HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 15 2026 - Item 9.4 - Gerogine Scott-CodigaPUBLIC COMMENT — AGENDA ITEM 9.4
To: City Clerk, City of Gilroy, for the record of the June 15, 2026 City Council meeting
Re: Request for Interim Urgency Ordinance Under Government Code §65858 —
Temporary Moratorium on New Data Center Applications
From: Georgine Scott-Codiga, Americans for Transparency (AFNPT@proton.me)
This Council has now received, in writing, four separate communications documenting the same
unresolved problem: the City cannot currently demonstrate, on the public record, the basis for
its own determination that Gilroy’s water, sewer, and recycled water systems can absorb a data
center of this scale. Tonight I am asking the Council to do what its own staff once suggested it
could do, and what this same agenda already shows the Council knows how to do on short
notice: adopt an interim urgency ordinance.
This Council has been on notice, repeatedly, and the record has only grown stronger.
On May 26, 2026, Americans for Transparency submitted a pre-application demand letter
putting the City on formal CEQA notice regarding Phase 2, with a 21-day response deadline of
June 16 — tomorrow. On June 4, 2026, every member of this Council was asked in writing
whether a project of this scale should have required a public hearing, and whether they would
support a zoning text amendment closing this gap. On June 5, 2026, a Formal Citywide Zoning
Proposal was submitted for this meeting’s consideration, presenting two co-equal options — a
citywide Use Permit requirement or a citywide prohibition, both modeled on Monterey Park
Ordinance No. 2278 — and explicitly asking the Council to direct staff to evaluate a §65858
interim urgency moratorium while that policy work proceeds. Tonight, under Item 8.1, I have
documented that the AKEL Engineering memorandum — the stated technical basis for the
City’s water capacity finding for this project — remains unproduced, despite being named on
tonight’s own agenda as a Site Record.
Staff’s own original recommendation for this item invited exactly this kind of proposal —
and it was removed.
The original agenda for Item 9.4 presented the Council with four possible directions, the fourth
of which was simply: “Propose other options.” The amended agenda narrows staff’s
recommendation to a single option — directing staff to enhance public outreach and begin a
Planning Commission review process for future EIR-significant projects.
I want to be precise about what that amended recommendation does and does not do. It is
prospective only, discretionary, and procedural: it would create a future review step for future
projects with significant and unavoidable impacts, but it does not require denial of any such
project — the City retains the ability to approve them anyway through a Statement of Overriding
Considerations. It does nothing about the zoning code defects that allowed this project to be
approved by a single administrative signature, with no hearing, in the first place. And it does
nothing to address the fact that, under the current code, a second application for a data center
of this scale could be filed and processed through that same administrative pathway tonight,
while this “enhanced outreach” process is still being drafted.
Staff’s own original framing acknowledged the Council was not limited to staff’s curated menu. I
am asking the Council to use that authority now — not to override staff’s recommendation, but
to add to it.
The threat is no longer hypothetical.
I have been informed by a Council member that a Phase 2 pre-authorization filing for this project
has already been submitted to the City, though I understand its status is still being clarified. If
that is accurate, then the scenario this Council was asked to guard against on June 5 — a new
application moving through the existing administrative pathway while the City’s policy review is
still pending — is not a future risk. It may already be underway. I will be seeking confirmation of
this directly from the City. But the Council does not need to wait for that confirmation to act
tonight; if anything, the uncertainty itself is part of the urgency.
The mechanism this Council needs is already on tonight’s own agenda.
Item 9.3, immediately before this item, asks this Council to introduce an urgency ordinance by
title only, waive further reading, and adopt it the same night — based on findings that immediate
implementation is necessary. If that procedure is appropriate tonight for campaign finance
regulations, it’s certainly appropriate tonight for a 45-day pause on new data center applications
while the AKEL memo, the Table 7-2A discrepancy, and the citywide zoning gap are resolved.
What I am asking the Council to do tonight:
1. In addition to whatever direction the Council gives on staff’s outreach/Planning
Commission recommendation, direct the City Attorney — using the same procedure as
Item 9.3 — to prepare and bring forward for adoption tonight, or at a special meeting
within days, an interim urgency ordinance under Government Code §65858 imposing a
45-day moratorium on new data center applications, prospective only and not affecting
the existing facility;
2. Ground that ordinance’s urgency findings in the facts already in this Council’s
possession: the unproduced AKEL memorandum naming this project specifically; the
unexplained Table 7-2A discrepancy; the administrative-approval pathway that remains
open for new applications under the current code; and the pending Formal Citywide
Zoning Proposal of June 5, which this moratorium would protect while the Council
studies it; and
3. If same-night adoption is not possible, direct staff to return with a draft ordinance within
30 to 45 days — on an expedited track specific to this moratorium, given that every
additional day without it leaves the current pathway open.
The Council has the documents. The Council has the precedent, two items earlier on tonight’s
own agenda. The Council had, in its own staff’s original recommendation, an open invitation to
consider exactly this kind of option. What has been missing is not authority or process — it is a
decision to use them.
Respectfully submitted,
Georgine Scott-Codiga
Americans for Transparency
AFNPT@proton.me