200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd FL San José, CA 95113 tel (408) 535-3555 www.sanjoseca.gov/pbce Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
ROSALYNN HUGHEY, DIRECTOR
STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION
FILE NO. SP25-029
LOCATION OF PROPERTY 300 Holger Way
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow a data center use (20 megawatts [MW]) within an existing approximately
97,800-square-foot research and development building
on an approximately 4.86-gross-acre site. No changes to the site and building exterior are proposed. No
expansion of the existing building footprint or site
improvements are proposed. The project would involve
interior tenant improvements only, including
installation of data racks. No electrical and mechanical equipment, or emergency generators are proposed. No
grading, excavation, demolition, tree removals, or
landscaping changes are proposed.
CERTIFICATION
Under the provisions of Sections 15332 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as stated below, this project is found to be exempt from the environmental review requirements of Title 21 of the San José Municipal Code, implementing CEQA of 1970, as amended.
15332. IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section:
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
ANALYSIS
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
The project site is in the Industrial Park (IP) Zoning District, which allows “data center” use subject to approval of a SUP. No exterior modifications would be made to the existing building, which will Attachment A: In-Fill Exemption for 300 Holger Way Page 1 SP25-029 300 Holger Way Page 2 of 4
remain consistent with the setback and height requirements of the Industrial Park Zoning District.
Pursuant to approval of SUP, the project would comply with the development standards of the Industrial Park zoning district. The project site is designated Combined Industrial/Commercial within the Land Use/Transportation diagram of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan. Properties with this designation are intended for commercial, office, or industrial developments or a compatible mix of these uses. The proposed reuse of the building as a data center is generally consistent with the General Plan designation because the project would preserve existing industrial areas and not establish any nonindustrial uses that are incompatible with the land use designation. b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
The project site is approximately 4.86 gross acres and is located within the City limits in an urbanized area. The site is surrounded by industrial uses to the east, south, and west. Directly north of the site is California State Route 237. A map of the project site is shown in Figure 1. c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
Although the project site is located in a Burrowing Owl Fee Zone, the project site is currently developed with an existing 97,800-square-foot research and development building and parking lot. Furthermore, no changes to the site and building exterior are proposed. Therefore, the project site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species and burrowing owl fees are not required for the project. d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
Air Quality
Construction
No changes to the site and building exterior are proposed. No new construction, demolition, or landscaping (including tree removals) are proposed. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to construction air quality.
Operation
The proposed use is a data center, which does not require regular employees for its operation; less employees are anticipated at the project site than in its current research and development use. Therefore the project would have no significant impacts to operational air quality.
Noise
Construction
No changes to the site and building exterior are proposed. No new construction, demolition, or landscaping (including tree removals) are proposed. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to construction noise.
Operation
The proposed use is a data center, which does not require regular employees for its operation; less employees are anticipated at the project site than in its current research and development use. Therefore there would be no increase in traffic noise. No generators are proposed as a part of the project. The project would have no impacts to operational noise.
Attachment A: In-Fill Exemption for 300 Holger Way Page 2 SP25-029 300 Holger Way Page 3 of 4
Traffic
The project would have no impacts to traffic because the project is expected to result in less-thansignificant VMT impacts based on Table 1 (Screening Criteria for CEQA Transportation Analysis for Development Projects) of the Transportation Analysis Handbook 2023, as an equivalent small industrial infill project of 30,000 square feet of gross floor area or less. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual 12th Edition, the equivalent industrial square footage of 97,800 square feet of data center building is 19,800 square feet. Additionally, the projected traffic for the project was reviewed and found to be minimal due to fewer employees compared to the existing research and development use.
Water Quality
No grading is proposed as part of the project. Therefore, there would be no impacts to hydrology, water quality, and flood risk.
e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The project site is already served by existing utilities and public services. No off-site utility expansion is proposed. The existing two inch water pipeline would be able to accommodate the potable water demands associated with the proposed operations.
EXCEPTIONS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 provides exceptions to the use of Categorical Exemptions where the use of a Categorical Exemption is prohibited under certain circumstances. The City has considered the projects applicability to all of the exceptions under Section 15300.2. An analysis of each of these exceptions in reference to this specific project is provided below. (a) Location. Section 15300.2(a) does not apply to the Class Category 32 of exemptions. (b) Cumulative Impact. Based on the above analysis, there is no evidence of a potential significant cumulative impact on the environment from the proposed project. It has been determined that the project will not cumulatively impact traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality because there will be no physical changes to the project site.
(c) Significant Effect. The proposed project would be located within an existing building on a previously disturbed sight, and no grading is proposed. The project site does not have any unusual circumstances that would result in any significant effects on the environment. (d) Scenic Highways. The project site is not close to a scenic highway. The nearest scenic highway is Highway 9, which is 12.5 miles away.
(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. The project site is not on any list complied pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
(f) Historical Resources. Historical resources are not located on or adjacent to the project site.
Attachment A: In-Fill Exemption for 300 Holger Way Page 3 SP25-029 300 Holger Way Page 4 of 4
CHRIS BURTON, Director
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
Date June 2, 2026
Deputy
Charlotte Yuen
Environmental Project Manager
Attachment A: In-Fill Exemption for 300 Holger Way Page 4
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
FILE NO. SP25-029 & ER25-243
LOCATION OF PROPERTY South side of Holger Way, approximately 1,870 feet west of Zanker Road (300 Holger
Way; APN 097-03-132)
ZONING DISTRICT IP Industrial Park
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Combined Industrial/Commercial PROPOSED USE Special Use Permit to allow a data center use within an existing approximately 97,800-
square-foot research and development
building on an approximately 4.86-gross-acre
site.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 for infill-development projects
APPLICANT/OWNER ADDRESS Allison Koo
Holger Technology Partners LLC
2765 Sand Hill Road, STE 200
Menlo Park, CA 94025
FACTS AND FINDINGS
The Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement determines, concludes, and finds, as follows, for this proposed project:
1. Project Description. This Special Use Permit would allow a data center use within an existing approximately 97,800-square-foot research and development building on an approximately 4.86-gross-acre site. No changes to the existing site or building exterior are proposed. The project would not include any expansion of the existing building footprint or site improvements. Proposed improvements are limited to interior tenant improvements, including the installation of data racks. No mechanical equipment, emergency generators, grading, excavation, demolition, tree removal, or landscaping modifications are included.
2. Site Description and Surrounding Uses. The subject 4.86-gross-acre site is located on the south side of Holger Way, approximately 1,870 feet west of Zanker Road (300 Holger Way; APN 097-03-132). The site is currently developed with an approximately 97,800-square-foot research and development building and surface parking areas. Access to the site is provided by two driveways along Holger Way.
The site is surrounded by research and development buildings to the east, south, and west, and a mobile home park to the southeast. Directly north of the site is California State Route 237. The site is within 0.1-mile walking distance from an ACE train shuttle stop located to the west of the site along Holger Way. The nearest bus stop is VTA Route 59 along North 1st Street, approximately 0.5 miles southwest of the site.
Attachment B: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 1 File No. SP25-029 & ER25-243
3. Special Use Permit Findings. Chapter 20.100 of Title 20 of the San José Municipal Code establishes required findings for issuance of a Special Use Permit, which findings are made for the Project based on the above-stated findings related to General Plan, Zoning, and CEQA conformance, and for the reasons stated below, and subject to the conditions set forth in this permit.
a. The Special Use Permit, as approved, is consistent with and will further the policies of the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans and area development policies; and General Plan Conformance. The subject site is designated Combined Industrial/Commercial (CIC) on the Land Use/Transportation Diagram of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan. Density: Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Up to 12.
Properties with this designation are intended for commercial, office, or industrial developments or a compatible mix of these uses. This designation occurs in areas where the existing development pattern exhibits a mix of commercial and industrial land uses or in areas on the boundary between commercial and industrial uses. Development intensity can vary significantly in this designation based on the nature of specific uses likely to occur in a particular area.
Analysis: The existing building is approximately 97,800 square feet, resulting in a Floor Area Ratio of approximately 0.46, consistent with the maximum Floor Area Ratio allowed. The project does not expand the building and would not change the FAR. In addition, data center uses are appropriate uses within the Combined Industrial/ Commercial land use designation. Therefore, the project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation.
The project is also consistent with the following Envision San José 2040 General Plan policies:
Land Use Policy LU-6.4: Encourage the development of new industrial areas and the redevelopment of existing older or marginal industrial areas with new industrial uses, particularly in locations which facilitate efficient commute patterns. Use available public financing to provide necessary infrastructure improvements as one means of encouraging this economic development and revitalization.
Land Use Policy LU-6.8: Reserve industrial areas for industrial and compatible support uses, while recognizing that industrial uses come in a variety of types and forms. Allow non-industrial uses which are only incidental to and totally compatible with primary industrial uses in exclusively industrial areas. Consider allowing supportive, nonindustrial activities such as retail sales of materials manufactured or stored on-site.
Analysis for LU-6.4 and LU-6.8: The data center use would preserve existing industrial areas. The project would not establish any non-industrial uses that are incompatible with the data center use. Therefore, the project is consistent with these policies. b. The Special Use Permit, as approved, conforms with the Zoning Code and all other provisions of the San José Municipal Code applicable to the project; and Zoning Conformance. The subject site is in the Industrial Park (IP) Zoning District.
The following uses and Development Standards are consistent with the IP Zoning District:
Land Use: Pursuant to Table 20-110 in Section 20.50.100, data center uses require a Special Use Permit within the IP Zoning District.
Attachment B: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 2 File No. SP25-029 & ER25-243
Development Standards: The project does not change the building exterior and would not result in changing the building height and setbacks.
Vehicle Parking and Transportation Demand Management
Pursuant to Chapter 20.90, the project is not subject to minimum vehicle parking requirements. The existing research and development use is considered a Commute End Use, and the proposed data center use is considered an Other Use in Table 20-190, Section 20.90.060. As the project consists of a change in Transportation Demand Management (TDM) use category, a TDM Plan will be required, pursuant to Section
20.90.900.B.1.
As the project includes 30,000 to 300,000 square feet of Other Uses, the project is classified as a Level 1 project in Table 20-250, Section 20.90.910. Level 1 projects consisting of Other Uses are required to achieve five points.
Analysis: The TDM Plan dated 13
th April 2026, prepared by TDM Specialists, Inc., states that the project will achieve five points with the implementation of the following TDM measures:
i. Provide alternative transportation benefits to Project employees, which may include financial subsidies or pre-tax deductions for transit, vanpooling, carpooling, bikesharing, scooter-sharing, and car-sharing trips. (TP-11) (four points) ii. Provide a ride-matching service or platform to match Project residents/employees interested in carpooling or vanpooling who have similar commute patterns. (TP13) (one point) Conditions 9 and 10 of this permit require that the project is consistent with the TDM Plan.
Therefore, the project complies with the Zoning Code’s TDM requirements.
Bicycle Parking:
Ratio Floor Area Required
1 per 5,000 square feet of office/
meeting/technician workspace
0 square feet 0 spaces
1 per 50,000 square feet of floor
area devoted to computer
equipment space
83,130 square feet
(85 percent of gross
square footage)
2 spaces
3 Total (see below)
Analysis: Pursuant to Section 20.90.060.B.3, a minimum of three bicycle parking spaces (two short-term and one long-term) is required for non-residential uses. There are six existing bicycle parking spaces near the front entrance of the building. One long-term bicycle parking space is provided in the building, on the ground floor. Therefore, the project meets the bicycle parking space requirement.
Two-Wheeled Motorized Vehicle Parking: No new motorcycle parking is required because the project does not change the parking lot layout. c. The Special Use Permit, as approved, is consistent with applicable City Council policies, or counterbalancing considerations justify the inconsistency; and City Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy for Pending Land Use Decisions.
Staff followed Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy in order to inform the public of the proposed project. A project information sign was posted on-site on January 30, Attachment B: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 3 File No. SP25-029 & ER25-243
2026. A notice of the public hearing was distributed to the owners and tenants of all properties located within 500 feet of the project site and posted on the City website. The staff report is also posted on the City's website. Staff has also been available to respond to questions from the public.
d. The proposed use at the location requested will not:
i. Adversely affect the peace, health, safety, morals or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area, or
ii. Impair the utility or value of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site; or
iii. Be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare; and Analysis: The project site is primarily surrounded by industrial uses, with the exception of a mobile home park located southeast of the site. The project would allow a data center use within an existing research and development building. No expansion of the existing building footprint or site improvements are included with the project. The project is limited to interior tenant improvements, including the installation of data racks. No mechanical equipment, emergency generators, grading, excavation, demolition, tree removal, or landscaping modifications are included. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial noise, vibration, or air quality impacts.
The project site is currently served by existing utilities and public services, and no off-site utility improvements or expansions are included with the project. Per the Final Public Works Memorandum dated June 9, 2026, the project is expected to generate minimal traffic due to fewer employees compared to the existing research and development use.
Additionally, the project will be subject to further review by the Building Division and Fire Department during the Building Permit process. Compliance with applicable local ordinances, building and fire codes, and accessibility regulations during the building Permit process would ensure the project operates in a safe and orderly manner without creating adverse effects on the surrounding area.
Therefore, the project would not adversely affect the peace, health, safety, morals, or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area; impair the utility or value of nearby properties; or be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare. e. The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this title, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate the use with existing and planned uses in the surrounding area; and
Analysis: The project only includes tenant improvements (installation of data racks) and would not change the existing site layout. The existing landscaping, parking, and loading facilities will remain.
f. The proposed site is adequately served:
i. By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to carry the kind of quantity or traffic such use would generate; or by other forms of transit adequate to carry the kind and quantity of individuals such use would generate; and ii. By other public and private service facilities as are required.
Attachment B: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 4 File No. SP25-029 & ER25-243
Analysis: The project site has two vehicular access points from Holger Way and is located near California State Route 237 and Zanker Road. The site is also within a 0.1- mile walking distance of an ACE train shuttle stop and approximately 0.5 miles from a VTA Route 59 bus stop. The site is adequately served by existing utilities and public services, and the project development would not result in significant impacts related to circulation, access, or the availability of public services. g. The environmental impacts of the project, including but not limited to noise, vibration, dust, drainage, erosion, storm water runoff, and odor, which, even if insignificant for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), will not have an unacceptable negative effect on adjacent property or properties.
Analysis: Under the provisions of Sections 15332 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is found to be exempt from the environmental review requirements of Title 21 of the San José Municipal Code, implementing CEQA of 1970, as amended. The project site is less than five acres, located within an urbanized area, served by existing utilities and public services, and does not contain habitat value for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
The project is limited to interior tenant improvements, including the installation of data racks, and does not include exterior building modifications, site improvements, grading, excavation, demolition, tree removal, or landscaping changes. Therefore, the project would not result in significant impacts related to noise, air quality, or water quality.
As stated in the Public Works Final Memorandum dated June 9, 2026, the project would not result in transportation impacts, as it is expected to have less-than-significant vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts. Additionally, the projected traffic generated by the project would be minimal due to the anticipated reduction in employees compared to the existing research and development use. Therefore, the project qualifies for the Class 32 Infill Development exemption.
In accordance with the findings set forth above, a Special Use Permit for said purpose specified above and subject to each and all of the conditions hereinafter set forth is hereby granted. The Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement expressly declares that it would not have granted this Permit except upon and subject to each and all of said conditions, each and all of which conditions shall run with the land and be binding upon the owner and all subsequent owners of the subject property, and all persons who use the subject property for the use conditionally permitted hereby.
APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Acceptance of Permit. Per San José Municipal Code Section 20.100.290(B), should Permittee fail to file a timely and valid appeal of this Permit within the applicable appeal period, such inaction by the Permittee shall be deemed to constitute all of the following on behalf of the Permittee:
a. Acceptance of the Permit by the Permittee; and
b. Agreement by the Permittee to be bound by, to comply with, and to do all things required of or by the Permittee pursuant to all of the terms, provisions, and conditions of this permit or other approval and the provisions of Title 20 applicable to such Permit.
Attachment B: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 5 File No. SP25-029 & ER25-243
2. Permit Expiration. This Permit shall automatically expire two (2) years from and after the date of issuance hereof by the Director, if, within such time period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings (if a Building Permit is required) has not commenced, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of this Permit. The date of issuance is the date this Permit is approved by the Director of Planning. However, the Director of Planning may approve a Permit Adjustment/Amendment to extend the validity of this Permit in accordance with Title
20. The Permit Adjustment/Amendment must be approved prior to the expiration of this Permit.
3. Building Permit/Certificate of Occupancy. Procurement of a Building Permit and/or Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Official for the structures described or contemplated under this Permit shall be deemed acceptance of all conditions specified in this Permit and the Permittee's agreement to fully comply with all of said conditions. No change in the character of occupancy or change to a different group of occupancies as described in the Building Code shall be made without first obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Official, as required under San José Municipal Code Section 24.02.610, and any such change in occupancy must comply with all other applicable local and state laws.
4. Sewage Treatment Demand. Pursuant to Chapter 15.12 of Title 15 of the San José Municipal Code, acceptance of this Permit by Permittee shall constitute acknowledgement of receipt of notice by Permittee that (1) no vested right to a Building Permit shall accrue as the result of the granting of this Permit when and if the City Manager makes a determination that the cumulative sewage treatment demand of the San José - Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility represented by approved land uses in the area served by said Facility will cause the total sewage treatment demand to meet or exceed the capacity of San José - Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility to treat such sewage adequately and within the discharge standards imposed on the City by the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region; (2) substantive conditions designed to decrease sanitary sewage associated with any land use approval may be imposed by the approval authority; (3) issuance of a Building Permit to implement this Permit may be suspended, conditioned or denied where the City Manager makes a determination that such action is necessary to remain within the aggregate operational capacity of the sanitary sewer system available to the City of San José or to meet the discharge standards of the sanitary sewer system imposed on the City by the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region.
5. Conformance to Plans. The development of the site and all associated development and improvements shall conform to the approved Special Use Permit plans entitled, “ 300 Holger Special Use Permit” last revised on April 20, 2026, on file with the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, as may be amended, and approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, and shall conform to the San José Building Code (San José Municipal Code, Title 24). The plans are referred to herein as the “approved plans” or the “Approved Plan Set.”
6. Use Authorization. This Special Use Permit allows a data center use within the subject building on an approximately 4.86-gross-acre site. No mechanical equipment, emergency generators, grading, excavation, demolition, tree removal, or landscaping modifications are included.
7. Compliance with Local, State, and Federal Laws. The subject use shall be conducted in full compliance with all local, state, and federal laws.
