At a minimum, the City must address the following:
1 Robust public outreach proportionate to the scale of this historic buildout 2 An independent cumulative impacts analysis covering all proposed and anticipated data center projects, rather than fragmented project-by-project review 3 A comprehensive study of air pollution from all backup power sources, fuel types, annual testing hours, outage scenarios, and emergency operating assumptions with clear mitigation requirements 4 Legal assurances regarding water quality and water use, including risks tied to closed-loop system blowdowns, failures, and backup water sourcing
5 Clear penalties, enforcement mechanisms, and accountability for violations of public health mandates
6 Full public disclosure of projected electricity demand, transmission and distribution upgrades, and any long-term cost risks to ratepayers
7 Baseline and ongoing public health monitoring for nearby communities, including impacts related to air quality, noise, and heat
8 Concrete job guarantees for permanent jobs, with local hire and labor standards 9 A community benefits framework with enforceable public accountability, not vague promises of economic growth
The memorandum from the City Manager’s office makes clear that the City is advancing a historic buildout tied to 2,000 MW of new regional transmission capacity and a growing pipeline of large-load projects. At the same time, it states that no additional City Council follow-up is expected beyond annual status reports, that no board or commission input is associated with this action, and that the entirety of the stated public outreach is that the memorandum will be posted on the City Council agenda website for the April 21, 2026 meeting. That is not meaningful public outreach for an item of enormous consequence.
A buildout of this scale demands public engagement proportionate to its impact. It is not enough to market San José to industry, hold press events, attend conferences, and meet with more than 50 potential developers while residents are treated as an afterthought and receive only an agenda posting after key frameworks are already underway. That imbalance is unacceptable, especially for infrastructure and land use decisions with potentially long-term consequences for public health, environmental quality, neighborhood conditions, and utility systems.
Residents deserve a dedicated public study session before San José moves further down a path that could lock in major pollution and public health burdens. If the City believes its safeguards are sufficient, then those claims should withstand public scrutiny, independent analysis, and questioning on the record. Anything less would fail both the spirit of Measure I and the public the Council is sworn to serve.
Annette Herz, 94040
---
[1]
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/95973/638574336991130000 [2] https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/114681/638627814182829342 - Annette
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
What are the taxation rates that are planned on these? What are they contributing? Are they building the schools that will be needed for the housing aforementioned? Or getting a waive since they “create jobs?” Are they paying federal taxes, state taxes, local taxes? What is the plan to keep them liable? If they do cause damage. Once these are built. They won’t go away. But city count some members can, and will be voted out who destroy the city or put it at risk.
I ask better of you all. Make your plans public and loud. Take a city-wide vote if you believe it’s truly wanted. Or just say no.
Do better for San Jose.
Sincerely,
Brittany Gross
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I’m also concerned because these data centers are starting to pop up in surrounding communities without input from the communities they affect. With the way global warming is not being addressed and the potential for the negative affects to our communities due to fire and/or drought we should have more input than we have previously. There is also the concern of losing farm land when food security is becoming an issue.
Thank you,
Gina Johnson
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 3 A comprehensive study of air pollution from all backup power sources, fuel types, annual testing hours, outage scenarios, and emergency operating assumptions with clear mitigation requirements 4 Legal assurances regarding water quality and water use, including risks tied to closed-loop system blowdowns, failures, and backup water sourcing
5 Clear penalties, enforcement mechanisms, and accountability for violations of public health mandates
6 Full public disclosure of projected electricity demand, transmission and distribution upgrades, and any long-term cost risks to ratepayers
7 Baseline and ongoing public health monitoring for nearby communities, including impacts related to air quality, noise, and heat
8 Concrete job guarantees for permanent jobs, with local hire and labor standards 9 A community benefits framework with enforceable public accountability, not vague promises of economic growth
The memorandum from the City Manager’s office makes clear that the City is advancing a historic buildout tied to 2,000 MW of new regional transmission capacity and a growing pipeline of large-load projects. At the same time, it states that no additional City Council follow-up is expected beyond annual status reports, that no board or commission input is associated with this action, and that the entirety of the stated public outreach is that the memorandum will be posted on the City Council agenda website for the April 21, 2026 meeting. That is not meaningful public outreach for an item of enormous consequence.
A buildout of this scale demands public engagement proportionate to its impact. It is not enough to market San José to industry, hold press events, attend conferences, and meet with more than 50 potential developers while residents are treated as an afterthought and receive only an agenda posting after key frameworks are already underway. That imbalance is unacceptable, especially for infrastructure and land use decisions with potentially long-term consequences for public health, environmental quality, neighborhood conditions, and utility systems.
