Original meeting video
Video supplied for the October 20, 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 sequence: timestamps from the supplied transcript
| Video time | Speaker / event | Record |
|---|---|---|
| 5:12 | Chair | States nonagenda public matters are for discussion and that no action will be taken during that part of the meeting. |
| 9:42–13:41Watch on YouTube | Jackie Vaughn | Third request to schedule discussion of a temporary data-center moratorium and countywide study. |
| 13:59–18:48Watch on YouTube | Board members | Discuss the Pioneer PG&E shutdown, constituents' concerns, and the prospect of agendizing that subject; no vote follows. |
| 19:09–22:04Watch on YouTube | Peggy Flynn (remote) | Describes community records requests, technical review, and public organizing if no county policy process begins. |
| 22:29–25:18Watch on YouTube | Julie Delbarba (remote) | Asks for an official explanation of capacity figures and updated permitting/environmental-review status. |
| 25:26–25:51Watch on YouTube | Board | Unanimously approves the day's agenda as presented; no data-center moratorium item is added. |
9:42 — Jackie Vaughn: repeated request to schedule a discussion
Vaughn, speaking for the Amador County Data Center Action group, said representatives had now appeared at three Board meetings seeking a temporary pause while the county studies data-center land use, infrastructure, water, roads, wildfire conditions and emergency-services costs. She acknowledged that a moratorium could not be adopted during general public comment and asked instead that a future policy discussion be placed on an agenda.
She requested a public staff report explaining either the county's proposed process or its reasons for finding a moratorium unnecessary. Her references to other California jurisdictions and to Proposition 45 are speaker assertions, not independently verified legal conclusions in this archive.
13:59 — PG&E discussion immediately afterward
After Vaughn's comment, supervisors discussed residents' experience of the recent Pioneer public-safety power shutoff. One speaker cited a Pioneer wind measurement, questioned whether the shutoff was justified, and asked whether the county should pursue a complaint. Other supervisors raised the possibility of different weather conditions at higher elevations and the difference between forecasts and conditions experienced on the ground.
At approximately 18:15, a speaker asked whether to agendize the topic; another cautioned that they were getting too far into an unagendized subject. The discussion concluded without a documented motion or vote to schedule it. PG&E's actual line-level reason, weather thresholds and county notifications cannot be established from the speakers' remarks alone.
19:09 — Peggy Flynn: community record-gathering plan
Flynn said the action group would continue collecting agency records, comparing historic permits with current project documents, seeking specialists in water, air quality, noise, fire safety, power and land use, and holding public forums. She explicitly distinguished voluntary surveys and petitions from scientific polling. She again asked the Board for a scheduled, county-run process.
22:29 — Julie Delbarba: project scope and environmental-review status
Delbarba cited descriptions of 18–18.5 MW historical generation, a 41 MW redevelopment concept, up to 16 MW associated with the data center, and a separate 5 MW initial/roughly 15 MW subsequent description. She acknowledged these may measure different aspects of the project and requested a reconciled official explanation.
She also characterized county planning correspondence from March as anticipating an EIR and an amended or new use permit, while describing an August 24 county response stating that no land-use application or environmental review had been initiated as of that date. These are her summaries of correspondence, not copies of the correspondence independently examined here. The current permitting status remains an open documentary question.
25:26 — Agenda approval and what did not occur
Following the public-comment period, the Board approved the regular meeting agenda as presented, 5–0. The provided transcript contains no motion to place the moratorium on a future agenda, no roll-call vote on such a motion, and no adopted moratorium. It also contains no vote to schedule the PG&E matter. Approval of the day's agenda should not be described as a vote rejecting a proposed future moratorium agenda item.