8. Discretionary Review. The City maintains the right of discretionary review of requests to alter or amend structures, conditions, or restrictions of this Permit incorporated by reference in accordance with Chapter 20.100 of the San José Municipal Code.
Attachment B: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 6 File No. SP25-029 & ER25-243
9. Conformance to Transportation Demand Management Plan. The project shall conform to the approved Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan entitled “300 Holger Way, San Jose, CA Transportation Demand Management Plan, updated April 16, 2026, on file with the Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement (“Approved TDM Plan”), with the exception of any subsequently approved modifications. Modifications to the Approved TDM Plan can be made as provided by Section 20.90.912 of the Municipal Code, as may be amended.
10. Transportation Demand Management Plan requirements. This project requires a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan for the lifetime of the project, which shall mean until such time as the project is demolished, or such time as the project is added to or replaced with a new project that is subject to the requirements of Section 20.90, Part 9, as may be amended.
a. Covenant and Agreement. The project shall execute and record a Covenant and Agreement that runs with the land, that an approved TDM Plan and the TDM Strategies contained therein will be maintained throughout the lifetime of the project. A TDM Plan may be modified at the discretion of the TDM Coordinator pursuant to Section 20.90.910.C, as may be amended. No Building Permit for new construction shall be issued to a Project without an approved TDM Plan and recorded Covenant and Agreement. b. Strategy Implementation. The project shall implement the TDM Strategies in the project's approved TDM Plan throughout the lifetime of the Project. c. Compliance Documentation. The project shall submit TDM Plan Compliance Documentation pursuant to Section 20.90.910.A.1.b, as may be amended, for all projects and, pursuant to Section 20.90.910.A.1.c, as may be amended, not more than one year after receiving its Certificate of Occupancy.
11. TDM Compliance and Enforcement. The TDM Coordinator shall be responsible for enforcing continual compliance with the requirements of the TDM Program. a. Compliance with TDM Program. No building, grading, demolition, foundation, use of land or change of use permit, nor Certificate of Occupancy, shall be issued for any building or site that contains a Project that is not in compliance with the requirements of the TDM Program.
b. City Access. The project shall allow City staff access to relevant portions of the property to conduct site visits, inspect physical improvements, collect empirical data, and/or facilitate phone, and/or digital surveys with residents, tenants, employees, and visitors. City staff shall provide advance notice of request for access.
12. Nuisance. This use shall be operated in a manner that does not create a public or private nuisance. Any such nuisance must be abated immediately upon notice by the City.
13. Refuse. All trash and refuse storage areas shall be effectively screened from view and covered and maintained in an orderly state to prevent water from entering the trash or refuse containers.
Trash areas shall be maintained in a manner to discourage illegal dumping.
14. Outdoor Storage. No outdoor storage is allowed or permitted unless designated on the Approved Plan Set.
15. Utilities. All new on-site telephones, electrical, and other service facilities shall be placed underground.
16. Anti-Graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed from buildings and wall surfaces, including job sites for projects under construction, within 48 hours of defacement.
Attachment B: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 7 File No. SP25-029 & ER25-243
17. Anti-Litter. The site and surrounding area shall be maintained free of litter, refuse, and debris. Cleaning shall include keeping all publicly used areas free of litter, trash, cigarette butts, and garbage.
18. No Sign Approval. Any signage shown on the Approved Plan Set are conceptual only. No signs are approved at this time. Any signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning through a subsequent Permit Adjustment.
19. No Generators Approved. This Permit does not include the approval of any standby/backup electrical power generation facility. Any future stand-by/backup generators shall secure appropriate permits and shall conform to the regulations of Title 20 of the Municipal Code.
20. Building and Property Maintenance. The property shall be maintained in good visual and functional condition. This shall include, but not be limited to, all exterior elements of the buildings such as paint, roof, paving, signs, lighting, and landscaping.
21. Street Number Visibility. Street numbers of the buildings shall be easily visible from the street at all times, day and night.
22. No Extended Construction Hours. This Permit does not allow any construction activity on a site located within 500 feet of a residential unit before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or at any time on weekends.
23. Construction Disturbance Coordinator. Rules and regulations pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this Permit, along with the name and telephone number of a Permittee-appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent location at the entrance to the job site.
24. Recycling. Scrap construction and demolition material shall be recycled. Integrated Waste Management staff at (408) 535-8550 can provide assistance on how to recycle construction and demolition debris from the project, including information on available haulers and processors.
25. Building Division Clearance for Issuing Permits. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the following requirements must be met to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official:
a. Construction Plans. This permit file number, SP25-029, shall be printed on all construction plans submitted to the Building Division.
b. Americans with Disabilities Act. The Permittee shall provide appropriate access as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
c. Emergency Address Card. The project Permittee shall file an Emergency Address Card, Form 200-14, with the City of San José Police Department. d. Construction Plan Conformance. A project construction plan conformance review by the Planning Division is required. Planning Division review for project conformance begins with the initial plan check submittal to the Building Division. Prior to any building permit issuance, building permit plans shall conform to the approved Planning development permits and applicable conditions.
e. Other. Such other requirements as may be specified by the Chief Building Official.
26. Bureau of Fire Department Clearance for Issuing Permits. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the project must comply with the 2025 California Fire Code, or as may be amended or updated by the City.
Attachment B: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 8 File No. SP25-029 & ER25-243
27. Public Works Clearance for Building Permit(s) or Map Approval: Prior to the approval of the Tract or Parcel Map (if applicable) by the Director of Public Works, or the issuance of Building permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant will be required to have satisfied all of the following Public Works conditions. The applicant is strongly advised to apply for any necessary Public Works permits prior to applying for Building permits. Standard review timelines and submittal instructions for Public Works permits may be found at the following:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/devresources.
a. Minor Improvement Permit: The public improvements conditioned as part of this permit may require the execution of a Minor Street Improvement Permit that guarantees the completion of the public improvements to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The Minor Improvement Permit includes privately engineered plans, insurance, surety deposit, and engineering and inspection fees.
b. Transportation: The project would not require a detailed CEQA transportation analysis because the project is expected to result in less-than-significant VMT impacts based on Table 1 (Screening Criteria for CEQA Transportation Analysis for Development Projects) of the Transportation Analysis Handbook 2023, as an equivalent small industrial infill project of 30,000 s.f. of gross floor area or less. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual 12th Edition, the equivalent industrial square footage of 97,800 s.f. data center building is 19,800 s.f. Additionally, the projected traffic for the project was reviewed and found to be minimal due to less employees compared to the existing research and development use. No additional transportation analysis is required. c. Stormwater Peak Flow Control Measures: The project is located in a nonHydromodification Management area and is not required to comply with the City’s PostConstruction Hydromodification Management Policy (Council Policy 8-14). d. Flood Zone D: The project site is not within a designated Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain. Flood Zone D is an unstudied area where flood hazards are undetermined, but flooding is possible. There are no City floodplain requirements for Zone D.
e. Flood AE, Elevation 12’ North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88):
i. The project description states no changes to the existing building but there may be future equipment and utility upgrades. At the building permit stage, a second flood review will be performed, and the following conditions may apply:
1) If proposing any changes to the existing building, submit a cost estimate of proposed improvements and, if available, an appraisal of the existing structure. If the cost of cumulative improvements within the last 5-year period exceeds 50% of the market value based on appraisal (or 40% based on County Assessment, if appraisal is not available), it will be considered a substantial improvement, and the entire structure must fully comply with all City floodplain construction requirements.
2) All new building support utility systems, structures and equipment must be elevated to 13’ NAVD88 (base flood elevation plus 1 foot of freeboard) or protected from flood damage.
3) Construction materials used below 13’ NAVD must be resistant to flood damage. 4) An Elevation Certificate (FEMA Form FF-206-FY22-152) for each proposed structure, based on construction drawings, is required prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. Consequently, an Elevation Certificate for each built Attachment B: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 9 File No. SP25-029 & ER25-243
structure, based on finished construction is required prior to issuance of an occupancy.
5) Construction materials used below 13’ NAVD88 (base flood elevation plus 1 foot) must be resistant to flood damage.
ii. The project site is also located within the Updated 2006 North San Jose Floodplain Management Study (NSJFMS) area, but the site is within the ineffective flow area and is not subject to any additional requirements.
f. Sewage Fees: In accordance with the City of San Jose Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 all storm sewer area fees, sanitary sewer connection fees, and sewage treatment plant connection fees, less previous credits, are due and payable prior to Public Works Clearance.
g. Municipal Water: In accordance with City Ordinance #23975, Major Water Facilities Fee is due and payable. Contact Matthew L Smith at (408) 439-4447 for further information.
h. Street Improvements: Applicant shall be responsible to remove and replace curb, gutter, and sidewalk damaged during construction of the proposed project.
28. Revocation, Suspension, Modification. This Special Use Permit may be revoked, suspended or modified by the Planning Director, or by the Planning Commission on appeal, at any time regardless of who is the owner of the subject property or who has the right to possession thereof or who is using the same at such time, whenever, after a noticed hearing in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 20.100, Title 20 of the San José Municipal Code it finds:
a. A violation of any conditions of the Special Use Permit was not abated, corrected or rectified within the time specified on the notice of violation; or; b. A violation of any City ordinance or State law was not abated, corrected or rectified within the time specified on the notice of violation; or c. The use as presently conducted creates a nuisance.
APPROVED and issued on this 8
th day of July, 2026.
Christopher Burton, Director
Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement
Deputy
David Keyon
Attachment B: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 10
8286-006acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
Of Counsel
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
MARC D. JOSEPH
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
A T T O RN E Y S A T L A W
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
kfederman@adam sbroadwell.com
printed on recycled paper
July 10, 2026
Via Email and U.S. Mail
San Jose City Council
Christopher Burton, Director
Martina Davis, Division Manager
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Re: Appeal to City Council of 300 Holger Way Data Center (SP25-029 & ER25-243)
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers, Mr. Burton and Ms. Davis:
Pursuant to San Jose Municipal Code Section 21.04.140(D)-(E)1, Citizens for Responsible Industry (“Citizens”) hereby appeals the Planning Director’s (“Director”) July 8, 2026 decision to approve the 300 Holger Way Data Center Project (SP25-029 & ER25-243) (“Project”). Citizens appeals all actions taken by the Director with regard to the Project, including the Director’s approval of the Special Use Permit with conditions of approval,2 and certification of the Statement of Exemption.3 The Applicant, Holger Technology Partners LLC, proposes to construct a 20 megawatt (“MW”) data center within an existing approximately 97,800-square-foot research and development building on an approximately 4.86- 1 San Jose Municipal Code Section 21.04.140(D)-(E). 2 City of San Jose, Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, Special Use Permit, File No. SP25- 029, 300 Holger Way, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=132961 (“Special Use Permit”) .
3 City of San Jose, Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, Statement of Exemption, File No.
SP25-029, 300 Holger Way, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=132959 (“Statement of Exemption”).
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
gross-acre site.4 The Project site is zoned IP Industrial Park, within the Combined Industrial/Commercial General Plan Designation. The Project site is located within the Santa Clara County Habitat Conservation Plan Area5 within the Burrowing Owl Fee Zone.6
This appeal is accompanied by the form provided by the Planning Division and by the required appeal fee of $250, as required by Municipal Code Section
21.04.140(E)(2).7 This letter states the facts and basis for the appeal, as required by Municipal Code Section 21.04.140(E)(2). The basis for appeal is also set forth in Citizens’ July 7, 2026 comments regarding the Special Use Permit and Statement of Exemption, which are attached hereto as Exhibit A.8 Citizens’ prior comments on air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts were prepared with the assistance of air quality and health risk expert Dr. James Clark, Ph.D.9 Citizen’s prior comments on noise and vibration impacts were prepared with the assistance of acoustical expert Jack Meighan.10
I. BASIS FOR APPEAL
Citizens appeals the Director’s approval of the Project to the San Jose City Council because the Director abused his discretion and failed to proceed in the manner required by law by approving the Project in reliance on a deficient CEQA document and without substantial evidence to support the approval findings.11 The 4 City of San Jose, Planning Director Hearing Agenda, Wednesday July 8, 2026 9:00 a.m., https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/132975 (“Agenda”). p. 5 of 7. 5 Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development, Property Explorer ArcGIS, https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/b6175d89a38649a898e409d44f3da90b?dlg=PrintableReport#data s=id%3AdataSource 15-19929aac418-l. 6 http://scv-habitatagency.org/. 7 City of San Jose, Appeal of Environmental Determination Application, available at:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/15323/639184352910943202. 8 Exhibit A – Letter from ABJC to City of San Jose Planning Director, Agenda Item 4b – Special Use Permit and CEQA Exemption Review for Record SP25-029 & ER25-243 - 300 Holger Way Data Center Project (July 7, 2026).
9 Exhibit A, Letter from James Clark, Clark & Associates to ABJC re Technical Review of Air Quality and Hazardous Materials Concerns — Categorical Exemption for the Proposed Data Center at 300 Holger Way, San José, California (File Nos. SP25-029 & ER25-243; APN 097-03-132) (July 1, 2026) (“Exhibit A, Clark Comments”). 10 Exhibit A, Letter from Jack Meighan to ABJC re Acoustical Review Categorical Exemption for the Proposed Data Center at 300 Holger Way, San José, California (File Nos. SP25-029 & ER25-243; APN 097-03-132) (July 1, 2026) (“Exhibit A, Meighan Comments”). 11 Code Civ. Proc § 1094.5(b); Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
specific reasons for the appeal are detailed herein and in Citizens’ prior comments to the City and Director, attached hereto.
The City has not complied with CEQA or local land use policies. The Director improperly approved the Project in reliance on a Class 32 Infill Exemption under California Environmental Quality Act12 (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15332. In order to approve an exemption under Class 32, the Director must find that the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to air quality, noise, water quality, sensitive species or habitat, and must show consistency with the general plan.13 The Director could not make these findings because the Project does not meet all applicable conditions. The Director’s approval violated CEQA and Municipal Code Section 20.100.820(A) for the following reasons.
First, the Statement of Exemption and Special Use Permit relied on an incomplete Project Description. Citizens experts identified that the 20MW data center Project would need to construct exterior equipment and electrical upgrades including emergency generators, chillers, and backup battery installations.14 The City acknowledged that future stand-by backup generators and chillers may be approved at a later date.15 The City cannot piecemeal environmental review of the Project by excluding necessary and reasonably foreseeable Project components from review. The Director’s approval of the Project, impermissibly piecemealed environmental review, in violation of CEQA.
Second, Citizen’s experts provided substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project results in significant unmitigated air quality, public health, hazards, and greenhouse gas emissions (“GHG”) impacts. Substantial evidence in Dr. Clark’s comments demonstrated that the Project results in significant air quality and health risk impacts from diesel particulate matter emissions to nearby sensitive receptors living on Los Encinos Court within 200 feet of the Project site16 and significant hazards and indoor air quality impacts from historical soil contamination of TCE and PCE in the Project area and significant particulate matter, greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollution impacts from the Project’s 12 Pub. Res. Code (“PRC”) §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CCR” or “CEQA Guidelines”) §§ 15000 et seq.
13 14 Cal Code Regs §15332. 14 Exhibit A, Clark Comments, p. 3. 15 City of San Jose, Planning Director Hearing Agenda, July 8, 2026 9:00 a.m. 16 Exhibit A, Clark Comments, p. 3.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
cooling technology. The Project’s air quality impacts are therefore significant, precluding reliance on a Class 32 exemption.
Third, substantial evidence from Citizens’ noise expert consultant demonstrated that the exterior equipment required for the Project, including mechanical equipment, emergency generators and cooling equipment, will result in significant noise impacts.17 The introduction of operational noise pollution from chillers would violate the Santa Clara County Code of Ordinances which prohibits “offensive noise contain[ing] a steady, audible tone such as a whine, screech or hum” which exceeds thresholds., resulting in a significant noise impact.18 Mr. Meighan’s comments provide substantial evidence demonstrating that the exterior Project components would result in significant noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors on Los Encinos Ct.19 Specifically, Mr. Meighan’s comments provide substantial evidence that noise from the Project’s chillers would result in noise as loud as 55 dBA at 200 feet.20 This exceeds the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance receiving nighttime noise limit of 50 dBA.21 This is a significant impact under CEQA, precluding reliance on a Class 32 exemption.
Fourth, substantial evidence demonstrates that the Project site is located on valuable habitat for Western Burrowing Owls (“burrowing owls”). Burrowing owls are rare, threatened, or endangered and the Project may take habitat of the burrowing owl, resulting in a significant impact under CEQA. As this Project is within the Habitat Conservation Plan Area within the Burrowing Owl Fee Zone, it was determined by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency to be foraging habitat for burrowing owls. A Class 32 exemption is therefore facially inapplicable for this Project, given the site’s value as foraging habitat for burrowing owls which are rare, threatened and endangered.22
Fifth, the City is required to prepare a Water Supply Assessment, because the water demand for the 20 MW data center Project will exceed the water demand of 500 dwelling units. Medium-sized data centers (10-20MW) can consume up to “110 million gallons of water per year for cooling purposes, equivalent to the annual 17 Exhibit A, Meighan Comments, p. 4. 18 Santa Clara County Code of Ordinances, Sect. B11-153(b). 19 Exhibit A, Meighan Comments, p. 4. 20 Id. 21 Id.; Santa Clara County Code of Ordinances, Sect. B11-153(a)-(b). 22 14 Cal Code Regs §15332(c).
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
water usage of approximately 1,000 households.”23 The Project, given its scale, will demand water exceeding the water demand of 500 dwelling units. The City is therefore required to do a Water Supply Assessment pursuant to CEQA.
Sixth, the Project is not consistent with all applicable general plan policies and regulations because the Project violates Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan Policies MS-2.2, M.S-4.4, MS-10.1, MS-10.2, MS-10.7, ER-4.1, and General Plan Action MS-2.8.24 The Project’s inconsistency with the General Plan precludes reliance on a CEQA Class 32 Exemption.25
Finally, the Director could not make the necessary findings to approve the Special Use Permit because the Project is not consistent with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and will adversely affect public health, safety, and the general welfare, the Director’s approval of the Project violated Municipal Code Section
20.100.820(A).
The Director abused his discretion and failed to proceed in the manner required by law by approving the Special Use Permit, in violation of Municipal Code Section 20.100.820(A). The City lacked substantial evidence to support the findings required to approve the Special Use Permit and certify the Statement of Exemption.
Citizens respectfully requests that the City Council uphold this appeal, vacate the Director’s approvals, and remand the Project to Staff to prepare an EIR which adequately analyzes and mitigates the Project’s significant air quality, public health, hazards, noise, biological resources and land use impacts before bringing the Project back for future approvals.
