The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06 15 2026 - Item 8.1 added - Georgine Scott-CodigaPUBLIC COMMENT — AGENDA ITEM 8.1 To: City Clerk, City of Gilroy, for the record of the June 15, 2026 City Council meeting Re: Urban Water Management Plan Update — Undisclosed Basis for Table 7-2A Revisions and Withheld AKEL Engineering Final Technical Memorandum (November 2022) From: Georgine Scott-Codiga, Americans for Transparency (AFNPT@proton.me) This Council is being asked tonight to adopt an update to the City’s Urban Water Management Plan. I am asking the Council not to do so until two specific, document-based questions are answered. 1. The AKEL Engineering memo — named on tonight’s own agenda — has not been produced. The Water Supply Assessment for Project AS 20-23 (Appendix O to the certified EIR), at page 5-8, states: “The adequacy of the City’s domestic water, sewer, and recycled water system’s capacity to integrate the Project was modeled and evaluated in AKEL Engineering’s Final Technical Memorandum of the Gilroy Data Center Analysis (AKEL Engineering Group, November 2022).” That memorandum is the stated technical basis for the City’s finding that its water, sewer, and recycled water systems can absorb this project. It is not posted on the City’s project website. I submitted a Public Records Act request for it on May 21, 2026. I have not received it. And tonight’s own agenda, under Item 8’s “Site Records,” lists this same AKEL memorandum as a document related to the water plan now before you. Under CEQA Guidelines §15150, when an environmental document incorporates another document by reference as the basis for its analysis, that document must be available for public review. A document the City’s own EIR cites as the basis for a capacity finding — that the City’s own agenda names tonight — but that has not been produced to the public or in response to a CPRA request filed nearly a month ago, means the public cannot verify the basis for that finding. I am not asking the Council to evaluate AKEL’s conclusions tonight. I am asking the Council to recognize that no one outside the City has been able to see them. 2. The data underlying Table 7-2A has changed, and the City has not explained why. Table 7-2A — the Llagas Subbasin supply-and-demand budget — appears in both the WSA that supported this project’s water capacity finding and in tonight’s draft UWMP update, and the numbers are materially different. The WSA’s version, sourced to a supply document from August 2021, shows a subbasin surplus of only 354 acre-feet per year in 2025 and 702 acre- feet per year in 2030 — a system running at 99% of capacity. Tonight’s draft UWMP, sourced to an updated supply document from March 2026, shows a surplus of 3,863 acre-feet per year by 2030 — 92% of capacity. The difference is driven almost entirely by a roughly 3,000 acre-foot reduction in projected demand from “Other Users.” This project’s approved water demand — 23 acre-feet per year — was found adequate against a margin of 354 to 702 acre-feet. That margin has now more than quintupled in one planning cycle, based on a revision to a category of demand the City does not control and has not explained. Before this Council adopts new subbasin figures that will become the water- availability baseline for every future project in this city — not just this one — the public is entitled to know what changed in the “Other Users” projection, why, and on what document. What I am asking the Council to do tonight: 1. Decline to adopt the UWMP update until the AKEL Engineering Final Technical Memorandum (November 2022) — already named on tonight’s agenda as a Site Record — is produced to the public; 2. Direct staff to disclose the source document(s) and methodology underlying the revised “Other Users” demand projection in Table 7-2A, and explain how that revision relates to the much narrower margin the AS 20-23 water capacity finding actually relied on; and 3. Recognize that both of these unresolved questions bear directly on whether the City can currently demonstrate its data center water review framework is sound — a point I will address further under Item 9.4. The City cannot ask the public to approve a new water baseline while withholding the document that justified the old one, and while leaving unexplained a fivefold change in the margin that the City’s only approved data center was measured against. Respectfully submitted, Georgine Scott-Codiga Americans for Transparency AFNPT@proton.me CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. From:Americans For Non-Profit Transparency To:Public Comments Subject:EXTERNAL - Re: comments for 6/15 agenda items Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 7:21:58 AM Correction to written comment on Item 8.1 (AKEL memo reference): I want to correct one point in my submitted comment on Item 8.1. I stated that the AKEL Engineering Final Technical Memorandum (November 2022, referenced in WSA Appendix O as the basis for the Data Center's water capacity finding) was "named on tonight's agenda under Site Records." Upon review of the amended agenda packet, that document does not appear there. The agenda packet does include Akel Engineering Group as the firm that prepared the 2025 UWMP itself — a separate document. My request stands independent of this correction: the November 2022 memo remains the stated basis for the Project's water capacity finding, remains unproduced in response to my May 21 CPRA request, and remains relevant to tonight's UWMP adoption for the reasons stated in the remainder of my comment. thank you, Georgine Scott-Codiga American for Transparency Sent with Proton Mail secure email. On Sunday, June 14th, 2026 at 9:51 PM, Americans For Non-Profit Transparency <AFNPT@proton.me> wrote: Dear City Clerk: Please add my comments to tomorrow's agenda. 1. Comments for Agenda item 3.2 Public Comment by members of the public on items not on the agenda but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city council. (Item 1- CEQA) 2. Comments for Agenda item 8.1 Public Hearings Public Hearing and Adoption Pursuant to California Water Code Section 10642 for the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and the 2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan. (Item 2 UWMP - AKEL) 3. Comments for Item 9.4 Consideration of Options for Amending the Architectural and Site Review Permit Process (FAIR Memo) (Item 3 - 9.4 Moratorium) Please acknowledge this email w/items were received by replying with "received". Thank you, Georgine Scott-Codiga Americans for Transparency Sent with Proton Mail secure email.