Data center moratorium

Called in with a procedural question about when the data center moratorium could be discussed; told he was early.

Representing Riverbank Technology Centers, argued the moratorium would kill a billion-dollar redevelopment of the old aluminum plant that uses its own power and non-potable water; invited all to a Tuesday public meeting.

Speaking for the Western Steel Council and construction labor trust, warned the urgency ordinance findings may not meet the 65858 standard under recent case law and offered peer-reviewed research; later opposed the modular construction's prevailing-wage sidestep.

First-time speaker urged caution, citing noise, low-frequency sound effects on people and livestock, air pollution, and the site's proximity to a youth baseball field.

Supported the moratorium, flagged a scheduling conflict between the planning commission and the community workshop, and raised surveillance concerns about Epiq IO license plate data.

Called ten months too long, said modern facilities use golf-course-level water, and urged a compromise citing $5 million a year in potential city revenue.

This resident supported keeping the 45-day moratorium, saying the public needs independent, second-party information — not just AMEDIS's claims — and community meetings so residents understand what data centers mean for health, noise, and the environment.

Speaking as a process engineer, he said 45 days is short for a billion-dollar project but noted the facility's modular design makes expansion easy — and argued the moratorium won't truly delay a project with that much money behind it.

She backed the pause, saying if developers really have a billion dollars they can wait while the city educates residents and sorts facts from social-media fears about wastewater and pollution — and praising the council's questions.