23 Michael Copley, “Data centers, backbone of the digital economy, face water scarcity and climate risk” NPR (August 30, 2022), available at: https://www.npr.org/2022/08/30/1119938708/data-centersbackbone-of-the-digital-economy-face-water-scarcity-and-climate-ris; citing Md Abu Bakar Siddik, Arman Shehabi and Landon Marston, “The environmental footprint of data centers in the United States” Environ. Res. Lett. (May 21, 2021), available at:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abfba1. 24 City of San Jose, Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan (August 29, 2025), https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/121586/638828345723130000 (“General Plan”).
25 14 Cal Code Regs §15332.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
II. THE DIRECTOR’S APPROVAL ILEGALLY PIECEMEALED
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CEQA prohibits dividing a project into smaller individual subprojects and entitlements to qualify for exemptions and avoid responsibility for considering the environmental impacts of the project as a whole.26 CEQA requires the preparation of a single EIR for a series of actions that constitute a single, larger project.27 CEQA mandates review of the “whole of the action” that may result in a physical change to the environment.28 The term “project” refers to the activity for which approval is sought, not to each separate governmental approval that may be required for the activity to occur.29 Under this definition of a project, the lead agency must describe the project to encompass the entirety of the activity that is proposed for approval. This ensures that all potential impacts of the proposed project will be examined before it is approved.30
Agencies engage in improper piecemeal environmental review when the “purpose of the reviewed project is to be the first step toward future development” or when “the reviewed project legally compels or practically presumes completion of another action.”31 In Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v Regents of Univ. of Cal., 32 the California Supreme Court held that an EIR must analyze the environmental effects of a future expansion or action if “(1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects.” Piecemeal environmental review that ignores the environmental impacts of the end result is prohibited by CEQA.33 The Director’s approval of the Project’s Special Use Permit violated CEQA, because additional construction and development for the Project is anticipated and 26 PRC § § 21159.27; Orinda Ass’n v Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 CA3d 1145, 1171. 27 14 CCR §§15165, 15168, 15378. 28 14 Cal Code Regs §15378(a). 29 14 Cal Code Regs §15378(c). 30 14 Cal Code Regs §15378(a), (d). 31 Banning Ranch Conservancy v City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 CA4th 1209, 1223. 32 (1988) 47 C3d 376, 396. 33 See Christward Ministry v Superior Court (1986) 184 CA3d 180, 193; City of Carmel‑by‑the‑Sea v Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 CA3d 229, 251; Citizens Ass’n for Sensible Dev. v County of Inyo (1985) 172 CA3d 151, 167 (County improperly prepared negative declaration for general plan amendment and rezoning for proposed shopping center followed by later negative declaration for subdivision map and road abandonment for same project, because, by bifurcating review, County failed to examine potential impacts of entire development).
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
reasonably foreseeable. In order to develop a 20MW data center, the Project will be required to add exterior equipment and electrical upgrades including a transformer, electrical panel, emergency generator, and back-up battery installations, according to Dr. Clark.34 The City acknowledged that future stand-by and backup generators and chillers may be approved at a later date for the Project, and would be required to secure the appropriate permits.35 Dr. Clark confirms that backup generators and chillers will certainly be required for a data center of this size.36 Dr. Clark’s comments demonstrate that as “mission-critical computing cannot tolerate power loss, on-site backup generation is effectively universal at data centers.”37 A data center of this size would necessarily require “dozens of engine-generator sets or several multi-megawatt units.”38 The generators required for the Project would emit significant air pollutant emissions of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), nitrogen oxides (“NOx”), CO, SO2, and ROG, according to Dr. Clark.39 These significant emissions must be analyzed in an EIR in accordance with CEQA.
The City engaged in separate, piecemealed approval of the Project’s individual entitlements, in violation of CEQA and without considering the major environmental and public health impacts that construction and operation the whole data center Project will have on the City and its constituents. Approving the Special Use Permit without preparing an initial study and CEQA document for the Project violated CEQA. The City Council should place the Project’s approval process on hold until the City prepares an EIR for the 20MW data center Project.
III. A WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT IS REQUIRED
CEQA Guidelines Section 15155(G) requires a water supply assessment for a “project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.” Substantial evidence40 demonstrates that a medium-sized data center (10-20MW) can consume up to roughly “110 million gallons of water per year for cooling purposes, equivalent to 34 Exhibit A, Clark Comments, p. 3.
35 Special Use Permit, p. 8 of 10.
36 Exhibit A, Clark Comments, p. 3.
37 Id. 38 Id. 39 Id. 40 14 Cal Code Regs § 15384(b) [“Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.] Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
the annual water usage of approximately 1,000 households.”41 Given its scale, the Project will demand water exceeding the water demand of 500 dwelling units. The City is therefore required to do a Water Supply Assessment pursuant to CEQA.
CEQA mandates that, when an agency is reviewing a Project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project, the agency is required to do the following:
(1) identify any water system that either: (A) is a public water system that may supply water to the water-demand project, or (B) that may become such a public water system as a result of supplying water to the waterdemand project. (2) The city or county lead agency shall request the governing body of each such public water system to determine whether the projected water demand associated with a water-demand project was included in the most recently adopted urban water management plan… and to
(3) Prepare a water assessment approved at a regular or special meeting of that governing body. 42
The City has not complied with CEQA. The record before the City Council does not contain any information on water supply from San Jose Municipal Water System (“Muni Water”). The City has not demonstrated that Muni Water has confirmed water supply for the Project. The City has not demonstrated that the Project’s projected water demand was included in the San Jose Urban Water Management Plan (the “Plan”).43
The Plan does not demonstrate that the Project’s projected water demand was included in the Plan. To the contrary, the Plan defers analysis of data centers.
The Plan states that “As specific data center projects are proposed or advanced through local planning processes, [San Jose Water] reviews available information on their projected water use and operational characteristics, such as potential use of recycled water, so that these factors can be incorporated into planning 41 Michael Copley, “Data centers, backbone of the digital economy, face water scarcity and climate risk” NPR (August 30, 2022); citing Md Abu Bakar Siddik, Arman Shehabi and Landon Marston, Environ. Res. Lett. “The environmental footprint of data centers in the United States” (May 21, 2021). 42 14 CCR § 15155(b)(1).
43 San Jose Water, 2025 Urban Water Management Plan, available at:
https://www.sjwater.com/media/filfewve/2025-uwmp-with-appendices-final.pdf.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
considerations as appropriate.”44 The City was required by the Plan to review the Project’s projected water demand, use, and operational characteristics to determine whether the Project is adequately served by City water services. This analysis should have been done in a Water Supply Assessment, as required by law.
Given that the Project is making public improvements, and has a recycled water connection and a potable water connection, the City is easily able to determine the Project’s water use. The Municipal Code Section 15.08.370 requires that, “All water supplied to customers will be measured by means of suitable standard water meters, unless flat rates are in effect.” Therefore, the City knows how much water will be provided to the Project. This information was not provided for public review and scrutiny in a Water Supply Assessment, as required by law.
If the Project is not adequately served by City water services, an exemption under Class 32 is not applicable. In order to rely on a Class 32 exemption, the site must be adequately served by required utilities and public services.45 The City Council must remand the Project to Staff to prepare a Water Supply Assessment, with an EIR, in accordance with CEQA.
IV. THE PROJECT IS NOT EXEMPT FROM CEQA
The Director certified the Statement of Exemption and approved the Special Use Permit on the basis that the “the project would not result in significant impacts related to noise, air quality, or water quality.”46 This conclusion was unsupported by any evidence. The Statement of Exemption and Special Use Permit include no substantive analysis supporting the City’s determination that environmental impacts are less than significant in order to conclude than an exemption applies.
A Class 32 exemption applies only if it meets five conditions. First, the project must be consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies, as well as any applicable zoning designation and regulations.47 Second, the project must be located within the city limits, on a project site of no more than five acres, and substantially surrounded by urban uses.48 Third, the project site must have no value as a habitat for endangered, rare 44 San Jose Water, 2025 Urban Water Management Plan, Appendix E, pdf p. 272 of 304. 45 CEQA Guidelines § 15332(e).
46 Special Use Permit, p. 5 of 10. 47 CEQA Guidelines § 15332(a). 48 CEQA Guidelines § 15332(b).
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
or threatened species.49 Fourth, the project must not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.50 Finally, the site must be adequately served by required utilities and public services.51 The Director’s determination that the Project was subject to a CEQA exemption was not supported by substantial evidence in the record due to the Project’s significant unmitigated impacts and the Project’s facial noncompliance with the exemption requirements.52 Whether a fair argument can be made that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is to be determined by examining the whole record before the lead agency.53 Substantial evidence in Citizens’ comments demonstrates that the Project results in significant air quality, GHG, public health and noise impacts, significant impacts on habitat for threatened species, and inconsistency with mandatory General Plan policies, as detailed herein and in Citizens’ prior comments to the City.
A. The Project Results in Significant Air Quality Impacts In order to approve an exemption under Class 32, the City must find that the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to air quality.54 Substantial evidence in Citizen’s comments and Dr. Clark’s expert consultant reports demonstrated that the Project results in significant air quality, public health, and hazards impacts requiring preparation of an EIR.
Substantial evidence in Dr. Clark’s comments demonstrates that the Project results in significant air quality impacts, when accounting for all the necessary equipment associated with a 20MW data center.55 Dr. Clark demonstrates that in order to convert an 8.5MW research and development facility to a 20MW data center, the Project would “require new exterior development, including the installation of transformer, electrical panel, emergency generator, and back-up battery equipment.”56 Dr. Clark’s comments provide substantial evidence that 49 CEQA Guidelines § 15332(c).
50 CEQA Guidelines § 15332(d).
51 CEQA Guidelines § 15332(e).
52 Statement of Exemption, p. 1.
53 14 Cal Code Regs § 15384. 54 14 Cal Code Regs §15332(d). 55 Exhibit A, Clark Comments, p. 2. 56 Id.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
construction of the Project will result in significant NOx, DPM, and greenhouse gas emissions.57
Dr. Clark’s comments demonstrate that the Project’s emissions may be significant when accounting for all “off-road equipment, haul trips, and slab and utility work required to install 20 to 30 MW of power, cooling, and generator infrastructure.”58 Moreover, backup generators required for operation of the Project result in significant air quality and health risk impacts from diesel particulate matter a toxic air contaminant.59 The Project’s air quality impacts are significant, precluding reliance on a Class 32 exemption, as detailed in Citizens’ prior comments to the City.
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist III(a) requires an agency to determine “whether the project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.” But, since the City did not even analyze all the foreseeable components of a 20MW data center, the City failed to analyze whether the Project results in a significant air quality impact and whether the Project conflicts with an applicable air quality plan. The City failed to proceed in the manner required by law by approving the Project subject to a Class 32 exemption where the Project results in significant air quality and public health impacts.
1. Construction Emissions Are Significant and Unmitigated The City’s determination that the Project’s air quality impacts are less than significant is not supported by substantial evidence or any quantitative analysis, in violation of CEQA. The Statement of Exemption failed to describe or analyze any of the emissions related to the Project’s data center installation activities and interior construction. The City failed to conduct CalEEMod modeling the off-road equipment, haul trips, and slab and utility work required to install the power, cooling, generator and other infrastructure required to support the new 20 MW data center Project.60 Since no emissions analysis was performed, the City also failed to compare construction emissions with BAAQMD construction thresholds, as required by law. The City therefore lacks any supporting evidence for its conclusion that construction emissions would be less than significant.
57 Exhibit A, Clark Comments, p. 9.
58 Id. 59 Id. at 3.
60 Id.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Dr. Clark’s comments explain that construction air emissions associated with the Project may be significant based on the scope of power, cooling, and generator infrastructure needed to support a 20MW data center.61 These impacts remain unquantified and unmitigated. An EIR must be prepared, in accordance with CEQA, to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant construction air quality impacts.
2. Emissions from Backup Generators Are Significant and Unmitigated Dr. Clark’s comments demonstrate that the Project will necessarily require backup diesel generators in order to support operation of a 20 MW data center.62 Backup generators are a reasonably foreseeable component of the Project because they are effectively universal at data centers, are necessary to prevent power loss,63 and are contemplated by the Special Use Permit, which includes a condition of approval addressing permits for “future stand-by/backup generators.”64
Dr. Clark explained that a 20-MW critical load necessarily requires a very large installed generator capacity, which is likely to include dozens of enginegenerator sets or several multi-megawatt generator units.65 Backup generators are commonly diesel-powered, and their operation results in significant air emissions of NOx and diesel particulate matter.66 The Project’s generators were not analyzed for their environmental impacts, which Dr. Clark concludes may be significant and unmitigated.67
Specifically, Dr. Clark found that generators onsite would result in significant criteria pollutant emissions fore nearby sensitive receptors.68 Dr. Clark calculated that emissions of NOx from backup-generator testing alone would exceed BAAQMD’s operational NOx significance thresholds of 54 pounds per day and 10 tons per year.69 Dr. Clark calculated that the daily NOₓ threshold is exceeded within minutes of generator operation and, even assuming a conservative 50 hours per year of testing per engine, resulting emissions are approximately 10.6 tons/yr of 61 Exhibit A, Clark Comments, p. 9.
62 Id. at 3.
63 Id.
64 Special Use Permit, p. 8, Condition 19.
65 Exhibit A, Clark Comments, p. 3.
66 Id. 67 Id. 68 Id. 69 Id. at 9.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
NOₓ, exceeding the 10-ton/yr threshold from routine testing alone.70 Actual emergency generator operation would further increase these emissions, according to Dr. Clark.71
Dr. Clark also found that diesel exhaust from the Project’s generators may result in significant health risk as a source of DPM emissions during construction and operation of the Project.72 DPM emissions are designated as a toxic air contaminant in California and account for the majority of ambient air-toxics cancer risk in the State.73 Dr. Clark identified that DPM emissions from the Project may be significant on nearby sensitive receptors living on Los Encinos Court within 200 feet of the Project site.74 Dr. Clark cites to significant public health burdens associated with siting diesel generators adjacent to residential sensitive receptors.75 “Even where generators run only for testing and maintenance (commonly on the order of tens of hours per year), their short-term, ground-level emissions in densely built settings can produce acute exposures” of DPM and toxic air contaminants.76 Because diesel backup generators are a reasonably foreseeable component of the Project, their emissions and resulting air quality impacts were required to be analyzed as part of the Project.
The City Council must remand the Project to Staff to prepare a legally adequate EIR which analyzes and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant air quality impacts from diesel backup generators, before the Project can proceed.
3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Are Significant and Unmitigated The Project’s greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions are significant, but were not analyzed before the Project was approved. Dr. Clark found that indirect GHG emissions from the Project’s energy consumption would exceed the stationarysource threshold several-fold.77 Using a representative grid factor of approximately
0.2 metric tons of CO₂-equivalent per MWh, Dr. Clark calculated that the Project’s indirect GHG emissions would be approximately 52,600 metric tons of CO₂e per year, more than five times BAAQMD’s 10,000-metric-ton-per-year stationary-source 70 Exhibit A, Clark Comments, p. 8.
71 Id. 72 Exhibit A, Clark Comments, p. 3, 9. 73 Id. at 3. 74 Id. 75 Id. at 4.
76 Id. 77 Id. at 9.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
significance threshold.78 GHG emissions are significant and require analysis and mitigation in an EIR before the Project can be brought back for review.
4. Air Quality Impacts from Cooling Infrastructure are Significant and Unmitigated
Dr. Clark’s comments provide substantial evidence that a 20MW data center requires substantial cooling technology.79 The Special Use Permit and Statement of Exemption fail to analyze the potentially significant emissions of particulate matter, greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollution associated with the different potential cooling mechanisms.80 Dr. Clark’s comments demonstrate that there is no safe level of particulate matter emissions to sensitive receptors approximately 200 feet from the Project site.81 Given that the Project will necessarily include cooling infrastructure for the 20MW data center, the Project’s air quality impacts are significant.82 An EIR must be prepared for this Project, which adequately analyzes and mitigates the Project’s significant operational air quality emissions, in accordance with CEQA before the Project can proceed.
5. Hazards and Indoor Air Quality Impacts are Significant and Unmitigated The Project site may suffer from residual subsurface contamination which must be analyzed for the Project can proceed.83 Dr. Clark’s comments identified potentially significant indoor air quality impacts associated with potential subsurface contamination of chlorinated solvents, including trichloroethylene (“TCE”) and tetrachloroethylene (“PCE”) which the City failed to discuss or analyze before approving the Project.84
Dr. Clark’s comments demonstrate that the Project’s location has historically been a hotspot of electronics-industry solvent releases, and concludes that residual TCE and/or PCE contamination could result in indoor air quality impacts unless detected and mitigated.85 The City did not prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”) or any no site-specific soil-gas or indoor-air data to assess the 78 Exhibit A, Clark Comments, p. 8.
79 Id. at 4.
80 Id. at 5. 81 Id. 82 Id. 83 Id. 84 Id. 85 Id.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
severity of residual contamination or the resulting health impacts from disturbance and inhalation.
Dr. Clark explains that TCE and PCE can migrate as soil gas from contaminated soil or groundwater and enter buildings, thereby contaminating indoor air quality.86 The concentrations required to trigger a vapor-intrusion concern can be very low, shallow groundwater that is safe by drinking-water standards may still be unsafe to occupy the ground above, according to Dr. Clark.87 The health consequences of TCE and PCE inhalation are severe.88 EPA classifies TCE as carcinogenic to humans, resulting in kidney cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and liver cancer.89 TCE is associated with cardiac malformations and other developmental effects.90 Communities exposed to TCE and PCE through soilvapor intrusion (including the population near the former IBM semiconductor facility in Endicott, New York) have documented associations with adverse birth outcomes, including low birth weight, cardiac defects, and fetal growth restriction.91 The City failed to analyze this potentially significant impact.
The Special Use Permit and Statement of Exemption failed to adequately analyze the Project’s potentially significant hazards and air quality impacts. The City Council should remand the Project to Staff to prepare an EIR which adequately analyzes and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts before the Project can lawfully proceed.
B. The Project Results in Significant Operational Noise Impacts The Statement of Exemption assumes, with no supporting evidence, that Project operation will have no significant noise impacts because the data center will have no regular employees and does not propose backup generators.92 Mr. Meighan explains that the City failed to disclose substantial sources of operational noise that are common for data centers like the Project. In particular, Mr. Meighan explains that the exterior equipment required for the Project, including mechanical equipment, emergency generators and cooling equipment, will result in significant 86 Exhibit A, Clark Comments, p. 6.
