Residents urge moratorium, cite health and transparency concerns over proposed data center

Dozens of residents on Sept. 7 urged the Pittsburg City Council to impose a moratorium on the proposed hyperscale data center and to require baseline monitoring and stronger, enforceable protections before any construction moves forward. Speakers cited diesel-emission and noise concerns, community-notice gaps and the potential proximity of backup generators to schools.

"What pollutants will this facility put into our air? At what concentrations?" asked Jennifer Sherwood, who said she reviewed the emissions appendix on the city website and flagged the absence of pollutant concentration estimates for nearby residents. Sherwood told the council she was particularly concerned about the facility's 37.3-megawatt diesel generators and the health risks of nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter.

Other commenters proposed near-term technical risks. Lynn Doherty described low-frequency "infrasound" she said can travel long distances, cause sleep disturbance and other health effects, and urged immediate study and monitoring. Leticia Prescato, participating remotely, said the environmental materials identify Rancho Madonos Junior High School as a "sensitive receptor" and that the school's students are roughly 640 feet from the proposed backup generator area; she urged baseline sampling at the school before construction.

Speakers also pressed the council on water use and local impacts. One commenter noted a prior city statement that the developer would use recycled water for phase 1, and asked whether later phases could rely on potable water. Anthony Johnson said community protections written into settlement documents were only as strong as the city's enforcement capacity and asked how the city would hold a well-funded developer to its obligations.

Multiple residents said they had organized petitions and outreach; one speaker said more than 27,500 signatures oppose the project. Several asked the council to restore fuller public access to meetings and to expand notices beyond the legal minimum, including clearer committee schedules and membership.

City staff and council did not adopt a moratorium at the meeting. Instead, Councilmember Cabana moved that staff present a short informational report at a future meeting explaining the monitoring program, mitigation measures in the environmental documents and any settlement requirements; the motion was seconded and carried. The council said the presentation will summarize information already on the city website and describe how mitigation and enforcement would be handled under CEQA and any legally binding settlement language.

The public-comment period at the Sept. 7 meeting lasted more than an hour and repeatedly returned to public-health, noise, water and transparency concerns.