Will Imperial County Stop California’s Biggest Data Gallop?

The developer behind what would be Largest data center in California — a 1-million-foot campus in the Imperial County desert — isn’t budging as public opinion and local governments turn against it.

As CalMatters’ Deborah Brennan explains, Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, LLC wants to build what it calls a “hyperscale facility” in Imperial Valley. The company estimates the center — the size of 16 football fields — will create 100 long-term jobs and generate $28.7 million in annual tax revenue.

In April, the facility’s developer, Sebastian Rucci, cleared a key hurdle after county supervisors approved a plan to combine several parcels of land for the facility. But after months of public backlash, supervisors reversed their decision last week, calling for a 45-day moratorium and the creation of a public commission focused on the facility’s zoning policy.

The city of Imperial also filed a lawsuit challenging the review of the data center under state environmental law. And local voters are gathering signatures for a ballot measure to ban new data centers across the county — similar to The recent Monterey Park ban.

Meanwhile, Sen. Steve Padilla is pushing a handful of bills that would tighten regulations on building data centers in California, with one specifically targeting Imperial County. The Chula Vista Democrat’s proposal would increase the number of members on the county air board from five to 10 and include seats that would represent public health, environmental groups and agriculture.

• Padillaat a town hall in El Centro: “They can’t just come in and claim that … they have the right to build the largest data center in the state without any oversight.”

But Ruchi doesn’t give up. He plans to file a lawsuit to seek a temporary restraining order challenging the moratorium, arguing the county has failed to show a true emergency, explain the center’s potential harms and disclose specific concerns raised by residents.

• Ruchi: “People can’t just emotionally say, ‘I don’t like data centers.’ It’s just a building, but with much less intensive use than the other applications.

Read more.

To help address the state’s affordability crisis, the Legislature is proposing a bill that would cap homeowner association fees. But some Democrats question whether HOA fees are really to blame for rising costswrites Nadia Lathan of CalMatters.

The bill would cap how much HOAs can increase member dues each year from the current 20% to no more than 8%. More than a third of California residents live in an HOA and pay among the highest average monthly HOA fees in the nation, nearly $300.

Supporters of the bill say the cap will help families already struggling with rising mortgage rates and gas prices. But critics say the bill is unnecessary because HOA board members are unlikely to agree to dramatically raise their own fees.

In her opposition to the bill, state Sen. Catherine Blakespear defended HOA boards, saying they alone are not responsible for rising fees. She, along with five other Senate Democrats and the Republican majority, voted against the proposal last month. Either way, it passed the House on a 24-13 vote and is currently before the Assembly.

Read more.

From CalMatters homelessness reporter Marissa Kendall:

The Trump administration wants to change the way it funds homeless shelters and housing in California and other states.

Last year, he tried to move federal funds for the homeless away from permanent residence and in temporary housing that requires sobriety. The move, which runs counter to California’s “housing first” policy favoring a no-holds-barred approach to housing, was blocked by a federal judge.

Now the Trump administration is trying again. Once again he faces pushback.

This week, a group that includes the National Alliance to End Homelessness and Santa Clara County filed a dispute in federal court in Rhode Island to the Trump administration’s latest funding guidelines.

• Tony LoPrestiSanta Clara County Councilman, in a news release: “The Trump administration’s callous decision to take another stab at eliminating one of our nation’s most important homelessness prevention programs, after a federal court has already blocked the administration’s first attempt, shows a complete disregard for the people who depend on this funding to keep a roof over their heads.”

More than $4 billion in federal funding is at stake. The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimates the proposed changes could cost California nearly $238 million in permanent housing and threaten to put nearly 15,000 Californians back on the street.

• Scott TurnerHUD secretary, in a news release earlier this month: “The ‘housing first’ experiment failed Americans by housing the vulnerable without results. This ideology promised to end homelessness. Instead, billions of taxpayer dollars were spent while homelessness increased to record levels.”

Last year, Uber successfully pushed for a law that would reduce the required insurance coverage that uninsured and underinsured drivers must have. The ride-hailing company told lawmakers the policy is good for consumers because of rising insurance costs. But a consumer advocacy group claims Uber misled lawmakers by failing to disclose that the company pays its insurance. Read more by Levi Sumagaysay at CalMatters.