87 Id. 88 Id. 89 Id. 90 Id. 91 Id. 92 Statement of Exemption, p. 2 of 4.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
noise impacts.93 As there are currently no chillers at the site, the introduction of cooling noise would be a completely new source of noise pollution over ambient levels, according to Mr. Meighan.94 The introduction of this new operational noise pollution source would violate the Santa Clara County Code of Ordinances which prohibits “offensive noise contain[ing] a steady, audible tone such as a whine, screech or hum”, resulting in a significant noise impact.95 Mr. Meighan’s comments provide substantial evidence demonstrating that the exterior Project components would result in significant noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors on Los Encinos Ct.96 Specifically, Mr. Meighan’s comments provide substantial evidence that noise from the Project’s chillers would result in noise as loud as 55 dBA at 200 feet.97 This exceeds the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance receiving nighttime noise limit of 50 dBA.98 This is a significant impact under CEQA, precluding reliance on a Class 32 exemption. The Special Use Permit and Statement of Exemption failed to analyze the Project’s significant noise impacts. These significant impacts must be analyzed in an EIR in accordance with CEQA.
C. The Project Site Contains Valuable Habitat for Threatened Species
In order to approve an exemption under Class 32, the City Council must find that the project site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.99 Substantial evidence demonstrates that the Project site is located on valuable habitat for Western Burrowing Owls (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) (“burrowing owls”). Burrowing owls are rare, threatened, or endangered and the Project may take habitat of the burrowing owl, resulting in a significant impact under CEQA. The Project is within the Habitat Conservation Plan Area, within Fee 93 Exhibit A, Meighan Comments, p. 4. 94 Id. 95 Santa Clara County Code of Ordinances, Sect. B11-153(b). 96 Exhibit A, Meighan Comments, p. 4.
97 Id. 98 Id.; Santa Clara County Code of Ordinances, Sect. B11-153(a)-(b). 99 14 Cal Code Regs §15332(c).
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Zone D.100,101 The Project is within the Burrowing Owl Fee Zone.102 According to the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Multi-phase Project Burrowing Owl Fee Policy, the Burrowing Owl Fee Zone is determined by annual survey efforts that map the extent of nesting habitat occupied by western burrowing owls.103 Occupied nesting habitat is defined as a nesting site identified within the past 3 years plus
0.5 mile of foraging habitat surrounding the site.104 The boundaries of the Burrowing Owl Fee Zone are updated annually to reflect changes in nesting habitat within the Habitat Plan area.105
As this Project is within the Burrowing Owl Fee Zone, it was determined by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency to be foraging habitat for burrowing owls.
Foraging habitat is included within the definition of habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. A Class 32 exemption is therefore facially inapplicable for this Project, given the site’s value as foraging habitat for burrowing owls which are rare, threatened and endangered.
The City has not provided Citizens with a copy of the Habitat Plan Coverage Screening Form which concludes that the Project is not a covered project under the Habitat Plan.106 Applicants must “Submit this Coverage Screening Form to the planning or building office with the applicable planning application (such as use permit, subdivision, etc.) for the project. Planning staff will evaluate and confirm the project is not a Covered Project. Verification of the absence of sensitive habitats, which may include photos and aerials of the site, may be required.”107 Here, the City and the Applicant have not documented or verified absence of sensitive habitats for burrowing owls, substantiated by photos and aerials of the site. The City’s conclusion that the site does not have value as burrowing owl habitat is therefore not supported by substantial evidence. In fact, burrowing owls may use 100 Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development, Property Explorer ArcGIS, https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/b6175d89a38649a898e409d44f3da90b?dlg=PrintableReport#data s=id%3AdataSource 15-19929aac418-l. 101 http://scv-habitatagency.org/. 102 Id. 103 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Multi-phase Project Burrowing Owl Fee Policy (May 26, 2015), https://scv-habitatagency.org/DocumentCenter/View/463/Multi-phase-Project-Burrowing-OwlFee-Policy?bidId= 104 Id. 105 Id. 106 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, Coverage Screening Form, https://www.scvhabitatagency.org/DocumentCenter/View/1367/PvtScreeningForm v4 05312025?bidId= 107 Id.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
the site as foraging habitat, as the Project site is immediately south of areas where burrowing owls have been identified on February 26, 2026, January 7, 2026, and April 19, 2025.108 Since the Project has value for rare, threatened and endangered burrowing owls, the City cannot rely on a CEQA Class 32 exemption. The City must prepare an EIR, in accordance with CEQA, given the Project’s potentially significant impacts on burrowing owls.
D. The Project Is Not Consistent with the General Plan
CEQA provides that a project only qualifies for a Class 32 exemption if the project is “consistent with all applicable general plan policies, as well as with any applicable zoning designation and regulations.”109 Here, the Project is not consistent with all applicable general plan policies and regulations because the Project violates General Plan Policy MS-2.2, M.S-4.4, MS-10.1, MS-10.2, MS-10.7, ER-4.1, and General Plan Actions MS-2.8.110
The Project is not consistent with General Plan Policy MS-2.2, which requires the City to “Encourage maximized use of on-site generation of renewable energy for all new and existing buildings.”111 The Special Use Permit and Statement of Exemption do not provide that Project incorporates renewable energy for development of the existing Project site. The Project is therefore inconsistent with General Plan Policy MS-2.2.
The Project is not consistent with General Plan Action MS-2.8. The General Plan has specific requirements in Action MS-2.8 for data centers to “require evaluation of operational energy efficiency” and to include energy efficient operational design measures. 112 But, the City did not evaluate operational energy impacts, efficiency measures, or provide any analysis whatsoever of the energy impacts of the 20 MW data center Proposed by the Project. Dr. Clark’s comments demonstrate that operational energy impacts and associated air quality and GHG 108 eBird.org, Burrowing Owl (Western), Santa Clara County, California, United States, https://ebird.org/hotspot/L23465980. 109 14 Cal Code Regs §15332(a). 110 City of San Jose, Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan (August 29, 2025), https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/121586/638828345723130000 (“General Plan”).
111 General Plan, Policy MS-2.2, Chapter 3, p. 4. 112 General Plan, Action MS-2.8, Chapter 3, p. 5 .
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
emissions will be significant and unmitigated.113 The Project therefore directly contravenes General Plan Action MS-2.8.
The Project is not consistent with General Plan Policy MS-4.4 which requires the City to develop and implement policies to promote clean indoor air quality prior to occupancy.114 The City has not identified any measures for protecting indoor air quality for workers onsite. In fact, Dr. Clark’s comments demonstrate that vapor intrusion of TCE and PCE contaminants from contaminated groundwater beneath the Project site can endanger public health and safety by contaminating indoor air quality.115 Dr. Clark’s comments point to severe health consequences of TCE and PCE inhalation.116 The City has not identified any measures to protect indoor air quality during construction of reasonably foreseeable components for the Project.
The Project is not consistent with General Plan Policy MS-10.1 which requires that the City “Assess projected air emissions from new development in conformance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines and relative to state and federal standards. Identify and implement feasible air emission reduction measures.”117 As the Special Use Permit and Statement of Exemption include no analysis of projected air emissions to determine whether the Project’s impacts will be less than significant, the Project violates General Plan Policy MS-10.1 Notably, Dr. Clark identified potentially significant air emissions from development and operation of the Project, which were not identified by the City and require analysis and mitigation in an EIR in accordance with CEQA.118
The Project is not consistent with General Plan Policy MS-10.2 which requires the City to “Consider the cumulative air quality impacts from proposed developments for proposed land use designation changes and new development, consistent with the region’s Clean Air Plan and State law.”119 As the Special Use Permit and Statement of Exemption include no analysis of cumulative air quality impacts from the Project and surrounding projects, the Project violates General Plan Policy MS-10.2. Dr. Clark’s comments provide substantial evidence that the Project may result in cumulative air quality impacts from successive new 113 Exhibit A, Clark Comments, p. 8. 114 General Plan, Policy MS-4.4, Chapter 6, p. 7. 115 Exhibit A, Clark Comments, p. 6.
116 Id. 117 General Plan, Policy MS-10.1, Chapter 3, p. 12. 118 Exhibit A, Clark Comments, p. 3, 9. 119 General Plan, Policy MS-10.2, Chapter 3, p. 12.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
development in the Project vicinity, which is a significant impact under CEQA, and an exception to the Class 32 exemption.120 An EIR must be prepared which analyzes the Project’s significant cumulative impacts and nonconformance with the General Plan.
The Project is not consistent with General Plan Policy MS-10.7 which requires the City to “Encourage regional and statewide air pollutant emission reduction through energy conservation to improve air quality.”121 As the City has not required the Applicant to incorporate any energy conservation measures to improve air quality, this Project violates General Plan Policy MS-10.7. Dr. Clark’s comments demonstrate that the Project will result in significant energy, air pollutant, and GHG emissions, which remain significant and unmitigated.122 The Project is not consistent with General Plan Policy ER-4.1 which requires the City to “Preserve and restore, to the greatest extent feasible, habitat areas that support special-status species. Avoid development in such habitats unless no feasible alternatives exist and mitigation is provided of equivalent value.”123 As the Project is within burrowing owl habitat, the Project violates General Plan Policy ER-4.1.
As a result of the Project’s violations of the General Plan’s Policies and Actions, a CEQA Exemption is improper, and the Director must direct staff to prepare an EIR which adequately analyzes and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts before the Project can lawfully proceed.
E. The Project May Not Be Adequately Served by Water Service As detailed above, the Project does not include a Water Supply Assessment to determine whether the Project is adequately served by San Jose Water or whether the Project’s water demand is accounted for in the Urban Water Management Plan.
The City is required to prepare a Water Supply Assessment, because the water demand for the 20 MW data center Project will exceed the water demand of 500 dwelling units. Medium-sized data centers (10-20MW) can consume up to “110 million gallons of water per year for cooling purposes, equivalent to the annual 120 Exhibit A, Clark Comments, p. 6. 121 General Plan, Policy MS-10.7, Chapter 3, p. 12. 122 Clark Comments, p. 8. 123 San Jose General Plan, p. 28.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
water usage of approximately 1,000 households.”124 The Project, given its scale, will demand water exceeding the water demand of 500 dwelling units. The City is therefore required to do a Water Supply Assessment pursuant to CEQA.
If the Water Supply Assessment determines that the Project is not adequately served by City water services, an exemption under Class 32 is not applicable. In order to rely on a Class 32 exemption, the site must be adequately served by required utilities and public services.125 The record before the City Council does not provide substantial evidence that the Project is adequately served by municipal water services, as the record does not include any information about the Project’s water demand or water supply. The City must prepare a Water Supply Assessment, as required by CEQA, before the Project can proceed.
F. The Project is Subject to an Exception from a CEQA Categorical Exemption
A CEQA categorical exemption under Class 32 does not apply if the Project and successive projects of the same type in the same place will result in cumulative impacts.126 Here, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that successive projects of the same type in the same place will result in cumulative impacts.127 Dr. Clark’s comments provide substantial evidence that the Project results in significant cumulative impacts.128 Specifically, Dr. Clark found that North San Jose is experiencing rapid data-center and industrial development.129 Successive similar in-fill conversions can combine to produce significant cumulative increases in NOx, particulate matter, and toxic air contaminants in a corridor that already carries substantial mobile-source burdens from SR-237 and I-880.130 Based on this, Dr. Clark identified a potentially significant cumulative impact associated with the 124 Michael Copley, “Data centers, backbone of the digital economy, face water scarcity and climate risk” NPR (August 30, 2022), available at: https://www.npr.org/2022/08/30/1119938708/data-centersbackbone-of-the-digital-economy-face-water-scarcity-and-climate-ris; citing Md Abu Bakar Siddik, Arman Shehabi and Landon Marston, “The environmental footprint of data centers in the United States” Environ. Res. Lett. (May 21, 2021), available at:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abfba1. 125 CEQA Guidelines § 15332(e). 126 14 CCR § 15300.2(b).
127 Exhibit A, Clark Comments, p. 10. 128 Id. 129 Id. 130 Id.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
successive projects of the same type in the same area as the Project.131 The Project’s significant cumulative air quality and public health impacts must be analyzed and mitigated in an EIR before the Project can lawfully proceed.
V. THE CITY CANNOT MAKE THE NECESSARY FINDINGS TO
APPROVE THE PROJECT’S ENTITLEMENTS
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 20.100.820, the Director may issue a Special Use Permit only if all the following findings are made:
1. The Special Use Permit, as approved, is consistent with and will further the policies of the General Plan and applicable specific plans and area development policies; and
2. The Special Use Permit, as approved, conforms with the zoning code and all other provisions of the San José Municipal Code applicable to the project; and
3. The Special Use permit, as approved, is consistent with applicable City Council policies, or counterbalancing considerations justify the inconsistency; and
4. The proposed use at the location requested will not:
a. Adversely affect the peace, health, safety, morals or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area; or b. Impair the utility or value of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site; or
c. Be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare; and
5. The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this title, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate the use with existing and planned uses in the surrounding area; and
6. The proposed site is adequately served:
a. By other public or private service facilities as are required.
7. The environmental impacts of the project, including but not limited to noise, vibration, dust, drainage, erosion, storm water runoff, and odor which, even if insignificant for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), will not have an unacceptable negative affect on adjacent property or properties…132
131 Exhibit A, Clark Comments, p. 10. 132 San Jose Municipal Code § 20.100.820(A).
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 20.100.820, the Director, Planning Commission, or City Council, shall deny a Special Use Permit application where the information submitted by the applicant and/or presented at the public hearing fails to satisfactorily substantiate the above findings.133 The City cannot make the findings to support approval of the Special Use Permit for the following reasons.
First, as detailed above, the Project is inconsistent with numerous General Plan Policies and Actions including General Plan Policy MS-2.2, M.S-4.4, MS-10.1, MS-10.2, MS-10.7, ER-4.1, and General Plan Action MS-2.8.134 The City Council must deny the Special Use Permit, given the Project’s inconsistency with the General Plan.
Second, as demonstrated herein and in Dr. Clark’s expert consultant report, the Project results in significant air quality, health risk and greenhouse gas emissions which were not analyzed or mitigated by the City. The Project would result in potentially significant emissions of NOx, DPM, reactive organic gases, and volatile organic compounds from construction and operation, and the use of diesel backup generators. The Project may result in significant hazards impacts from vapor intrusion contaminating indoor air quality, which have not been adequately analyzed or mitigated. The Project may also result in significant energy and GHG emissions, which will adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors and result in unmitigated significant impacts.
Further, as demonstrated herein and in Mr. Meighan’s expert consultant report, the Project results in significant noise impacts to nearby receptors within 200 feet at Los Encinos Court.135 Specifically, Mr. Meighan’s comments provide substantial evidence that noise from the Project’s chillers would result in noise as loud as 55 dBA at 200 feet.136 This exceeds the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance receiving nighttime noise limit of 50 dBA.137 This is a significant impact.
The Project’s health, safety, and noise impacts and the nonconformance with the General Plan must be remedied in an EIR circulated for public review and scrutiny before the Project can lawfully be approved. The City must prepare an EIR 133 Id. at § 20.100.820(B) (emphasis added). 134 City of San Jose, Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan (August 29, 2025). 135 Exhibit A, Meighan Comments, p. 4. 136 Id. 137 Id.; Santa Clara County Code § B11-153(a)-(b).
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 10, 2026
8286-006acp
printed on recycled paper
which adequately analyzes and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts before the Project can lawfully proceed.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, the Planning Director abused his discretion and failed to proceed in the manner required by law by approving the Special Use Permit and certifying the Statement of Exemption after being presented with substantial evidence that the Project will have potentially significant, unmitigated impacts on air quality, greenhouse gases, public health, hazards and noise.
The Planning Director violated the City’s Municipal Code by approving the Project after being presented with substantial evidence that the Project is detrimental hazards to public health, interest, safety, and the general welfare of persons residing and working near the Project and is not consistent with the General Plan. A Water Supply Assessment is required to determine whether the Project is adequately served by City water services.
The City Council should uphold this appeal, vacate the Planning Director’s approvals, and remand the Project to staff to prepare an EIR to address the impacts identified by Citizens and its experts. These actions are critical to ensure that the Project complies with CEQA and all applicable laws, and to ensure that the health and safety of City residents and workers is protected.
Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include them in the record of proceedings for the Project.
Sincerely,
Kelilah D. Federman
Attachment
KDF:acp
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
EXHIBIT A
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
8286-005j
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
Of Counsel
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
MARC D. JOSEPH
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1
F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
A T T O RN E Y S A T L A W
6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0 - 7 0 3 7 ___________
T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0
F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2
k f e d e r m a n @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m printed on recycled paper
July 7, 2026
Via Email and Overnight Mail
Christopher Burton, Director
Martina Davis, Division Manager
Angela Wang, Planning Project Manager
Jin Yeo, Development Facilitation Officer
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Emails: [email protected];
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Agenda Item 4b – Special Use Permit and CEQA Exemption Review for Record SP25-029 & ER25-243 - 300 Holger Way Data Center Project
Dear Mr. Burton, Ms. Davis, Ms. Wang, and Ms. Yeo:
On behalf of Citizens for Responsible Industry (“Citizens”), we submit these comments on the 300 Holger Way Data Center Project (SP25-029 & ER25-243) (“Project”), proposed by Allison Koo of Holger Technology Partners LLC (“Applicant”), including the proposed Statement of Exemption1 and Special Use Permit2 prepared by the City of San Jose (“City”). The Project will be considered as Agenda Item 4b at the July 8, 2026 Planning Director (“Director”) hearing.3 The Applicant proposes to construct a 20 megawatt (“MW”) data center within an existing approximately 97,800-square-foot research and development building on an 1 City of San Jose, Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, Statement of Exemption, File No.
SP25-029, 300 Holger Way, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=132959. 2 City of San Jose, Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, Special Use Permit, File No. SP25- 029, 300 Holger Way, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=132961 (“Special Use Permit”) .
3 City of San Jose, Planning Director Hearing Agenda, Wednesday July 8, 2026 9:00 a.m., https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/132975 (“Agenda”).
