Data Center Fight Takes a Turn in Court: What Comes Next?

-Editorial 

An Imperial County Superior Court judge has tentatively ruled that two county ordinances restricting data center development failed to meet state requirements, leaving the county to consider whether to adopt a revised moratorium, pursue other land-use regulations, or allow affected applications to proceed under existing rules.

Judge Jeffrey B. Jones issued the Aug. 21 tentative ruling in a case brought by Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing LLC against the County of Imperial and the Imperial County Board of Supervisors.

The case involved Ordinance Nos. 1616 and 1618, which temporarily restricted data center development while the county considered changes to its land-use regulations.

Under Government Code Section 65858(c), an urgency ordinance must include findings that a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare exists and that approving applicable permits or entitlements would result in that threat.

Ordinance 1616 identified potential conflicts between data center development and proposed land-use regulations but did not establish that approving permits would create the required threat.

He reached a similar conclusion regarding Ordinance 1618, which cited pending data center applications and imminent development but did not explain how approving those applications would create a current and immediate threat.

The ruling grants the company’s petition for a writ of mandate and directs the county to set aside and cease enforcing the two ordinances.

The court did not determine whether the company’s projects should be approved or denied or which zoning regulations apply to the applications. It also denied the company’s request for an order requiring the county to process its applications in a specific manner.

Jones did not rule on the company’s remaining arguments, including claims involving the Permit Streamlining Act and applications previously deemed complete, because the Section 65858(c) finding was sufficient to resolve the case.

The county said it is preparing a new proposed data center moratorium for consideration by the Board of Supervisors.

A revised urgency ordinance would need to address the deficiencies identified by the court and satisfy state requirements for demonstrating an immediate threat.

The county also could consider permanent zoning regulations or other development standards, which could follow a different legal process. Another option would be to allow affected applications to proceed under the regulations that apply to them while considering longer-term land-use changes.

The court’s ruling does not establish which regulations govern the pending applications.

“The Board understands the need to approach the matter carefully and responsibly,” Board of Supervisors Chair Peggy Price said. “Our priority is to ensure that any action brought forward for consideration is thoughtful, legally sound, and responsive to the concerns that have been raised.”

The county said it is reviewing the ruling, state-law requirements, and the potential effect of pending litigation on its options and the timing of further action.

The ruling followed a July 28 hearing in Department 5 of the Imperial County Superior Court. The court said the matter was concluded in less than one judicial day and that no statement of decision had been requested. The petitioner was directed to prepare the proposed judgment.

The tentative ruling addresses the legality of the two urgency ordinances, but it does not resolve the broader policy debate over data center development in Imperial County or determine the outcome of the pending applications.