RULES COMMITTEE: 10/14/2026
Item: B.1
File ID: ROGC 26-366
TO: Honorable Mayor & FROM: Toni J. Taber, MMC
City Council City Clerk
SUBJECT: The Public Record DATE: October 14, 2026
October 1, 2026 – October 8, 2026
ITEMS FILED FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
Letters from Boards, Commissions, and Committees
Letters from the Public
1. Letter from Lisa Lubliner, received October 6, 2026, regarding: 650 Harry Road: What was disclosed before the rezoning vote?
1. Letter from Lisa Lubliner, received October 6, 2026, regarding: Public opposition — Prologis STEM Park data-center component
____________________________
Toni J. Taber, MMC
City Clerk
TJT/tt
Public Record: 1
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear Mayor Mahan and Councilmember Casey,
I am deeply troubled by Bob Staedler’s October 5 article in The Synergy Report, which raises serious questions about what Council and the public were told before the August 18 rezoning vote for 650 Harry Road.
According to the article, Blackstart and its partners were publicly discussing AI and data centers at the former IBM campus in April, and Blackstart Digital appeared in the City’s environmental-review record for the rezoning in June. Yet the Council discussion apparently treated a data-center project as largely hypothetical because no formal application had been filed.
I understand that rezoning did not approve a data center and that further approvals would be required. But the absence of a formal application does not adequately explain why an intended use already taking shape was not clearly disclosed. Residents deserved that context when asking Council to pause the decision.
Please provide a documented explanation of the following:
What did City staff and the applicant’s representative know about Blackstart’s plans before the August 18 vote?
What information about those plans was provided to Council and the public, and where does it appear in the record?
Did the preliminary filing or discussions mentioned during the hearing identify the anticipated scale, power demand, or other infrastructure needs?
Given the information reported in this article, will you request a public discussion of the timeline and the information underlying the rezoning decision?
It is particularly frustrating to learn of this timeline after residents’ requests for more time were rejected.
Public participation means little if residents are asked to comment without a clear picture of the intended development.
I would appreciate a substantive written response from both of you. What steps will you take to establish what was known before the vote and ensure that residents receive complete information before any further decisions about this property?
Sincerely,
Lisa Lubliner
Almaden Valley resident
10/8/26, 1:54 PM Inbox - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5M… 2/2 Public Record: 2