Residents MUSt HAVE a dedicated public study session before San José moves further down a path that could lock in major pollution and public health burdens. If the City believes its safeguards are sufficient, then those claims should withstand public scrutiny, independent analysis, and questioning on the record. Anything less would fail both the spirit of Measure I and the public the Council is sworn to serve.
Stephanie Young, 95120
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Center for Biological Diversity
This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
1 April 21, 2026
San Jose City Council
VIA EMAIL
cc:
RE: April 21, 2026 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 3.4: Data Centers and PG&E Partnership Status Report
To the San Jose City Council,
The Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) submits this letter concurring with other residents and organizations requesting the City Council develop:
1. Robust public outreach proportionate to the scale of this historic buildout.
2. An independent cumulative impacts analysis covering all proposed and anticipated data center projects, rather than fragmented project-by-project review.
3. A comprehensive study of air pollution from all backup power sources, fuel types, annual testing hours, outage scenarios, and emergency operating assumptions with clear mitigation requirements.
4. Legal assurances regarding water quality and water use, including risks tied to closed- loop system blowdowns, failures, and backup water sourcing
5. Clear penalties, enforcement mechanisms, and accountability for violations of public health mandates.
6. Full public disclosure of projected electricity demand, transmission and distribution upgrades, and any long-term cost risks to ratepayers.
7. Baseline and ongoing public health monitoring for nearby communities, including impacts related to air quality, noise, and heat.
8. Concrete job guarantees for permanent jobs, with local hire and labor standards.
9. A community benefits framework with enforceable public accountability, not vague promises of economic growth
The Center shares concerns regarding the massive amounts of, sometimes potable, water consumption at data centers. In regards to local air quality alone, data centers are often clustered in areas that already face significant environmental injustices. For example, as illustrated in the
map below, in the nearby city of Santa Clara, 73 data centers operate across a nine-square-mile area.1
Taking a more granular look, as illustrated in the map below, the Bracher Neighborhood in Santa Clara includes 11 data centers across a 0.2 square mile area.2 In this cluster, Amazon Data Services deploys 45 diesel backup generators that operated for approximately 394 hours during 2023-2024.3 Additionally, 2403 Walsh Ave deploys 14 diesel backup generators that operated for approximately 241 hours during 2024-2025.4 Data is unavailable for the other nine data centers in the cluster.
1 Santa Clara Data Centers, Data Center Map, available at https://www.datacentermap.com/usa/california/santa-clara/ 2 Id.
3 Analysis derived from Bay Area Air Quality Management District response to public records request. 4 Id.
These 11 data centers are located only 700 feet away from a residential neighborhood that faces significant pollution and public health harms. The Bracher neighborhood ranks in CalEnviroScreen’s 68th percentile for pollution burden, 79th percentile for diesel particulate matter 2.5, and the community’s racial/ethnic profile includes 38% Asian American, 32% white, 20% Hispanic, and 5% African American.5
They are also only 1000 feet away from Bracher Elementary School. That school’s student body includes 40% economically disadvantaged students and 25% English language learners, while the schools’ racial/ethnic breakdown includes 49% Hispanic/Latino, 25.5% Asian or Asian/pacific islander, 11% white, and 4% black or African American.6
The City of San Jose must guard against such unjust siting practices. In addition, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District itself has expressed concerns with this clustering, and the need for an adequate cumulative impacts analysis of operating multiple generators at multiple (clustered) sites.
5 OEHHA, CalEnviroScreen 4.0, Data from Census Tract 6085505302, (May 1, 2023) available at https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/11d2f52282a54ceebcac7428e6184203/page/CalEnviroScreen- 4_0
6 U.S. News & World Report, Bracher Elementary, available at https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/california/bracher-elementary-240118#scores
In one comment to the California Energy Commission (“CEC”) regarding a proposed data center, BAAQMD itself urged the CEC: in an area that has “long been disproportionately impacted by air pollution and is identified as a priority community by the State of California as a Senate Bill 535 disadvantaged community, the Air District is concerned about the potential for any increase in emissions that could result from the Project . . . [and thus] the Air District encourages the CEC to go beyond current regulatory requirements and require the project applicant to adopt the use of cleaner, non-diesel technologies.”7
In another similar comment letter to the CEC regarding a data center, BAAQMD recommended onsite mitigation measures, including “[i]mplement green infrastructure and fossil fuel alternatives in the development and operation of the Project, such as solar photovoltaic (PV) panels, electric heat pump water heaters, and solar PV back-up generators with battery storage capacity, and commit to pursue carbon-free electricity service if on-site renewables do not meet the full electricity demand.”8
In a third example, BAAQMD urged the CEC to “incorporate additional alternative technologies such as solar, battery storage and/or fuel cells.”9
BAAQMD has further opposed certain data center industry practices of offsetting emissions: “[t]he Air District does not support the use of Emission Reduction Credits to offset NOx emissions to mitigate CEQA related impacts. Such banked emissions credits may have resulted from past and/or non-local sources, and do not reduce current local impacts.”10
BAAQMD currently does not conduct an adequate cumulative impacts assessment of all of these local impacts from data centers. It is imperative for the City to exercise its police power to protect the public health and welfare of its residents and the environment.
