HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 17 2026 - Item 8.1 - Donna Kennedy1
Stefan Mercer
From:Donna Kennedy <dkennedy5239@charter.net>
Sent:Sunday, August 16, 2026 1:27 PM
To:All Council Members
Subject:EXTERNAL - Ordinance Z-26-01. Protect the Public’s Right to a Hearing
Dear Council Members,
I urge you to adopt Ordinance Z-26-01 as approved by the Planning Commission, without the staff
revisions that would limit the public’s opportunity to participate.
Item 8.1 is not simply a procedural matter. It determines who has the authority to decide: the public,
through a Planning Commission hearing, or City staff, without a public hearing. The Planning
Commission voted 6-0 in favor of the version that preserves public participation. Staff subsequently
rewrote the ordinance in a way that retains that decision-making authority for itself.
That distinction matters because the City’s own permit, Condition 53 of AS 20-23, states that the
recycled water infrastructure is “a distinct project” subject to compliance with CEQA. The version of Z-
26-01 you adopt will therefore help determine whether the public has an opportunity to participate in
decisions concerning that project—the same project moving forward under Item 9.2.
Residents have a right to be concerned about the pattern developing across these decisions:
A data center was approved through a staff-level decision without a public hearing.
Z-26-01 was narrowed by staff after the Planning Commission unanimously supported the public’s
version.
A recycled water agreement is being negotiated by staff, without a public vote on its terms, under Item
9.2.
These decisions may involve different projects, but they raise the same fundamental question: Will
meaningful decisions affecting our community be made in public, with public participation, or behind
closed doors by staff?
The public should not be placed in a position where we are informed only after consequential decisions
have effectively been made.
There are also legitimate questions concerning potential conflicts or overlapping governmental roles.
Council Members Bracco, Fugazzi, and Ramirez serve on the SCRWA Board. The City Attorney serves as
SCRWA’s Acting General Counsel, and the City Administrator serves as SCRWA’s Manager. Given those
overlapping roles, residents deserve transparency regarding whether appropriate conflict-of-interest
reviews or determinations have been sought and obtained concerning votes involving SCRWA-connected
matters.
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
Before voting on Item 8.1, I respectfully ask that any Council Member with a potential conflict recuse
themselves or state clearly on the record whether they have sought and received a conflict-of-interest
determination concerning the matter. If such a determination exists, the public should be told what
determination was made. If none was sought or obtained, that should also be made clear before the
vote.
This is ultimately about public trust. Residents who have repeatedly asked for a moratorium, appeared at
City Hall, and submitted written questions deserve to know that their concerns are being heard and
considered—not simply acknowledged after decisions have already been made.
Please uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous decision and adopt the Planning Commission’s
version of Ordinance Z-26-01.
The public deserves a meaningful voice in decisions that affect our community. Please protect that
voice.
Respectfully,
Donna Kennedy
Gilroy, CA