City of Imperial v County of Imperial
AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.
City of Imperial v. County of Imperial concerns environmental review of a proposed artificial-intelligence data center and supporting infrastructure near Aten and Clark roads in unincorporated Imperial County, California. On September 9, 2026, Judge L. Brooks Anderholt adopted his August 31 tentative decision, which rejected the County’s ministerial-exemption treatment of the integrated project and required an environmental impact report (EIR). The city was directed to prepare a judgment and writ within 10 days.[1][2]
Project and challenged approvals
The court described a proposal for an approximately 950,000-square-foot data center with a 330-megawatt load, a substation, battery energy storage, cooling and water-treatment facilities, transmission connections and proposed natural-gas backup generation. The challenged actions included a November 2025 grading-related CEQA exemption and the April 2026 lot merger and associated road-vacation determinations.[2]
The County and developer argued that the 2017 zoning amendment allowed data centers by right and that the later approvals applied fixed standards. The City and Sierra Club argued that the County had divided one integrated development into separate approvals and had not reviewed its site-specific environmental effects. Sierra Club intervened in the City’s action; the court’s account identifies its separately filed petition as ECU004734 and states that the related proceeding was stayed.[2]
Environmental-review decision
The adopted decision treats the grading, lot merger, road vacation, electrical facilities, water systems and related infrastructure as parts of one project. It explains that a permitted zoning use does not itself make every later approval ministerial. The grading provisions and their application gave the County authority to impose environmentally meaningful conditions, so the integrated project could not be exempted merely because some individual approvals used objective criteria.[2]
The court found that the record supported a fair argument of potentially significant effects involving energy infrastructure, water and wastewater, air emissions, hazardous materials and fire safety, traffic and noise, and cumulative development. It required preparation and consideration of an EIR for the project before the court. These findings concern potential effects requiring analysis; they do not establish that every predicted harm will occur.[2]
The decision preserves the 2017 zoning amendment. It holds that the earlier negative declaration did not independently establish project-specific environmental review for this materially more detailed development. Relevant prior environmental information could still be considered in the required review.[2]
Relief and procedural limits
The adopted decision grants the petitions in part. Its relief directs the County to set aside the challenged CEQA exemption determinations and affected grading, merger and road-vacation approvals to the specified extent, and to complete whole-project environmental review before reapproval or physical development committing it to the project. It also enjoins permit processing except as directed in the decision.[2]
The court does not direct ultimate approval or denial of the project or predetermine alternatives, mitigation or the environmental conclusions. The September 9 order adopts the August 31 decision and directs preparation of the judgment and writ within 10 days; it is distinct from an entered judgment or an issued writ. Later judgment, writ, new-trial or appellate proceedings are not established by these two documents.[1][2]
Related coverage
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Superior Court of California, County of Imperial, City of Imperial v. County of Imperial, ECU004457, Decision and Order to Prepare Judgment and Writ, September 9, 2026, pp. 1–2.
- ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 Superior Court of California, County of Imperial, ECU004457, Tentative Decision, August 31, 2026, pp. 1–20; adopted September 9, 2026.