Original meeting video
Video supplied for the October 6, 2026 meeting. The player starts at the first relevant data-center comment. Open complete recording on YouTube. Times below link directly to the corresponding segment of the original recording.
Meeting markers
| Video time | Speaker / event | What was raised |
|---|---|---|
| 3:57–8:12 | Deborah (surname transcribed as Pulsecamp) | Former biomass plant operating history; existing use-permit conditions; CEQA, Air District monitoring, insurance, work hours, local hiring and hauling. |
| 8:30–10:03 | Mike (surname transcribed as Pulsecamp) | Questions New York GreenCloud website statements about operating status; requests a moratorium to allow further county study. |
| 1:25:18–1:26:16 | Board discussion of September 22 minutes | A supervisor reports that Laura Paul wanted more of her public comment reflected; other speakers explain that official meeting minutes record actions, not each statement. |
| 1:27:51–1:28:20 | Board approval | September 22 minutes approved with corrections relating to other items; no change to Laura Paul's requested level of detail is documented in this exchange. |
3:57 — Existing biomass use-permit conditions
Deborah, a nearby property owner, read from what she identified as conditions of the existing biomass permit. Her list included review of substantial changes for possible amended use permits, public hearing and environmental review; air-district and planning monitoring; annual proof of at least $5 million in liability insurance; construction-hour limits; local-hiring provisions; and trucking communications.
What is established: These specific conditions were described in public testimony. What is not established: whether each quoted condition remains in force for the current operator, which permit number is correct, or whether any condition has been violated. The permit number is garbled in the caption source and is not presented here as verified.
8:30 — New York GreenCloud claims and a moratorium request
Mike, another nearby resident, questioned website descriptions that he said implied active computing services at the site. He alleged those descriptions did not match on-site operations and again requested a temporary moratorium so the county could study the proposed new use.
This is an attributed public allegation, not a verified finding about the company's actual equipment, services or advertising.
1:25 — How public comments appear in official minutes
During the later approval of the September 22 meeting minutes, a supervisor reported that Laura Paul objected because the draft minutes did not specifically include her earlier public-comment information. Board participants explained that the county's minutes are action minutes and referred to the available meeting recording as evidence of what was said. They did not agree to a more detailed account of her comment in this exchange.
The prior September 22 record concerns the data-center discussion; the October 6 statement is relevant to documentation of public participation, but does not by itself demonstrate improper recordkeeping.
Documents that would resolve open questions
- Certified original use permit, amendments and conditions for the Buena Vista biomass property.
- Recent planning and Air District compliance correspondence or inspections, if any.
- The September 22 draft and final action minutes, alongside the recording.
- Dated captures of New York GreenCloud's relevant public claims and a verified statement of operational status.