Sincerely,
/s/
Roger Lin
Meya Saenz Zagar
Energy Justice Program
Center for Biological Diversity
7 BAAQMD Letter to California Energy Commission Re: CA3 Data Center – Notice of Preparation (September 21, 2021).
8 BAAQMD Letter to California Energy Commission Re: STACK Trade Zone Park Draft Environmental Impact Report (March 13, 2023).
9 BAAQMD Letter to California Energy Commission Re: CA3 Backup Generating Facility – Vantage Draft Environmental Impact Report (March 8, 2022).
10 Id. (emphasis added).
holding a public study session on the cumulative public health impacts.
At a minimum, the City must address the following:
1 Robust public outreach proportionate to the scale of this historic buildout 2 An independent cumulative impacts analysis covering all proposed and anticipated data center projects, rather than fragmented project-by-project review 3 A comprehensive study of air pollution from all backup power sources, fuel types, annual testing hours, outage scenarios, and emergency operating assumptions with clear mitigation requirements 4 Legal assurances regarding water quality and water use, including risks tied to closed-loop system blowdowns, failures, and backup water sourcing
5 Clear penalties, enforcement mechanisms, and accountability for violations of public health mandates 6 Full public disclosure of projected electricity demand, transmission and distribution upgrades, and any long-term cost risks to ratepayers
7 Baseline and ongoing public health monitoring for nearby communities, including impacts related to air quality, noise, and heat
8 Concrete job guarantees for permanent jobs, with local hire and labor standards 9 A community benefits framework with enforceable public accountability, not vague promises of economic growth
The memorandum from the City Manager’s office makes clear that the City is advancing a historic buildout tied to 2,000 MW of new regional transmission capacity and a growing pipeline of large-load projects. At the same time, it states that no additional City Council follow-up is expected beyond annual status reports, that no board or commission input is associated with this action, and that the entirety of the stated public outreach is that the memorandum will be posted on the City Council agenda website for the April 21, 2026 meeting. That is not meaningful public outreach for an item of enormous consequence.
A buildout of this scale demands public engagement proportionate to its impact. It is not enough to market San José to industry, hold press events, attend conferences, and meet with more than 50 potential developers while residents are treated as an afterthought and receive only an agenda posting after key frameworks are already underway. That imbalance is unacceptable, especially for infrastructure and land use decisions with potentially long-term consequences for public health, environmental quality, neighborhood conditions, and utility systems.
Residents deserve a dedicated public study session before San José moves further down a path that could lock in major pollution and public health burdens. If the City believes its safeguards are sufficient, then those claims should withstand public scrutiny, independent analysis, and questioning on the record.
Anything less would fail both the spirit of Measure I and the public the Council is sworn to serve. ---
[1]
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/95973/638574336991130000 [2] https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/114681/638627814182829342 Sue Pires
South Side SJ long time resident
95119
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. leave us picking up the pieces of an economic crash when AI inevitably takes over the jobs that are now being offered to transplant workers. I believe that it is not a long-term investment, but an easy bid for economic growth that will not be worth the cultural and moral sacrifices that will be taken.
Furthermore, these data centers would continue a long history of disregard this city has for the wellbeing of the environment and their citizens. We have no idea what the environmental impact will be, nor will we be able to see the consequences until many years have passed.
Aja Macias, 95136
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Resource Security: Full disclosure of electricity demand, ratepayer cost risks, and legal assurances regarding water quality and usage.
Public Safeguards: Clear enforcement mechanisms for health mandates and ongoing monitoring for air quality and heat in affected neighborhoods
Economic Accountability: Enforceable community benefit frameworks and concrete local hire guarantees.
Marketing San José to over 50 developers while treating residents as an afterthought violates the spirit of our City Charter. I request that these plans be subjected to independent analysis and public questioning on the record before the City moves further down this path.
Respectfully,
Chris Lubawy