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
approximately 4.86-gross-acre site.4 The Project site is zoned IP Industrial Park, within the Combined Industrial/Commercial General Plan Designation. The Project site is located within the Santa Clara County Habitat Conservation Plan Area, Fee Zone D.5,6 The Project site is within the County’s Burrowing Owl Fee Zone.7 The staff report fails to accurately describe the Project. The draft Special Use Permit asserts that the proposed Project improvements are limited to interior tenant improvements, including the installation of data racks and that no mechanical equipment, emergency generators, grading, excavation, demolition, tree removal, or landscaping modifications are included.8 But, the Special Use Permit states that “there may be future equipment and utility upgrades.”9 In order to develop a 20 MW data center at the Project site, additional exterior equipment and electrical upgrades will necessarily be required including a transformer, electrical panel, emergency generator, and back-up battery installations.10 The City must analyze all necessary and reasonably foreseeable Project components, in accordance with CEQA.
The City also improperly proposes to approve the Project in reliance on a Class 32 Infill Exemption under California Environmental Quality Act11 (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15332 (“Class 32” or “Infill Exemption”). In order to approve an exemption under Class 32, the Director must find that the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to air quality, noise, water quality, sensitive species or habitat, and must show consistency with the general plan.12 The City’s Statement of Exemption fails to accurately describe the Project and lacks any quantitative analysis of these impact areas, leaving the exemption determination entirely unsupported. By contrast, substantial evidence in Citizen’s comments and expert consultant reports discussed herein demonstrate that the Project results in significant impacts in each of these areas which require the City to prepare an EIR 4 Agenda, p. 5 of 7.
5 Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development, Property Explorer ArcGIS, https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/b6175d89a38649a898e409d44f3da90b?dlg=PrintableReport#data s=id%3AdataSource 15-19929aac418-l. 6 http://scv-habitatagency.org/. 7 Id. 8 Special Use Permit,
9 Special Use Permit, p. 9 of 10.
10 Clark Comments, p. 11 Pub. Res. Code (“PRC”) §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CCR” or “CEQA Guidelines”) §§ 15000 et seq. 12 14 Cal Code Regs §15332.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
to comply with CEQA – including significant air quality, GHG, public health and noise impacts from operational emissions, significant impacts on habitat for threatened species, and inconsistency with mandatory General Plan policies.
Citizens respectfully requests that the City prepare an EIR that fully discloses, analyzes, and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant air quality, public health, hazards, noise, biological resources and land use impacts before it considers approval of the Project.
Citizen’s comments on air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts were prepared with the assistance of air quality and health risk expert Dr.
James Clark, Ph.D., whose comments and curricula vitae are included as Exhibit A. 13 Citizen’s comments on noise and vibration impacts were prepared with the assistance of acoustical expert Jack Meighan whose comments and curricula vitae are included as Exhibit B.14 We reserve the right to supplement these comments at a later date and at any future proceedings related to this Project.15 I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
Citizens is a coalition of individuals and labor organizations with members who may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards and environmental and public service impacts of the Project. The coalition includes local residents, California Unions for Reliable Energy (“CURE”) and its local affiliates, and the affiliates’ members who live, recreate, work, and raise families in Santa Clara County and in communities near the Project site. Citizens, its participating organizations, and their members stand to be directly affected by the Project’s impacts.
Since its founding in 1997, CURE has been committed to building a strong economy and healthier environment and it works to construct, operate, and maintain conventional and renewable energy power plants and other industrial 13 Exhibit A – Letter from James Clark, Clark & Associates to ABJC re Technical Review of Air Quality and Hazardous Materials Concerns — Categorical Exemption for the Proposed Data Center at 300 Holger Way, San José, California (File Nos. SP25-029 & ER25-243; APN 097-03-132) (July 1, 2026).
14 Exhibit B – Letter from Jack Meighan to ABJC re Acoustical Review Categorical Exemption for the Proposed Data Center at 300 Holger Way, San José, California (File Nos. SP25-029 & ER25-243; APN 097-03-132) (July 1, 2026).
15 Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”) (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
facilities throughout California. CURE supports the development of clean energy and technology industries where properly analyzed and carefully planned to minimize impacts on public health and the environment. Industrial projects should avoid adverse impacts to natural resources and public health, and should take all feasible steps to ensure that unavoidable impacts are mitigated to the greatest extent feasible. Only by maintaining the highest standards can new development truly be sustainable.
The individual members of Citizens, and the members of its affiliated labor organizations, would be directly affected by the Project and may also work constructing the Project itself. They would therefore be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that may be present on the Project site. They each have a personal stake in protecting the Project area from unnecessary, adverse environmental and public health and safety impacts.
Citizens supports and encourages the sustainable development of California’s energy and natural resources and has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and a safe working environment.
Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making it less desirable for businesses to locate and people to live and recreate in the County. Continued degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduces future employment opportunities.
Finally, the organizational members of Citizens are concerned with projects that can result in serious environmental harm without providing countervailing economic benefits. CEQA provides a balancing process whereby economic benefits are weighed against significant impacts to the environment. It is in this spirit we offer these comments.
II. THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS INCOMPLETE AND
PIECEMEALED
CEQA mandates review of the “whole of the action” that may result in a physical change to the environment.16 The term “project” refers to the activity for which approval is sought, not to each separate governmental approval that may be required for the activity to occur.17 Under this definition of a project, the lead 16 14 Cal Code Regs §15378(a).
17 14 Cal Code Regs §15378(c).
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
agency must describe the project to encompass the entirety of the activity that is proposed for approval. This ensures that all potential impacts of the proposed project will be examined before it is approved.18
CEQA requires the preparation of a single EIR for a series of actions that constitute a single, larger project19 and prohibits dividing a project into smaller individual subprojects and entitlements to qualify for exemptions and avoid responsibility for considering the environmental impacts of the project as a whole.20 In Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v Regents of Univ. of Cal., 21 the California Supreme Court held that an EIR must analyze the environmental effects of a future expansion or action if “(1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects.” Piecemeal environmental review that ignores the environmental impacts of the end result is prohibited by CEQA.22 Agencies engage in improper piecemeal environmental review when the “purpose of the reviewed project is to be the first step toward future development” or when “the reviewed project legally compels or practically presumes completion of another action.”23
The City cannot piecemeal environmental review of the Project by excluding from review necessary and reasonably foreseeable Project components. Dr. Clark identified that in order to develop a 20MW data center, the Project would be required to add exterior equipment and electrical upgrades including a transformer, electrical panel, emergency generator, and back-up battery installations.24 The City acknowledges that future stand-by and backup generators may be approved at a later date for the Project, and would be required to secure the appropriate 18 14 Cal Code Regs §15378(a), (d).
19 14 CCR §§15165, 15168, 15378.
20 PRC § § 21159.27; Orinda Ass’n v Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 CA3d 1145, 1171. 21 (1988) 47 C3d 376, 396. 22 See Christward Ministry v Superior Court (1986) 184 CA3d 180, 193 (EIR should have been required for general plan amendment designating existing landfill site to permit various waste‑disposal activities even though EIR would be required later if use permits were actually sought for such activities); City of Carmel‑by‑the‑Sea v Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 CA3d 229, 251 (County violated CEQA by preparing negative declaration for rezoning and reserving preparation of EIR until later stage of approval); Citizens Ass’n for Sensible Dev. v County of Inyo (1985) 172 CA3d 151, 167 (County improperly prepared negative declaration for general plan amendment and rezoning for proposed shopping center followed by later negative declaration for subdivision map and road abandonment for same project, because, by bifurcating review, County failed to examine potential impacts of entire development). 23 Banning Ranch Conservancy v City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 CA4th 1209, 1223. 24 Clark Comments, p. 3.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
permits.25 Dr. Clark confirms that backup generators will certainly be required for a data center of this size.26 Dr. Clark’s comments demonstrate that as “missioncritical computing cannot tolerate power loss, on-site backup generation is effectively universal at data centers.”27 Dr. Clark’s comments provide substantial evidence that a data center of this size would necessarily require “dozens of enginegenerator sets or several multi-megawatt units.”28 The generators required for the Project would emit significant air pollutant emissions of DPM, NOx, CO, SO2, and ROG, according to Dr. Clark.29 These significant emissions must be analyzed in an EIR in accordance with CEQA.
It is clear that additional equipment and electrical upgrades will be required for the Project including a transformer, electrical panel, emergency generator, and back-up battery installations. The City is therefore engaging in separate, piecemealed approvals of the Project’s individual entitlements, in violation of CEQA and without considering the major environmental and public health impacts that construction and operation the whole data center Project will have on the City and its constituents.
Approving the Special Use Permit without preparing an initial study and CEQA document for the Project would be significant legal misstep in the City’s impermissible piecemealing of the Project. The Director should place the Project’s approval process on hold until the City prepares an EIR for the 20MW data center Project.
III. THE PROJECT IS NOT EXEMPT FROM CEQA
Only projects having no significant effect on the environment are categorically exempt from CEQA review.30 To rely on an exemption, a lead agency must provide “substantial evidence to support [their] finding that the Project will not have a significant effect.”31 Whether a fair argument can be made that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is to be determined by 25 Special Use Permit, p. 8 of 10.
26 Clark Comments, p. 3.
27 Clark Comments, p. 3.
28 Clark Comments, p. 3.
29 Clark Comments, p. 3.
30 Pub. Res. Code §§ 21080(b)(9); 21084(a).
31 Banker’s Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 249, 269.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
examining the whole record before the lead agency.32 If an activity may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not categorically exempt from CEQA, CEQA review must occur, and only then are mitigation measures relevant.33 The Special Use Permit concludes that the “project is found to be exempt from the environmental review requirements” of CEQA under the provisions of Section 15332, in order to then conclude that “the project would not result in significant impacts related to noise, air quality, or water quality.”34 This reasoning is circular and unsupported by any evidence. CEQA mandates that an agency must first determine that a Project will not have a significant environmental impact before concluding that a Project is exempt from environmental review.35 The Statement of Exemption and Special Use Permit include no substantive analysis supporting the City’s determination that environmental impacts are less than significant in order to conclude than an exemption applies.
The City concludes, absent substantial evidence, that the Project is subject to an exemption from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (“Class 32 exemption”). A Class 32 exemption applies only if it meets five conditions. First, the project must be consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies, as well as any applicable zoning designation and regulations.36 Second, the project must be located within the city limits, on a project site of no more than five acres, and substantially surrounded by urban uses.37 Third, the project site must have no value as a habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.38 Fourth, the project must not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.39 Finally, the site must be adequately served by required utilities and public services.40 In determining whether a project meets the requirements of a categorical exemption, the courts apply the rule that exemptions must be narrowly construed and that the scope of the exemptions should not be unreasonably expanded.41 An 32 14 C.C.R. § 15384.
33 SPAWN, 125 Cal.App.4th at 1107.
34 Id.
35 Banker’s Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 249, 269.
36 CEQA Guidelines § 15332(a).
37 CEQA Guidelines § 15332(b).
38 CEQA Guidelines § 15332(c).
39 CEQA Guidelines § 15332(d).
40 CEQA Guidelines § 15332(e). 41 Dehne v. County of Santa Clara (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 827, 842; Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 205; McQueen v. Board of Dirs. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
agency’s decision to apply a categorical exemption will only be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record.42 Here, Staff’s recommendation that the Project is subject to a CEQA exemption is not supported by substantial evidence in the record due to the Project’s significant unmitigated impacts and the Project’s facial noncompliance with the exemption requirements. 43 A lead agency’s significance determination for each impact must be supported by substantial evidence, including accurate scientific and factual data.44 “Substantial evidence” means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.45 Whether a fair argument can be made that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is to be determined by examining the whole record before the lead agency.46
Under CEQA, an agency cannot conclude that an impact is less than significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.47 Moreover, the failure to provide information required by CEQA is a failure to proceed in the manner required by CEQA.48 Challenges to an agency’s failure to proceed in the manner required by CEQA, such as the failure to address a subject required to be covered in an EIR or to disclose information about a project’s environmental effects or alternatives, are subject to a less deferential standard than challenges to an agency’s factual conclusions.49 In reviewing challenges to an agency’s approval of an EIR based on a lack of substantial evidence, the court will “determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures, scrupulously enforcing all legislatively mandated CEQA requirements.”50
42 Meridian Ocean Sys. v. State Lands Comm’n (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 153, 169. 43 Statement of Exemption, p. 1. 44 14 C.C.R. § 15064(b). 45 CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a).
46 Id.
47 Kings Cty. Farm Bur. v. Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 732. 48 Sierra Club v. State Bd. Of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236. 49 Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435.
50 Id., Madera Oversight Coal., Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 48, 102.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
Moreover, CEQA exemptions are negated where an exception applies pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15300.2, and Public Resources Code, Section 21084. Such exceptions apply under the following circumstances:
1. The project site is environmentally sensitive as defined by the project's location. A project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant.
2. The project and successive projects of the same type in the same place will result in cumulative impacts;
3. There are “unusual circumstances” creating the reasonable possibility of significant effects;
4. The project may result in damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock, outcroppings, or similar resources, within an officially designated scenic highway, except with respect to improvements required as mitigation for projects for which negative declarations or EIRs have been prepared;
5. The project is located on a site that the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the Secretary of the Environmental Protection have identified, pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5, as being affected by hazardous wastes or clean-up problems; or
6. The project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource.51
The City’s reliance on a Class 32 exemption is improper and unsupported by substantial evidence. An EIR must be prepared to analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant environmental impacts.
A. The Project Results in Significant Air Quality and Hazards Impacts In order to approve an exemption under Class 32, the Director must find that the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.52 Substantial evidence in Citizen’s comments and Dr.
Clark’s expert consultant reports demonstrate that the Project results in significant air quality and public health impacts requiring preparation of an EIR.
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist III(a) asks “whether the project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.” But, since the City does not even analyze all the foreseeable components of a 20MW 51 14 CCR § 15300.2; Pub. Resources Code § 21084 (emphasis added). 52 14 Cal Code Regs §15332(d).
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
data center, the City failed to analyze whether the Project results in a significant air quality impact and whether the Project conflicts with an applicable air quality plan.
Substantial evidence in Dr. Clark’s comments demonstrates that the Project results in significant air quality impacts, when accounting for all the necessary equipment associated with a 20MW data center.53 Dr. Clark demonstrates that in order to convert an 8.5MW research and development facility to a 20MW data center, the Project would “require new exterior development, including the installation of transformer, electrical panel, emergency generator, and back-up battery equipment.”54 Dr. Clark’s comments provide substantial evidence that construction of the Project will result in significant NOx, DPM, and greenhouse gas emissions.55 Dr. Clark’s comments demonstrate that the Project’s emissions may be significant when accounting for all “off-road equipment, haul trips, and slab and utility work required to install 20 to 30 MW of power, cooling, and generator infrastructure.”56 Moreover, backup generators required for operation of the Project result in significant air quality and health risk impacts from diesel particulate matter a toxic air contaminant.57 The Project’s air quality impacts are therefore significant precluding reliance on a Class 32 exemption, as detailed below. i. Construction Emissions
The City’s determination that the Project’s air quality impacts are less than significant is not supported by substantial evidence or any quantitative analysis, in violation of CEQA.
The Statement of Exemption fails to describe or analyze any of the emissions related to the Project’s data center installation activities and interior construction.
In particular, the City failed to conduct CalEEMod modeling the off-road equipment, haul trips, and slab and utility work required to install the power, cooling, generator and other infrastructure required to support the new 20 MW data center project. Since no emissions analysis was performed, the City also failed to compare construction emissions with BAAQMD construction thresholds, as required by law. The City therefore lacks any supporting evidence for its conclusion that construction emissions would be less than significant.
53 Clark Comments, p. 2.
54 Clark Comments, p. 2.
55 Clark Comments, p. 9.
56 Clark Comments, p. 9.
57 Clark Comments, p. 3.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
Dr. Clark’s comments explain that construction air emissions associated with the Project may be significant based on the scope of power, cooling, and generator infrastructure needed to support a 20MW data center. 58 These impacts remain unquantified and unmitigated. An EIR must be prepared, in accordance with CEQA, to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant construction air quality impacts.
ii. Operational Emissions: Backup Generators
The City asserts that the Project would have no operational air quality impacts because it does not require regular employees (mobile source emissions) and does not propose generators (stationary source emissions).59 However, as discussed above, backup generators are a reasonably foreseeable component of the Project, are effectively universal at data centers, are necessary to prevent power loss,60 and are contemplated by the Special Use Permit, which includes a condition of approval addressing permits for “future stand-by/backup generators.”61 Dr. Clark’s comments demonstrate that the Project will necessarily require backup diesel generators in order to support operation of a 20 MW data center62 Dr.
Clark explains that a 20-MW critical load necessarily requires a very large installed generator capacity, which is likely to include dozens of engine-generator sets or several multi-megawatt generator units.63 Backup generators are commonly dieselpowered, and their operation can result in substantial air emissions. Dr. Clark’s comments also demonstrate that diesel generators will result in significant emissions of NOx.64 The Project’s generators were not analyzed for their environmental impacts, which Dr. Clark concludes may be significant and unmitigated.65
First, Dr. Clark found that generators would result in significant criteria pollutant emissions. Dr. Clark calculated that emissions of NOx from backupgenerator testing alone would exceed BAAQMD’s operational NOx significance thresholds of 54 pounds per day and 10 tons per year. 66 Dr. Clark calculated that 58 Clark Comments, p. 9.
59 Statement of Exemption, p. 2.
60 Clark Comments, p. 3.
61 Special Use Permit, p. 8, Condition 19.
62 Clark Comments, p. 3. 63 Clark Comments, p. 3.
64 Clark Comments, p. 4.
65 Clark Comments, p. 3.
66 Clark Comments, p. 9.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
the daily NOₓ threshold is exceeded within minutes of generator operation and, even assuming a conservative 50 hours per year of testing per engine, resulting emissions are approximately 10.6 tons/yr of NOₓ, exceeding the 10-ton/yr threshold from routine testing alone.67 Actual emergency generator operation would further increase these emissions.
Dr. Clark also found that diesel exhaust from the Project’s generators may result in significant health risk as a source of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions during construction and operation of the Project. 68 DPM emissions are designated as a toxic air contaminant in California and account for the majority of ambient air-toxics cancer risk in the State.69 Dr. Clark identified that DPM emissions from the Project may be significant on nearby sensitive receptors living on Los Encinos Court within 200 feet of the Project site.70 Dr. Clark cites to significant public health burdens associated with siting diesel generators adjacent to residential sensitive receptors.71
Dr. Clark’s comments explain that “Even where generators run only for testing and maintenance (commonly on the order of tens of hours per year), their short-term, ground-level emissions in densely built settings can produce acute exposures” of DPM and toxic air contaminants.72 Because diesel backup generators are a reasonably foreseeable component of the Project, their emissions and resulting air quality impacts were required to be analyzed as part of the Project.
