city's review history of the data-center proposal.