The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06 15 2026 - Item 9.4 - Armando Be1 Stefan Mercer From:Armando Be <barmando3@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2026 10:51 AM To:Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Carol Marques; Council Member Dion Bracco; Mayor Greg Bozzo; Council Member Kelly Ramirez; Matt Morley; Council Member Terence Fugazzi; Council Member Tom Cline; Public Comments Subject:EXTERNAL - FOLLOW UP TO 9.4. Consideration of Options for Amending the Architectural and Site Review Permit Process (FAIR Memo - Marques and Ramirez) Mayor and Council Members, and City Manager, Thank you for discussing the ordinance governing the approval of large industrial and technology projects. After watching the discussion, I am concerned that the conversation focused primarily on community outreach and communication while largely overlooking the more fundamental policy and governance issues raised by the Amazon AI Center approval. While transparency and public outreach are important, they are not the central issue. The concern expressed by many residents is not simply that they did not know about the project. The concern is whether the City's approval process and regulatory framework is appropriate for projects of this scale, impact, and significance. The staff characterization of the Amazon approval as an "anomaly." deserves particular attention. When a project approved is considered an anomaly, that should prompt a serious examination of the process that produced it and should raise important questions such as: What specifically made the Amazon approval an anomaly? When in the review process was the anomaly recognized? Who identified it? Has the City Manager conducted any review of the circumstances that led to it? What procedural or policy corrections are necessary to prevent similar situations in the future? The community deserves to know all aspects of the anomaly. Another discussion point was that the approval process has existed for a long time. That should also trigger questions such as: If the process has existed for a long time, was it designed with large- scale AI infrastructure, hyperscale data centers, and their associated water, power, and infrastructure demands in mind? Has the City evaluated whether a process created years ago remains appropriate for projects that may have impacts far beyond those contemplated when the ordinance was adopted? What changes in technology, energy consumption, water use, environmental considerations, and community expectations have occurred since the process was first established? If staff characterized the Amazon approval an "anomaly," does that suggest the existing process may not be well-suited for reviewing projects of this type and scale? Are there reasons why the City should not update its ordinances to provide additional oversight, public review, or Council involvement and a proper regulatory framework for future high-impact industrial and AI-related CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. 2 developments? Should the City wait until another project generates community controversy before examining whether the current approval framework remains adequate? One council member correctly observed that the City has regulations governing numerous commercial activities. That observation raises an important policy question: if the City regulates relatively small-scale commercial activities, why should it not carefully evaluate whether additional oversight and an updated regulatory framework is warranted for large industrial and AI-related facilities that may have significant impacts on water, energy, infrastructure, and land use? The discussion also included the observation that "we all use AI." Whether AI technology is beneficial is not the issue before the Council. Residents can support and use AI while still believing that large AI infrastructure projects deserve a higher level of review, greater transparency, and direct oversight by elected officials, and that they are appropriately regulated. The question is not whether AI is used by the Gilroy community. The question is what approval process should and regulations/standards apply when AI-related facilities are proposed in Gilroy. Water policy is another area that deserved greater attention. The Amazon project was evaluated under Valley Water's 2021 planning framework. Yet Valley Water is currently developing a new 2026 framework that will include provisions specifically addressing AI and similar high-demand facilities. Neither staff nor Council appeared to discuss why Valley Water is developing new AI-specific guidance, whether those emerging concerns were considered during Amazons's project review, or how future AI projects should be evaluated in light of changing regional water management policies. The discussion regarding a moratorium also raised important unanswered questions. Council was told that the Amazon approval took years to complete. However, no one asked whether future ordinance changes would apply to new applications submitted before the Council amends the applicable ordinance, or whether the City currently faces additional AI-related proposals that could be affected by future policy decisions. Those legal and procedural questions are directly relevant to evaluating whether legislative action would be meaningful. While staff reported that there are no current applications similar to Amazon AI, there could be one in the pipeline. Amazon still owns a 60- acreage undeveloped parcel. I ask what did the Council and City Staff know today (yesterday) about Amazon’s development plans for that parcel? Ultimately, I believe the discussion framed the issue too narrowly as a communication problem. Better communication may help residents understand future projects, but communication alone does not address the underlying questions of authority, accountability, oversight, environmental impacts, water resources, public participation, and the suitability of the City's approval process and regulatory framework for emerging technologies. You as elected representatives bear the responsibility to explain the current process and to determine whether the current process remains the right process and let the community know where you stand. I respectfully encourage the Council to continue this discussion with a focus on the broader policy questions that remain unresolved and to conduct a thorough review of whether the City's existing approval framework is appropriate for future AI and other high-impact industrial projects. Regards, 3 Armando Benavides Bcc: interested community members