The Director must remand the Project to Staff to prepare a legally adequate EIR which analyzes and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant air quality impacts from diesel backup generators, before the Project can proceed. iii. Operational Emissions: Indirect GHG Emissions
Dr. Clark found that indirect greenhouse-gas (“GHG”) emissions from energy consumption would exceed the stationary-source threshold several-fold.73 Using a representative grid factor of approximately 0.2 metric tons of CO₂-equivalent per MWh, Dr. Clark calculated that the Project’s indirect GHG emissions would be approximately 52,600 metric tons of CO₂e per year, more than five times 67 Clark Comments, p. 8.
68 Clark Comments, p. 3, 9. 69 Clark Comments, p. 3.
70 Clark Comments, p. 3.
71 Clark Comments, p. 4.
72 Clark Comments, p. 4.
73 Clark Comments, p. 9.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
BAAQMD’s 10,000-metric-ton-per-year stationary-source significance threshold. 74 GHG emissions are significant and require analysis and mitigation in an EIR. iv. Operational Emissions: Cooling Infrastructure
Dr. Clark’s comments provide substantial evidence that a 20MW data center requires substantial cooling technology.75 The Special Use Permit and Statement of Exemption fail to analyze the potentially significant emissions of particulate matter, greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollution associated with the different potential cooling mechanisms.76 Dr. Clark’s comments demonstrate that there is no safe level of particulate matter emissions to sensitive receptors approximately 200 feet from the Project site.77 Given that the Project will necessarily include cooling infrastructure for the 20MW data center, the Project’s air quality impacts are significant.78 An EIR must be prepared for this Project, which adequately analyzes and mitigates the Project’s significant operational air quality emissions, in accordance with CEQA before the Project can proceed.
vi. Hazards and Indoor Air Quality
The Project site may suffer from residual subsurface contamination which must be analyzed for the Project can proceed.79 Dr. Clark’s comments identified potentially significant indoor air quality impacts associated with potential subsurface contamination of chlorinated solvents, including trichloroethylene (“TCE”) and tetrachloroethylene (“PCE”) which the City failed to discuss. 80 Dr.
Clark’s comments demonstrate that the Project’s location has historically been a hotspot of electronics-industry solvent releases, and concludes that residual TCE and/or PCE contamination could result in unintended chemical releases and indoor air quality impacts unless detected and mitigated. 81 The City did not prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”) or any no site-specific soil-gas or indoor-air data to assess the severity of residual contamination or the resulting health impacts from disturbance and inhalation.
74 Clark Comments, p. 8.
75 Clark Comments, p. 4.
76 Clark Comments, p. 5.
77 Clark Comments, p. 5.
78 Clark Comments, p. 5.
79 Clark Comments, p. 5.
80 Clark Comments, p. 5.
81 Clark Comments, p. 5.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
Dr. Clark explains that TCE and PCE can migrate as soil gas from contaminated soil or groundwater and enter buildings, thereby contaminating indoor air quality.82 The concentrations required to trigger a vapor-intrusion concern can be very low, shallow groundwater that is safe by drinking-water standards may still be unsafe to occupy the ground above, according to Dr. Clark.83 The health consequences of TCE and PCE inhalation are severe.84 EPA classifies TCE as carcinogenic to humans, resulting in kidney cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and liver cancer. 85 TCE is associated with cardiac malformations and other developmental effects.86 Communities exposed to TCE and PCE through soilvapor intrusion (including the population near the former IBM semiconductor facility in Endicott, New York) have documented associations with adverse birth outcomes, including low birth weight, cardiac defects, and fetal growth restriction. 87 The City failed to analyze this potentially significant impact.
The Special Use Permit and Statement of Exemption failed to adequately analyze the Project’s potentially significant hazards and air quality impacts. The Director must direct Staff to prepare an EIR which adequately analyzes and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts before the Project can lawfully proceed.
B. The Project Results in Significant Operational Noise Impacts The Statement of Exemption assumes, with no supporting evidence, that Project operation will have no significant noise impacts because the data center will have no regular employees and does not propose backup generators. Mr. Meighan explains that the City failed to disclose substantial sources of operational noise that are common for data centers like the Project.
In particular, Mr. Meighan explains that the exterior equipment required for the Project, including mechanical equipment, emergency generators and cooling equipment, will result in significant noise impacts.88 As there are currently no chillers at the site, the introduction of cooling noise would be a completely new 82 Clark Comments, p. 6.
83 Clark Comments, p. 6.
84 Clark Comments, p. 6.
85 Clark Comments, p. 6.
86 Clark Comments, p. 6.
87 Clark Comments, p. 6.
88 Meighan Comments, p. 4.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
source of noise pollution over ambient levels, according to Mr. Meighan.89 The introduction of this new operational noise pollution source would violate the Santa Clara County Code of Ordinances which prohibits “offensive noise contain[ing] a steady, audible tone such as a whine, screech or hum” which exceeds thresholds., resulting in a significant noise impact.90
Mr. Meighan’s comments provide substantial evidence demonstrating that the exterior Project components would result in significant noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors on Los Encinos Ct.91 Specifically, Mr. Meighan’s comments provide substantial evidence that noise from the Project’s chillers would result in noise as loud as 55 dBA at 200 feet.92 This exceeds the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance receiving nighttime noise limit of 50 dBA. 93 This is a significant impact under CEQA, precluding reliance on a Class 32 exemption.
The Special Use Permit and Statement of Exemption failed to analyze the Project’s significant noise impacts. These significant impacts must be analyzed in an EIR in accordance with CEQA.
C. The Project Site Contains Valuable Habitat for Threatened Species In order to approve an exemption under Class 32, the City must find that the project site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.94 Substantial evidence demonstrates that the Project site is located on valuable habitat for Western Burrowing Owls (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) (“burrowing owls”),. Burrowing owls are rare, threatened, or endangered and the Project may take habitat of the burrowing owl, resulting in a significant impact under CEQA.
The Project is within the Habitat Conservation Plan Area, within Fee Zone D.95,96 The Project is within the Burrowing Owl Fee Zone.97 According to the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Multi-phase Project Burrowing Owl Fee Policy, the Burrowing Owl Fee Zone is determined by annual survey efforts that map the 89 Meighan Comments, p. 3.
90 Santa Clara County Code of Ordinances, Sect. B11-153(b). 91 Meighan Comments, p. 4. 92 Meighan Comments, p. 4.
93 Meighan Comments, p. 4; Santa Clara County Code of Ordinances, Sect. B11-153(a)-(b). 94 14 Cal Code Regs §15332(c). 95 Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development, Property Explorer ArcGIS, https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/b6175d89a38649a898e409d44f3da90b?dlg=PrintableReport#data s=id%3AdataSource 15-19929aac418-l. 96 http://scv-habitatagency.org/. 97 Id.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
extent of nesting habitat occupied by western burrowing owls.98 Occupied nesting habitat is defined as a nesting site identified within the past 3 years plus 0.5 mile of foraging habitat surrounding the site.99 The boundaries of the Burrowing Owl Fee Zone are updated annually to reflect changes in nesting habitat within the Habitat Plan area.100 According to the Policy, “If a covered project occurs in the Burrowing Owl Fee Zone, a burrowing owl fee will be paid by the project applicant.”101 As this Project is within the Burrowing Owl Fee Zone, it was determined by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency to be foraging habitat for burrowing owls. Foraging habitat is included within the definition of habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. A Class 32 exemption is therefore facially inapplicable for this Project, given the site’s value as foraging habitat for burrowing owls which are rare, threatened and endangered.
i. Western Burrowing Owls are a Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species Substantial evidence demonstrates that Western Burrowing Owls are rare, threatened, and/or endangered pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15332(c) and 15380(b). Pursuant to CEQA, a species is “endangered” when its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors.102 A species is “threatened” when it “is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.”103 A species is “rare” when either: although not presently threatened with extinction, the species is existing in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered “threatened” as that term is used in the Federal Endangered Species Act.104 Here, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project site has value for use as habitat for burrowing owl and that burrowing owl are endangered, threatened, and rare.
98 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Multi-phase Project Burrowing Owl Fee Policy (May 26, 2015), https://scv-habitatagency.org/DocumentCenter/View/463/Multi-phase-Project-Burrowing-OwlFee-Policy?bidId= 99 Id.
100 Id.
101 Id.
102 14 Cal Code Regs §15380(b)(1).
103 16 U.S.C. § 1532(20).
104 14 Cal Code Regs §15380(a).
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
On October 10, 2024, the California Fish and Game Commission unanimously approved naming the western burrowing owl as a candidate for potential listing as a protected species under the California Endangered Species Act.105 The “Petition To List California Populations of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as Endangered or Threatened Under the California Endangered Species Act” (“Petition”) submitted by Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Burrowing Owl Preservation Society, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Urban Bird Foundation, Central Valley Bird Club, and San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society provided substantial evidence which demonstrated that burrowing owls are rare, threatened, and endangered. 106 The candidate determination provides substantial evidence demonstrating that burrowing owls should be listed as endangered under CESA, and considered as an endangered threatened, or rare species for the purposes of the Project. As discussed in the Petition, burrowing owls are subject to the following primary threats:
1) Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation from urban and suburban development, industrial energy development, destruction of ground squirrels, and agricultural practices;
2) Direct mortality from development projects, collisions with vehicles and structures, pesticides, and agricultural activities; 3) Relocation of owls and failure to maintain artificial nest boxes; 4) Population isolation and demographic stochasticity; and 5) Predation.107
105 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, News Releases, Fish and Game Commission: Western Burrowing Owl Becomes CESA Candidate (Oct. 15, 2024), available at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/News/Archive/fish-and-game-commission-western-burrowing-owl-becomescesa-candidate-wildlife-prosecutor-of-the-year-named-waterfowlers-hall-of-fame-inducteesrecognized. 106 Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity, Petition To List California Populations of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as Endangered or Threatened Under the California Endangered Species Act (March 5, 2024), available at:
https://biologicaldiversity.org/species/birds/western burrowing owl/pdfs/CA-Burrowing-Owl-Petition3-5-24.pdf (hereinafter “Petition”). 107 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Endangered Species Act, Petition Evaluation for Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) Report to the Fish and Game Commission (August 2024), p. 13, available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=225154&inline (“Petition Evaluation”).
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife evaluated a Petition to list the western burrowing owl under California Endangered Species Act.108 In evaluating the Petition, the Department found that there is sufficient scientific information “to list the western burrowing owl as threatened or endangered.”109 The Department found that “western burrowing owl has experienced population declines in regions of California and… threats to the species, coupled with long-term population declines, suggest a high degree and immediacy of threat to western burrowing owl populations in California. This information could lead a reasonable person to conclude that listing may be warranted.”110
While the Department determines whether full listing is warranted, western burrowing owls are subject to full protections pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act. This includes prohibitions against “take” of western burrowing owls without permit authorization. “Take” is defined as “[h]unt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.111 The Project may result in take of burrowing owl and burrowing owl habitat.
Although not yet formally protected under either the Federal Endangered Species Act or CESA, at present, the burrowing owl is already listed as a California Species of Special Concern, considered a federal Bird of Conservation Concern, protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the take of burrowing owls without a permit is prohibited under the California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513.
The Petition for listing detailed that burrowing owls are likely to become endangered statewide within the foreseeable future due to urban development, habitat loss, utility-scale renewable energy development, agricultural conversions, eviction methods, pest management, ground squirrel control.112 This constitutes all or a significant portion of its range. 113
Burrowing owls are rare because burrowing owls exist in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be 108 Petition Evaluation, p. 18.
109 Id.
110 Id. 111 Fish & Game Code, § 86. 112 Petition, p. i. 113 Id. p. 6.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
considered “threatened.”114 According to the Petition, the burrowing owl is undergoing a rapid decline across California, having already been extirpated from large portions of its historic geographic range in California.115 The Petition details that “Burrowing owl population declines began by at least the 1940s throughout most of the range of the species in California. Declines have been most precipitous in coastal grasslands extending from Sonoma to San Diego counties, where breeding burrowing owls were once abundant. The burrowing owl has been extirpated as a breeding species by human activities from at least 19 of 51 California counties where it formerly occurred; and is nearing extirpation in 10 other counties. The species now no longer breeds throughout roughly 16% of its former range in the state; and is nearing extirpation in an additional 13% of its California breeding range.”116 Based on the foregoing, substantial evidence demonstrates that burrowing owls are clearly rare, threatened, and endangered. ii. The Project Site Has Value As Habitat For Western Burrowing Owls The Project is within the Habitat Conservation Plan Area, within Fee Zone D.117,118 The Project is within the Burrowing Owl Fee Zone.119 The Project is within the HCP Permit Area.
According to the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Multi-phase Project Burrowing Owl Fee Policy, the Burrowing Owl Fee Zone is determined by annual survey efforts that map the extent of nesting habitat occupied by western burrowing owls.120 Occupied nesting habitat is defined as a nesting site identified within the past 3 years plus 0.5 mile of foraging habitat surrounding the site.121 The boundaries of the Burrowing Owl Fee Zone are updated annually to reflect changes in nesting habitat within the Habitat Plan area. 122 According to the Policy, “If a covered project occurs in the Burrowing Owl Fee Zone, a burrowing owl fee will be 114 Petition, p. 121.
115 Id.
116 Petition, p. i.
117 Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development, Property Explorer ArcGIS, https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/b6175d89a38649a898e409d44f3da90b?dlg=PrintableReport#data s=id%3AdataSource 15-19929aac418-l. 118 http://scv-habitatagency.org/. 119 Id. 120 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Multi-phase Project Burrowing Owl Fee Policy (May 26, 2015), https://scv-habitatagency.org/DocumentCenter/View/463/Multi-phase-Project-Burrowing-OwlFee-Policy?bidId= 121 Id. 122 Id.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
paid by the project applicant.”123 As this Project is within the Burrowing Owl Fee Zone, it was determined by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency to be foraging habitat for burrowing owls. Foraging habitat is included within the definition of habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. A Class 32 exemption is therefore facially inapplicable for this Project, given the site’s value as foraging habitat for burrowing owls which are rare, threatened and endangered.
Pursuant to the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency’s requirements, the Project is required to undergo the following steps for obtaining endangered species permits for private projects under the Habitat Plan:124
1. Confirm the project is in the Habitat Plan Permit Area.
2. Complete the Habitat Plan Coverage Screening Form.
3. Submit the Habitat Plan Coverage Screening Form to the planning or building office for review and confirmation.
4. Complete and submit the Habitat Plan Fees and Conditions Worksheet, including verification of land cover on the project site, to the planning or building office for review and confirmation.
5. Receive determination of applicable fee rates and conditions from the planning or building office.
6. Prepare and submit the Habitat Plan Application Package with all supporting materials. Habitat Plan Applications are submitted online by clicking "submit" at the bottom of the form. Upon submission, they will be routed to the appropriate planning or building office.
7. Pay Habitat Plan fees, agree to conditions of approval, and obtain permits.
The City has not provided Citizens with a copy of the Habitat Plan Coverage Screening Form which concludes that the Project is not a covered project under the Habitat Plan, as required by the Habitat Plan Coverage Screening Form.125 The Screening Form provides that Applicants must “Submit this Coverage Screening Form to the planning or building office with the applicable planning application (such as use permit, subdivision, etc.) for the project. Planning staff will evaluate and confirm the project is not a Covered Project. Verification of the absence of sensitive habitats, which may include photos and aerials of the site, may be 123 Id. 124 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Fees and Forms, https://scv-habitatagency.org/129/Formsand-Fees. 125 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, Coverage Screening Form, https://www.scvhabitatagency.org/DocumentCenter/View/1367/PvtScreeningForm v4 05312025?bidId= Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
required.”126 Here, the City and the Applicant have not verified absence of sensitive habitats for burrowing owls, substantiated by photos and aerials of the site. The City’s conclusion that the site does not have value as burrowing owl habitat is therefore not supported by substantial evidence.
In fact, the Project site is immediately south of an area where burrowing owls have been identified on February 26, 2026, January 7, 2026, and April 19, 2025.127 The Project site may have value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, including burrowing owls. But the City did not analyze the presence or absence of burrowing owls on the Project site. Substantial evidence demonstrates that burrowing owls are rare, threatened and endangered, and are known to be in the Project area. Since the Project has value for rare, threatened and endangered burrowing owls, the City cannot rely on a CEQA Class 32 exemption. The City must prepare an EIR, in accordance with CEQA, given the Project’s potentially significant impacts on burrowing owls.
D. The Project Is Not Consistent with the General Plan
CEQA provides that a project only qualifies for a Class 32 exemption if the project is “consistent with all applicable general plan policies, as well as with any applicable zoning designation and regulations.”128 Here, the Project is not consistent with all applicable general plan policies and regulations because the Project violates General Plan Policy MS-2.2, M.S-4.4, MS-10.1, MS-10.2, MS-10.7, ER-4.1, and General Plan Actions MS-2.8.129
The Project is not consistent with General Plan Policy MS-2.2, which requires the City to “Encourage maximized use of on-site generation of renewable energy for all new and existing buildings.”130 The Special Use Permit and Statement of Exemption do not provide that Project incorporates renewable energy for development of the existing Project site. The Special Use Permit and Statement of Exemption do not identify whether on-site generation of renewable energy is 126 Id.
127 eBird.org, Burrowing Owl (Western), Santa Clara County, California, United States, https://ebird.org/hotspot/L23465980. 128 14 Cal Code Regs §15332(a). 129 City of San Jose, Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan (August 29, 2025), https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/121586/638828345723130000 (“General Plan”).
130 General Plan, Policy MS-2.2, Chapter 3, p. 4.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
feasible, or whether on-site generation of renewable energy would reduce the Project’s potentially significant energy impacts.131 The Project is therefore inconsistent with General Plan Policy MS-2.2.
The Project is not consistent with General Plan Action MS-2.8 which requires the City to “Develop policies which promote energy reduction for energy-intensive industries. For facilities such as data centers, which have high energy demand and indirect greenhouse gas emissions, require evaluation of operational energy efficiency and inclusion of operational design measures as part of development review consistent with benchmarks such as those in EPA’s EnergyStar Program for new data centers. Also require consideration of distributed power production for these facilities to reduce energy losses from electricity transmission over long distances and energy production methods such as waste-heat reclamation or the purchase of renewable energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”132 The General Plan has specific requirements in Action MS-2.8 for data centers to “require evaluation of operational energy efficiency” and to include energy efficient operational design measures.133 But, the Special Use Permit and Statement of Exemption do not evaluate operational energy impacts, efficiency measures, or include any analysis whatsoever of the energy impacts of the 20 MW data center Proposed by the Project. Dr. Clark’s comments demonstrate that operational energy impacts and associated air quality and GHG emissions will be significant and unmitigated.134 The Project therefore directly contravenes General Plan Action MS-2.8.
