HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/16/2026 - Item 6.1 - Armando Be1
Stefan Mercer
To:Stefan Mercer
Subject:RE: EXTERNAL - 1. Recommend City Council Adopt a Zoning Code Amendment to
Modify Chapter 30, Article L of the Gilroy City Code Relating to Architectural and Site
Review Permit Process and to Enhance Public Outreach
From: Armando Be <barmando3@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 8:16 PM
To: Planning Division (Public) <planningdivision@cityofgilroy.org>
Subject: EXTERNAL - 1. Recommend City Council Adopt a Zoning Code Amendment to Modify Chapter 30, Article L of the
Gilroy City Code Relating to Architectural and Site Review Permit Process and to Enhance Public Outreach
Dear Chair and Members of the Planning Commission,
I appreciate the work of the Commission, City Council, and staff to improve public participation in
the Architectural and Site Review process. Requiring enhanced neighborhood notification, applicant-
hosted community meetings, and Planning Commission review for certain projects are positive steps
that increase transparency and provide additional opportunities for public engagement.
However, I respectfully believe the proposed ordinance does not go far enough to address the
issues and concerns that many residents have raised regarding future AI data centers and other
infrastructure-intensive industrial development.
The proposed amendment is primarily procedural. It changes how certain projects are reviewed but
does not establish objective development standards governing the size, intensity, or operational
characteristics of large data centers. As written, it does not establish limits on electrical demand,
water consumption, battery energy storage systems, emergency generator capacity, fuel storage,
campus size, or other infrastructure impacts that distinguish modern AI computing facilities from
traditional industrial uses.
Equally important, Planning Commission review is triggered only when a project requires an
Environmental Impact Report and is determined to have significant and unavoidable environmental
impacts. Many large projects are approved through the CEQA process with mitigation measures that
reduce impacts below that threshold, meaning they may continue to be reviewed administratively
despite their scale and resource demands.
Gilroy residents now recognize that data centers present land use and infrastructure issues that
differ significantly from traditional industrial development. They are aware that those facilities can
place extraordinary demands on electrical infrastructure, water resources, emergency services, and
industrial land.
For these reasons, large segments of the community encourage the Commission to recommend
that the City Council continue this policy discussion beyond the current procedural amendments.
Gilroy should consider developing a comprehensive Data Center Ordin ance that establishes objective
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
development standards before major projects are proposed. Such an ordinance could address issues
including electrical demand, water conservation, cooling technologies, battery energy storage
systems, emergency power infrastructure, industrial land preservation, public safety, and meaningful
public review based on project scale rather than solely on CEQA thresholds.
Establishing clear standards in advance benefits both the community and prospective applicants by
providing predictability, transparency, and consistency in the development review process. Rather
than evaluating these issues on a project-by-project basis, the City would have a clear policy
framework tailored to this rapidly growing industry.
Thank you for your consideration.
Armando Benavides