What the Board heard about the proposed AI data center

Executive summary

The proposed Buena Vista AI data center generated an extended public-comment discussion at the September 22, 2026 Board of Supervisors meeting. Because the topic was raised under Public Matters Not on the Agenda, the chair stated at the outset that no action would be taken in that portion of the meeting. The discussion therefore produced no Board vote on a moratorium or on the data-center project itself. Meeting transcript

Many speakers asked the County to pause new or expanded large-scale data-center approvals while it studies land-use standards, water and wastewater, fire and wildfire response, roads and traffic, energy, public costs, noise and lighting, and disclosure requirements. Other speakers opposed a moratorium, emphasizing the existing permitting process, reuse of the former biomass facility, industrial tax revenue, and potential economic benefits. These were public positions presented at the meeting, not findings adopted by the Board.

How the discussion began

Supervisor Jeff Brown spoke before public testimony and asked attendees to consider the possibility that a data center could be developed on nearby tribal land outside ordinary County land-use control. He also described the possible project as small relative to gigawatt-scale data centers. Later speakers disputed or qualified parts of that framing, including the significance of project scale and the legal or practical implications of tribal sovereignty. The archive records those statements as positions expressed at the meeting rather than resolving those legal questions here.

What supporters of a temporary pause asked the County to study

Several residents and organizations supported some form of temporary moratorium or pause. Although their wording differed, the recurring requests fell into several categories:

• Land use and project definition: define what qualifies as a large-scale data center and review the computing facility together with related power, cooling, water, fuel, battery, utility, and construction components.
• Water and wastewater: identify the source and quantity of water, closed-loop fill and maintenance needs, drought-year reliability, wastewater handling, and groundwater implications.
• Fire, wildfire, and evacuation: evaluate industrial fire risks, fire flow, emergency access, evacuation routes, backup power, batteries, fuel or biomass systems, and the cost of added response capacity.
• Infrastructure and public cost: evaluate roads, truck traffic, utility upgrades, inspections, staffing, emergency services, and who would pay for project-caused costs.
• Community impacts: consider noise, lighting, air emissions, rural character, neighboring properties, and cumulative impacts.
• Process and transparency: disclose the actual project description and application status, allow public participation, and develop permanent standards before approvals are issued.

Craig Baracco, executive director of Foothill Conservancy, said his organization supported a moratorium and discussed using the urgency-ordinance process to allow time for study. Other speakers made similar requests. These were advocacy positions stated during public comment.

What speakers opposing a moratorium argued

Speakers opposing a pause argued that the proposal should be allowed to proceed through the normal permitting process rather than be stopped in advance. Supporters of the project described potential tax-base, employment, contracting, and site-reuse benefits; described the cooling and power concepts as comparatively limited; and emphasized that the former biomass plant already has existing approvals and infrastructure. Property-owner comments also raised the possibility that the land could be sold or developed differently if the project did not proceed. The archive does not treat those projected benefits or impacts as established facts until they are supported by project applications, agency records, studies, or other source documents.

Project status described at the meeting

Representation and recusal issue raised

Jamie Lubenko, who introduced herself at the meeting as District 5 Supervisor-elect, said the project should receive a fair review and the community should receive a fair review process. She also said she understood that Supervisor Oneto would likely have to recuse from a future decision involving the project and expressed hope that District 5 would have an opportunity to participate in a vote after the new term begins. The transcript also contains public comments about past recusals. Those remarks are preserved as statements made at the meeting; this report does not make an independent legal determination about any future recusal.

What the Board decided

Open questions

The meeting left several issues for later records or proceedings to resolve:

• What exact facilities and infrastructure will appear in New York GreenCloud's permit application?
• What water source, quantity, cooling design, wastewater system, fire-protection systems, roads, utility improvements, and construction impacts will be proposed?
• What existing approvals apply to the former biomass facility, and what new discretionary approvals or environmental review will the data-center proposal require?
• Will the Board place a temporary data-center moratorium or permanent zoning standards on a future agenda?
• What long-term jobs, tax revenues, public-service costs, and developer-funded improvements will be documented in the formal application or fiscal analysis?
• How will any future recusal and District 5 representation questions be handled when an actual decision is before the Board?

Source record

This report is based on the September 22, 2026 Board meeting video and the archive's timestamped working transcript. The County's meeting archive independently lists a Board of Supervisors meeting on that date. Where speakers made technical, legal, economic, or environmental claims, this report attributes those claims rather than adopting them as verified findings.