The Project is not consistent with General Plan Policy MS-4.4 which requires the City to “Develop and implement policies and ordinances to promote beneficial construction and pre-occupancy practices such as sealing of the HVAC system during construction, air flush-outs prior to occupancy, and/or air quality testing and corrections prior to occupancy.”135 The Special Use Permit and Statement of Exemption do not identify any measures for protecting indoor air quality for workers onsite. This directly contravenes General Plan Policy MS-4.4 and may endanger worker safety. In fact, Dr. Clark’s comments provide substantial evidence that impacts on indoor air quality may be significant, and require mitigation in an EIR in accordance with CEQA.136 Dr. Clark’s comments demonstrate that vapor intrusion of TCE and PCE contaminants from contaminated groundwater beneath 131 See Clark Comments, p. 8.
132 General Plan, Action MS-2.8, Chapter 3, p. 5 .
133 Id.
134 Clark Comments, p. 8.
135 General Plan, Policy MS-4.4, Chapter 6, p. 7.
136 Clark Comments, p. 6.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
the Project site can endanger public health and safety by contaminating indoor air quality.137 Dr. Clark’s comments point to severe health consequences of TCE and PCE inhalation.138 TCE is a carcinogen to humans and is associated with cardiac malformations and other developmental effects, according to Dr. Clark.139 The Special Use Permit and Statement of Exemption do not identify whether any measures will be incorporated to protect indoor air quality during construction of necessary components for the Project.
The Project is not consistent with General Plan Policy MS-10.1 which requires that the City “Assess projected air emissions from new development in conformance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines and relative to state and federal standards. Identify and implement feasible air emission reduction measures.”140 As the Special Use Permit and Statement of Exemption include no analysis of projected air emissions to determine whether the Project’s impacts will be less than significant, the Project violates General Plan Policy MS-10.1 Notably, Dr. Clark identified potentially significant air emissions from development and operation of the Project, which were not identified by the City and require analysis and mitigation in an EIR in accordance with CEQA.141
The Project is not consistent with General Plan Policy MS-10.2 which requires the City to “Consider the cumulative air quality impacts from proposed developments for proposed land use designation changes and new development, consistent with the region’s Clean Air Plan and State law.”142 As the Special Use Permit and Statement of Exemption include no analysis of cumulative air quality impacts from the Project and surrounding projects, the Project violates General Plan Policy MS-10.2. Dr. Clark’s comments provide substantial evidence that the Project may result in cumulative air quality impacts from successive new development in the Project vicinity, which is a significant impact under CEQA, and an exception to the Class 32 exemption.143 An EIR must be prepared which analyzes the Project’s significant cumulative impacts and nonconformance with the General Plan.
137 Clark Comments, p. 6.
138 Clark Comments, p. 6.
139 Clark Comments, p. 6.
140 General Plan, Policy MS-10.1, Chapter 3, p. 12. 141 Clark Comments, p. 3, 9. 142 General Plan, Policy MS-10.2, Chapter 3, p. 12. 143 Clark Comments, p. 6.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
The Project is not consistent with General Plan Policy MS-10.7 which requires the City to “Encourage regional and statewide air pollutant emission reduction through energy conservation to improve air quality.”144 As the City has not required the Applicant to incorporate any energy conservation measures to improve air quality, this Project violates General Plan Policy MS-10.7. Dr. Clark’s comments demonstrate that the Project will result in significant energy, air pollutant, and GHG emissions, which remain significant and unmitigated.145 The Project is not consistent with General Plan Policy ER-4.1 which requires the City to “Preserve and restore, to the greatest extent feasible, habitat areas that support special-status species. Avoid development in such habitats unless no feasible alternatives exist and mitigation is provided of equivalent value.”146 As the Project is within burrowing owl habitat, the Project violates General Plan Policy ER-4.1.
As a result of the Project’s violations of the General Plan’s Policies and Actions, a CEQA Exemption is improper, and the Director must direct staff to prepare an EIR which adequately analyzes and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts before the Project can lawfully proceed.
E. The Project is Subject to an Exception from a CEQA Categorical Exemption
A CEQA categorical exemption under Class 32 does not apply if the Project and successive projects of the same type in the same place will result in cumulative impacts.147 Here, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that successive projects of the same type in the same place will result in cumulative impacts.148 Dr. Clark’s comments provide substantial evidence that the Project results in significant cumulative impacts.149 Specifically, Dr. Clark found that North San Jose is experiencing rapid data-center and industrial development.150 Successive similar in-fill conversions can combine to produce significant cumulative increases in NOx, particulate matter, and toxic air contaminants in a corridor that already carries 144 General Plan, Policy MS-10.7, Chapter 3, p. 12.
145 Clark Comments, p. 8.
146 San Jose General Plan
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/121586/638828345723130000 p. 28. 147 14 CCR § 15300.2(b).
148 Clark Comments, p. 10.
149 Clark Comments, p. 10.
150 Clark Comments, p. 10.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
substantial mobile-source burdens from SR-237 and I-880. 151 Based on this, Dr.
Clark identified a potentially significant cumulative impact associated with the successive projects of the same type in the same area as the Project.152 The development of this Project in the same place of the same type of data center and industrial development results in significant cumulative air quality and public health impacts which must be analyzed and mitigated in an EIR before the Project can lawfully proceed.
IV. THE CITY CANNOT MAKE THE NECESSARY FINDINGS TO
APPROVE THE PROJECT’S ENTITLEMENTS
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 20.100.820, the Director may issue a Special Use Permit only if all the following findings are made:
1. The Special Use Permit, as approved, is consistent with and will further the policies of the General Plan and applicable specific plans and area development policies; and
2. The Special Use Permit, as approved, conforms with the zoning code and all other provisions of the San José Municipal Code applicable to the project; and
3. The Special Use permit, as approved, is consistent with applicable City Council policies, or counterbalancing considerations justify the inconsistency; and
4. The proposed use at the location requested will not:
a. Adversely affect the peace, health, safety, morals or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area; or b. Impair the utility or value of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site; or
c. Be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare; and
5. The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this title, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate the use with existing and planned uses in the surrounding area; and
6. The proposed site is adequately served:
a. By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate; or by other forms of transit adequate to carry the kind and quantity of individuals such use would generate; and
151 Clark Comments, p. 10.
152 Clark Comments, p. 10.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
b. By other public or private service facilities as are required.
7. The environmental impacts of the project, including but not limited to noise, vibration, dust, drainage, erosion, storm water runoff, and odor which, even if insignificant for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), will not have an unacceptable negative affect on adjacent property or properties.
8. Project must be in conformance with the relevant Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, where applicable. 153
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 20.100.820, the Director, Planning Commission, or City Council, shall deny a Special Use Permit application where the information submitted by the applicant and/or presented at the public hearing fails to satisfactorily substantiate the above findings.154 The City cannot make the findings to support approval of the Special Use Permit for the following reasons.
First, as detailed above, the Project is inconsistent with numerous General Plan Policies and Actions including General Plan Policy MS-2.2, M.S-4.4, MS-10.1, MS-10.2, MS-10.7, ER-4.1, and General Plan Actions MS-2.8.155 The Director cannot approve the Special Use Permit, given the Project’s inconsistency with the General Plan.
Second, as demonstrated herein and in Dr. Clark’s expert consultant report, the Project results in significant air quality, health risk and greenhouse gas emissions which are not analyzed or mitigated by the City. The Project would result in potentially significant emissions of NOx, DPM, reactive organic gases, and volatile organic compounds from construction and operation, and the use of diesel backup generators. The Project may result in significant impacts from vapor intrusion contaminating indoor air quality, which have not been adequately analyzed or mitigated. The Project may also result in significant energy and GHG emissions, which will adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors and result in unmitigated significant impacts.
The City’s proposed CEQA findings are also unsupported. The Special Use Permit’s analysis regarding the findings of no significant impact is circular and unsupported by substantial evidence.156 The Special Use Permit states that because the “project is found to be exempt from the environmental review 153 San Jose Municipal Code § 20.100.820(A).
154 San Jose Municipal Code § 20.100.820(B).
155 City of San Jose, Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan (August 29, 2025). 156 Special Use Permit, p. 5 of 10.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
July 7, 2026
8286-005j
requirements” of CEQA under the provisions of Section 15332, “the project would not result in significant impacts related to noise, air quality, or water quality.”157 This assertion is not supported by any quantitative evidence, and is contradicted by evidence from Citizens’ experts. CEQA mandates that an agency first determine whether a Project results in a significant environmental impact before concluding that a Project is exempt from environmental review. The Statement of Exemption and Special Use Permit include no substantive analysis substantiating the City’s determination that environmental impacts are less than significant.
The Project’s health and safety impacts and the nonconformance with the General Plan must be remedied in an EIR circulated for public review and scrutiny before the Project can lawfully be approved. The City must prepare an EIR which adequately analyzes and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts before the Project can lawfully proceed.
V. CONCLUSION
As discussed herein, the Project may have significant effects on the environment and public health which require the City to prepare an EIR. The City lacks substantial evidence to rely on a Class 32 infill exemption for Project approval, and there is substantial evidence in the record of potentially significant impacts. Citizens respectfully requests that the Director remand the Project to staff to comply with CEQA and the Municipal Code before considering Project approval.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please include them in the record of proceedings for the Project.
Sincerely,
Kelilah D. Federman
KDF:ljl
157 Special Use Permit, p. 5 of 10.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
EXHIBIT A
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
300 Holger Way Data Center (SP25-029 & ER25-243)
CLARK & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Air Quality • Dispersion Modeling • Health Risk Assessment • CEQA Review July 6, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Kelilah Federman
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
Re: Technical Review of Air Quality and Hazardous Materials Concerns: Categorical Exemption for the Proposed Data Center at 300 Holger Way, San José, California (File Nos. SP25-029 & ER25-243; APN 097-03-132)
Dear Ms. Federman:
At your request, I have reviewed the City of San José’s environmental determination for the proposed conversion of the existing research-and-development (“R&D”) building at 300 Holger Way to a data center use. The materials I reviewed include the Statement of Exemption prepared by the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement (File No. SP25-029, dated June 2, 2026) and the proposed Special Use Permit (File Nos. SP25-029 & ER25-243). The City has determined that the Project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to the Class 32 (in-fill development) exemption, CEQA Guidelines section 15332.
My qualifications are summarized in the curriculum vitae previously provided to your office. In brief, I hold a Ph.D. and have more than twenty-five years of experience in air quality analysis, atmospheric dispersion modeling (including AERMOD and CALPUFF), emissions quantification, and human health risk assessment, and I have prepared expert analyses and technical comments on numerous CEQA and air-permitting matters throughout California. The opinions expressed below are based on that experience, on my review of the Project record, and on the peer-reviewed scientific literature cited herein.
This letter documents that the Project is likely to result in significant air quality and public-health impacts, and identifies the hazardous-materials pathways the City’s exemption analysis fails to address. As explained below, the record does not support the two central factual premises on which the proposed exemption rests: (1) that the Project involves “interior tenant improvements only” with “no electrical and mechanical equipment, or emergency generators,” and (2) that operation of a data center at this location produces no air quality impact because it employs fewer people Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
300 Holger Way Data Center (SP25-029 & ER25-243)
than the prior R&D use. Both premises are contradicted by the physical realities of modern datacenter operation and by the documented industrial history of the site and its surroundings..
I. The Exemption Rests on an Incomplete and Internally Inconsistent Project Description
The Statement of Exemption describes the Project as a 20-megawatt (“MW”) data center within an approximately 97,800-square-foot building, while simultaneously representing that “[n]o electrical and mechanical equipment, or emergency generators are proposed” and that the work consists of “interior tenant improvements only, including installation of data racks.” These representations cannot both be true. A data center is defined by its electrical and mechanical (“E&M”) infrastructure: the power distribution, uninterruptible power supply (“UPS”), and heatrejection (cooling) systems that allow high-density computing equipment to operate continuously.
A 20-MW computing load cannot be served, cooled, or protected against power interruption by “data racks” alone.
The background information developed by the City underscores the inconsistency in the City’s assumptions. The end user is understood to be a major manufacturer of graphics processing units (“GPUs”) and artificial-intelligence (“AI”) hardware, and the facility is described as a three-story, approximately 100,325-square-foot building serving as both a data center and a laboratory, presently equipped with 8.5 MW of utility power and the subject of a long-term lease running to 2035, with significant capital investment to transform the site into a high-performance computing and research hub. A facility of that description is not a passive rack installation. AI and highperformance GPU clusters are among the most power- and cooling-intensive computing loads in commercial use, and they require substantial supporting infrastructure and, almost invariably, onsite backup generation to protect against data loss and equipment damage during grid interruptions.
Consistent with this, in order to increase the facility's capacity from its existing 8.5 MW to the proposed 20 MW, the Project would likely require new exterior development, including the installation of transformer, electrical panel, emergency generator, and back-up battery equipment.
Such exterior improvements are flatly inconsistent with the City’s description of the Project as "interior tenant improvements only" with "no electrical and mechanical equipment, or emergency generators."
This matters for CEQA because “the accuracy and completeness of a project description are essential to meaningful environmental review.” The exemption’s no-impact conclusions are derived from the premise that nothing is being installed but racks. If, as the physical characteristics of the Project make clear, the build-out will include improvements such as power-conditioning equipment, thermal management systems, and standby generation, all reasonably likely project components, then the environmental baseline and the impact analysis are both fundamentally in error, and the exemption cannot stand on the present record.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
300 Holger Way Data Center (SP25-029 & ER25-243)
II. The Project May Cause Significant Operational Air Quality Impacts That the Statement of Exemption Does Not Analyze
A. The “fewer employees” rationale is not a valid air-quality analysis.
The Statement of Exemption concludes there is “no significant impact to operational air quality” because the data center “does not require regular employees for its operation” and will host fewer employees than the prior R&D use. This reasoning conflates two entirely different emission categories. Employee commute trips are a mobile-source consideration relevant to vehicle-milestraveled and mobile emissions; they say nothing about the stationary-source and energy-related emissions that dominate a data center’s air-quality profile. A facility can have almost no employees and still be a major point source of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. The exemption never quantifies stationary-source emissions at all; it simply omits the analysis.
B. Backup diesel generators are the defining air-quality risk of data centers, and the Project record neither discloses nor prohibits them.
The single most important air-quality feature of a data center is its fleet of backup generators.
Because mission-critical computing cannot tolerate power loss, on-site backup generation is effectively universal at data centers, including newly built facilities that “continue to depend on onsite diesel generators for backup power.”1 A 20-MW critical load implies a very large installed generator capacity, typically on the order of the critical load plus redundancy, which at this scale can mean dozens of engine-generator sets or several multi-megawatt units. The Special Use Permit itself confirms that backup generation is contemplated: Condition 19 (“No Generators Approved”) expressly states that the permit “does not include the approval of any standby/backup electrical power generation facility” and that “[a]ny future stand-by/backup generators shall secure appropriate permits.” The City thus acknowledges that generators are a reasonably foreseeable component of the Project while excluding them from the environmental analysis. That is the very definition of improper piecemealing.
Diesel exhaust from such generators is a significant emission source. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies diesel engine exhaust as a Group 1 (“carcinogenic to humans”) agent, a determination reaffirmed by subsequent reanalysis of the two principal epidemiological cohorts underlying that classification.2 Diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) is a designated toxic air contaminant in California and has historically been estimated to account for the majority of ambient air-toxics cancer risk in the State. The near-source air-quality impacts of diesel backup generators are especially acute because these engines are, by design, “smaller, closer, and dirtier” than central power plants. They sit within dense urban and commercial areas, close to where people 1 A. Radovanovic et al. (as synthesized in the peer-reviewed literature), and see G. Kamiya & J. Bangsund, “Data Centers’ Reliance on Backup Diesel Generation”; the universality of on-site backup generation at data centers is documented in Z. Tong & K. M. Zhang, The near-source impacts of diesel backup generators in urban environments, 109 Atmospheric Environment 262–271 (2015). 2 D. T. Silverman, Diesel Exhaust and Lung Cancer—Aftermath of Becoming an IARC Group 1 Carcinogen, 187(6) American Journal of Epidemiology 1149–1152 (2018).
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
300 Holger Way Data Center (SP25-029 & ER25-243)
live and work, and they typically lack the advanced emission controls of stationary utility sources.3 In this case, there are sensitive receptors (a mobile-home park) immediately southeast of the Project site.
C. Peer-reviewed dispersion modeling shows that backup generators create localized pollutant “hotspots” that screening-level analyses miss.
The Project setting (a multi-story building surrounded by other multi-story R&D structures, immediately adjacent to State Route 237, and near a mobile-home park) is precisely the configuration in which backup-generator emissions concentrate near the ground. Using large-eddy simulation coupled with the CTAG model and site-specific AERMET-derived boundary-layer parameters, Tong and Zhang demonstrated that the presence of a tall upwind or downwind building forms severe particulate-matter hotspots in the near-source environment, and that plume behavior “strongly depend[s] on urban configurations and meteorological conditions.”4 Their simulations showed that as the plume-to-ambient momentum ratio decreases, the exhaust plume is drawn downward into the recirculation zone between buildings, and street-canyon primary PM2.5 concentrations rise from a range of roughly 0–30 µg/m³ to well over 200 µg/m³, an order-ofmagnitude increase driven purely by building geometry.5 On this basis, the authors expressly concluded that “[t]he siting requirements of BUGs need to be revisited” to account for these microenvironmental impacts. A conclusory finding of “no impact,” with no dispersion modeling of any kind, is unsupported and directly contrary to this peer-reviewed evidence.
D. Recent literature specific to data centers confirms quantifiable public-health burdens from backup generation.
The rapid growth of data centers has produced a body of peer-reviewed and expert literature quantifying the criteria-pollutant and public-health consequences of their backup generators.
Recent modeling of the emerging data-center sector documents that operational backup generation, together with associated grid demand, increases emissions of nitrogen oxides (“NOₓ”), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, reactive organic gases, and volatile organic compounds, with attributable increases in respiratory and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in surrounding communities.6 Even where generators run only for testing and maintenance (commonly on the order of tens of hours per year), their short-term, ground-level emissions in densely built settings can produce acute exposures that regulatory screening approaches, which rely on long-term averages, systematically 3 The “smaller, closer, dirtier” characterization is drawn from the peer-reviewed and technical literature on distributed diesel backup generation; see Tong & Zhang (2015), supra; and the health-risk framework in J. D.
Marshall & W. W. Nazaroff, health assessments of backup generator siting in California urban areas. 4 Z. Tong & K. M. Zhang, The near-source impacts of diesel backup generators in urban environments, 109 Atmospheric Environment 262–271 (2015).
5 Id. (reporting modeled street-canyon primary PM2.5 increasing from 0–30 µg/m³ to over 200 µg/m³ as downwind vertical mixing is suppressed by surrounding building geometry). 6 See, e.g., Health implications of the rapid rise of data centers in Virgina: an exploratory assessment, Frontiers in Climate (2026); and analyses linking data-center backup-generator emissions to measurable increases in asthma exacerbations and premature mortality in host regions.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
300 Holger Way Data Center (SP25-029 & ER25-243)
understate. This averaging problem is a recurring methodological defect: time-averaged regulatory metrics do not capture the short-duration, high-concentration exposures that occur during generator operation and testing.
E. Cooling, refrigerants, and combustion sources are additional unanalyzed operational emissions.
Beyond generators, a 20-MW data center rejects on the order of tens of megawatts of heat, requiring substantial cooling infrastructure. Depending on the technology selected, this may involve evaporative cooling towers (a source of PM as drift and a substantial water demand), large refrigerant charges in chillers and computer-room air-conditioning units (a source of fugitive highglobal-warming-potential greenhouse gases if leaks occur), and, in some designs, natural-gas-fired equipment. The exemption evaluates none of these. Where a laboratory use is also present, as the background indicates, additional process emissions, solvent use, and specialty-gas handling may occur, none of which is disclosed or analyzed in the City’s Statement of Exemption.
F. There is no safe threshold for the fine particulate matter these sources emit.
The public-health significance of even incremental PM2.5 increases is well established. In a cohort of the entire U.S. Medicare population, Di and colleagues found that each 10-µg/m³ increase in long-term PM2.5 exposure was associated with a 7.3% increase in all-cause mortality, with a steeper slope at lower concentrations and “no evidence of a threshold” down to concentrations as low as approximately 5 µg/m³.7 Because there is no identified safe threshold, the Project’s incremental particulate emissions, which the exemption does not quantify, will be significant, particularly given the presence of sensitive receptors (the mobile-home park) immediately southeast of the site.
III. Past and Surrounding Industrial Uses Create Hazardous-Materials Exposure Pathways That the Exemption Ignores
A. The site lies in the center of the Silicon Valley solvent-contamination corridor.
The Project is located in the North San José industrial area near Zanker Road, within the historic core of Silicon Valley’s semiconductor and electronics manufacturing region. That industry’s legacy is defined by widespread subsurface contamination with chlorinated solvents, principally trichloroethylene (“TCE”) and tetrachloroethylene (“PCE”), which were used in enormous quantities as degreasers and were routinely discharged to drains or stored in tanks that leaked to groundwater.8 Santa Clara County contains one of the densest concentrations of federal Superfund 7 Q. Di et al., Air Pollution and Mortality in the Medicare Population, 376(26) New England Journal of Medicine 2513–2522 (2017).
8 The history of chlorinated-solvent use and disposal in the Silicon Valley semiconductor industry, and the resulting groundwater plumes, is documented extensively in the environmental and public-health literature; TCE and PCE were the dominant degreasing solvents and are the principal groundwater contaminants in the region’s Superfund and state-lead cleanup sites.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
300 Holger Way Data Center (SP25-029 & ER25-243)
sites in the nation, the majority attributable to electronics-industry solvent releases. A building that has operated as an R&D and (per the background) laboratory facility in this corridor is exactly the type of property where historic solvent handling and residual subsurface contamination must be investigated before human occupancy intensifies. The Statement of Exemption provides no discussion of these background conditions.
B. TCE and PCE migrate into buildings through vapor intrusion, an indoor-air pathway the exemption never considers.
The controlling exposure pathway for chlorinated solvents at redevelopment sites is vapor intrusion: because TCE and PCE are volatile, they migrate as soil gas from contaminated soil or groundwater upward through the vadose zone and enter buildings through cracks and penetrations in the foundation slab, contaminating indoor air.9 An Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry review of 121 vapor-intrusion sites found TCE present in indoor air at more sites deemed a public-health hazard than any other volatile organic compound, and field studies confirm that residents living above TCE-contaminated groundwater carry measurable TCE body burdens attributable to the vapor-intrusion pathway.10 The concentrations required to trigger a vaporintrusion concern can be very low: shallow groundwater that is safe by drinking-water standards may still be unsafe to occupy the ground above. EPA’s toxicological review illustrates the magnitude: high-contamination groundwater TCE levels (on the order of 540 µg/L) can produce indoor-air TCE concentrations of 5–500 µg/m³.11
The health consequences of TCE and PCE inhalation are severe and well characterized in the peerreviewed literature. EPA classifies TCE as carcinogenic to humans (kidney cancer), with additional evidence for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and liver cancer, and TCE is associated with cardiac malformations and other developmental effects.12 Epidemiological work on communities exposed to TCE and PCE through soil-vapor intrusion (including the population near the former IBM semiconductor facility in Endicott, New York) has documented associations with adverse birth outcomes, including low birth weight, cardiac defects, and fetal growth restriction.13 The Endicott studies documented TCE in soil vapor above the plume typically ranging from 100 to 10,000 µg/m³, the same order of magnitude EPA associates with meaningful indoor exposure. 9 World Health Organization, WHO Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality: Selected Pollutants (2010), ch. on Trichloroethylene (describing vapour intrusion of TCE from soil gas into buildings through foundation cracks). 10K. W. Archer et al. / B. C. Blount et al., Relationship between vapor intrusion and human exposure to trichloroethylene, J. Environ. Sci. Health A (2015) (PMC4689129) (documenting measurable blood-TCE associations with indoor-air, outdoor-air, and soil-gas TCE among residents above a TCE groundwater plume). 11U.S. EPA, Toxicological Review of Trichloroethylene (EPA/635/R-09/011F, 2011) (estimating that groundwater TCE at ~540 µg/L may yield indoor-air concentrations of 5–500 µg/m³ via vapor intrusion). 12U.S. EPA, Toxicological Review of Trichloroethylene (EPA/635/R-09/011F, 2011); see also C. Chiu et al., Key Scientific Issues in the Health Risk Assessment of Trichloroethylene, 114 Environmental Health Perspectives (2006) (PMC1570079).
13E. G. Forand, E. L. Lewis-Michl & M. I. Gomez, Adverse Birth Outcomes and Maternal Exposure to Trichloroethylene and Tetrachloroethylene through Soil Vapor Intrusion in New York State, 120(4) Environmental Health Perspectives 616–621 (2012) (PMC3339451).
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
300 Holger Way Data Center (SP25-029 & ER25-243)
These are precisely the outcomes that a proper CEQA analysis would evaluate before intensifying occupancy of a former electronics R&D building in this corridor.
C. The Statement of Exemption’s hazardous-waste-site finding is unsupported and the disturbance assumption is incorrect.
The Statement of Exemption states that “[t]he project site is not on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code” (the “Cortese List”). However, the record contains no documentation supporting this conclusion: no Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, no regulatory database search (GeoTracker, EnviroStor, or the EPA databases that compose the Cortese List), and no site-specific soil-gas or indoor-air data. Given the site’s location and industrial history, a bare assertion of non-listing, unsupported by a Phase I ESA conducted to the ASTM E1527 standard, does not satisfy the City’s obligation to consider the hazardous-materials setting. Moreover, even a site that is not itself listed may be directly affected by off-site plumes migrating from adjacent or upgradient listed properties, a routine occurrence in this corridor, which the Cortese-List inquiry alone does not capture.
The Statement of Exemption also assumes there will be no ground disturbance and therefore no pathway for contaminant exposure. That assumption is contradicted by the Public Works conditions in the Special Use Permit itself, which contemplate “future equipment and utility upgrades,” a “second flood review” at the building-permit stage, and installation of “new building support utility systems, structures and equipment.” Installation of the electrical, mechanical, and cooling infrastructure that a 20-MW data center requires will entail slab penetrations, trenching, and utility work that can create or open vapor-intrusion pathways and disturb contaminated soil, the exact activities that trigger the need for a hazardous-materials evaluation. Because construction workers and, ultimately, building occupants could be exposed, the “no disturbance” premise is factually unsupported.
IV. Screening-Level Quantification Confirms the Project’s Potentially Significant Impacts
The three attributes noted above (electrical intensity, cooling demand, and near-universal reliance on large diesel backup generation) are not just qualitative descriptors. Each drives a specific, quantifiable impact that meets or exceeds adopted CEQA significance thresholds when screened using standard emission factors and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (“BAAQMD”) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines thresholds. The estimates below are screening-level and rely on conservative, expressly stated assumptions; refined values require the applicant to disclose the equipment specifications that the current record omits. For screening purposes I assumed a 20-MW critical information-technology (“IT”) load; a power usage effectiveness (“PUE”) of approximately 1.5 (yielding a total facility demand of approximately 30 MW); and a backup generator fleet sized to serve the facility load plus N+1 redundancy, on the order of 30 MW of installed capacity (illustratively, twelve 2.5-MW engine-generator sets).
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
300 Holger Way Data Center (SP25-029 & ER25-243)
A. Backup diesel generators: criteria pollutant emissions (NOₓ, PM2.5/DPM, CO, SO₂, ROG).
Quantification method: installed engine capacity × permitted annual testing and maintenance hours × EPA Tier emission factors (grams per kilowatt-hour), converted to tons per year and pounds per day and compared to BAAQMD’s operational significance thresholds (54 pounds per day and 10 tons per year for NOₓ; 54 pounds per day and 10 tons per year for PM2.5). Applying EPA Tier 2 factors (NOₓ + NMHC of 6.4 g/kWh, PM of 0.20 g/kWh, and CO of 3.5 g/kWh) and a conservative 50 hours per year of testing per engine, annual testing energy is 30,000 kW × 50 hours = 1.5 × 10⁶ kWh/yr. The resulting emissions are approximately 10.6 tons/yr of NOₓ, at or above the 10-ton/yr threshold from routine testing alone, together with approximately 0.33 tons/yr of PM (predominantly diesel particulate matter) and approximately 5.8 tons/yr of CO. On a daily basis, full-load testing of the fleet emits NOₓ at 30,000 kW × 6.4 g/kWh = 192,000 g/hr, or roughly 423 pounds per hour, so the 54-pound-per-day NOₓ threshold is exceeded after approximately eight minutes of operation. Any actual emergency or Public Safety Power Shutoff operation is additive:
a single 24-hour outage of the full fleet would emit on the order of 5.1 tons of NOₓ and 0.16 ton of PM in a single day.
B. Diesel particulate matter: carcinogenic and chronic non-cancer health risk.
Quantification method: atmospheric dispersion modeling (AERMOD) of the generator source, using site-specific meteorology and the surrounding multi-story building geometry, to derive annual-average diesel particulate matter concentrations at the maximally exposed receptors, including the adjacent mobile-home park and nearby workers. Cancer risk equals the modeled concentration multiplied by the OEHHA inhalation cancer potency (unit risk factor), with agesensitivity and exposure-duration adjustments applied under the OEHHA 2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Risk Assessment Guidance, expressed as risk per million and compared to BAAQMD’s 10- in-one-million significance threshold. Chronic non-cancer hazard equals the modeled annual concentration divided by the OEHHA chronic reference exposure level for diesel exhaust (5 µg/m³), compared to a hazard index of 1.0. The specific unit risk factor and modeled concentrations must be applied per current OEHHA guidance once the source parameters are disclosed. The Statement of Exemption does not include any of this information or analysis.
C. Electrical intensity: indirect (energy) emissions and greenhouse gases.
Quantification method: total facility power (IT load × PUE) × 8,760 hours yields annual electricity demand, which is multiplied by the applicable grid emission factor to estimate greenhouse-gas emissions. Here, 30 MW × 8,760 hours = 262,800 MWh/yr (approximately 263 GWh/yr), which is comparable to the annual electricity use of roughly 44,000 California households (at approximately 6,000 kWh per household per year). Applying a representative grid factor of approximately 0.2 metric tons of CO₂-equivalent per MWh yields on the order of 52,600 metric tons of CO₂e per year, more than five times BAAQMD’s 10,000-metric-ton-per-year stationarysource significance threshold. The exemption evaluates neither this new load nor its associated significant energy and greenhouse gas emissions.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
300 Holger Way Data Center (SP25-029 & ER25-243)
D. Cooling demand: water use, cooling-tower particulates, and refrigerant greenhouse gases.
Quantification method: (a) Water: IT energy (20 MW × 8,760 hours = 175,200 MWh/yr) multiplied by an evaporative-cooling water-use intensity of approximately 1.8 liters per kWh (consistent with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimates) yields approximately 3.15 × 10⁸ liters per year, or roughly 83 million gallons per year (approximately 228,000 gallons per day).
This directly contradicts the exemption’s conclusion that the existing two-inch water pipeline can accommodate the facility’s potable demand. (b) Cooling-tower particulate matter: circulating water flow × drift-eliminator rate (approximately 0.0005 to 0.005 percent) × total dissolved solids yields PM10 drift emissions for comparison to BAAQMD thresholds. (c) Refrigerants: installed chiller and computer-room air-conditioning refrigerant charge × annual leak rate (EPA default rates on the order of 10 to 15 percent per year) × refrigerant global-warming potential yields fugitive high-GWP greenhouse-gas emissions.
E. Installation and construction emissions and soil disturbance.
The City failed to conduct CalEEMod modeling of the off-road equipment, haul trips, and slab and utility work required to install 20 to 30 MW of power, cooling, and generator infrastructure, expressed as criteria-pollutant tons per year and pounds per day for comparison to BAAQMD construction thresholds. These impacts may be significant. These construction activities also implicate the contaminated-soil and vapor-intrusion exposure pathways discussed in Section III, which the exemption assumes away by presuming that no ground disturbance will occur.
The Project will further contribute to air pollution during both construction and operation.
Screened against adopted thresholds, backup-generator NOₓ from testing alone reaches the annual NOₓ significance threshold; the daily NOₓ threshold is exceeded within minutes of generator operation; and indirect greenhouse-gas emissions exceed the stationary-source threshold severalfold. Each of these is an independent basis for a fair argument that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment, and each therefore defeats reliance on the Class 32 categorical exemption.
V. The Project May Have Significant Cumulative impacts
The exemption’s cumulative-impact discussion reasons that there can be no cumulative impact because there will be “no physical changes to the project site.” That reasoning fails once the Project is correctly understood to include stationary combustion sources, cooling infrastructure, and a substantial new electrical load. North San José is experiencing rapid data-center and industrial development; successive similar in-fill conversions, each individually claimed exempt, can combine to produce significant cumulative increases in NOₓ, particulate matter, and toxic air contaminants in a corridor that already carries substantial mobile-source burdens from SR-237 and I-880. The City does not support its cumulative impact conclusions with any evidence, and does Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
300 Holger Way Data Center (SP25-029 & ER25-243)
not discuss the regional increase in new data centers or the effects of other regional data centers in combination with the Project’s impacts.
VI. Conclusion and Recommendations
For the reasons above, the record does not support the City’s determination that the Project qualifies for a Class 32 categorical exemption. The exemption is premised on a project description that is incomplete and internally inconsistent, omits the stationary-source and backup-generation emissions that define a data center’s air-quality profile, and disregards the well-documented vaporintrusion and hazardous-materials pathways associated with the site’s industrial setting.
Substantial evidence, including the peer-reviewed literature cited herein, supports a fair argument that the Project may cause significant air quality and public-health impacts, exceptions to categorical exemptions apply.
Before the Project proceeds, the City should require, at minimum, the following:
1. A complete and accurate project description disclosing all electrical, mechanical, cooling, and backup-power infrastructure, including the number, size, tier, fuel, and permitted operating hours of any standby/backup generators.
2. Quantification of operational stationary-source emissions (criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants), including generator testing/maintenance and emergency operation, coolingsystem PM and refrigerant losses, and any combustion equipment.
3. Site-specific atmospheric dispersion modeling (e.g., AERMOD) that accounts for the surrounding multi-story building geometry and identifies near-source ground-level concentrations at the adjacent mobile-home park and other sensitive receptors, consistent with the peer-reviewed findings on near-source generator hotspots.
4. A quantified health risk analysis, prepared under the current OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots guidance, evaluating residential, worker, and sensitive-receptor cancer and non-cancer risk from diesel particulate matter and other toxic air contaminants.
5. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ASTM E1527) and, if recognized environmental conditions are identified, Phase II soil-gas, sub-slab, and indoor-air sampling for TCE, PCE, and related volatile organic compounds, with evaluation of the vapor-intrusion pathway for both construction workers and future occupants.
6. Preparation of the appropriate CEQA document (at minimum an Initial Study, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report as the evidence warrants) in lieu of the categorical exemption.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
300 Holger Way Data Center (SP25-029 & ER25-243)
I may supplement these comments as additional information becomes available. As always, call me if you have questions or if you need further technical support as this matter proceeds.
Sincerely,
James J. J. Clark, Ph.D.
Principal
Clark & Associates Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
James J. J. Clark, Ph.D.
Principal Toxicologist
Toxicology/Exposure Assessment Modeling
Risk Assessment/Analysis/Dispersion Modeling
Education:
Ph.D., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1995 M.S., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1993 B.S., Biophysical and Biochemical Sciences, University of Houston, 1987 Professional Experience:
Dr. Clark is a well recognized toxicologist, air modeler, and health scientist. He has 20 years of experience in researching the effects of environmental contaminants on human health including environmental fate and transport modeling (SCREEN3, AEROMOD, ISCST3, Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion Modeling); exposure assessment modeling (partitioning of contaminants in the environment as well as PBPK modeling); conducting and managing human health risk assessments for regulatory compliance and risk-based clean-up levels; and toxicological and medical literature research.
Significant projects performed by Dr. Clark include the following:
LITIGATION SUPPORT
Case: James Harold Caygle, et al, v. Drummond Company, Inc. Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama. Civil Action. CV-2009 Client: Environmental Litgation Group, Birmingham, Alabama Dr. Clark performed an air quality assessment of emissions from a coke factory located in Tarrant, Alabama. The assessment reviewed include a comprehensive review of air quality standards, measured concentrations of pollutants from factory, an inspection of the facility and detailed assessment of the impacts on the community. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc
OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd.
Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.
Case: Rose Roper V. Nissan North America, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles – Central Civil West. Civil Action.
NC041739
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to multiple chemicals, including benzene, who later developed a respiratory distress. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare an exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to respiratory irritants. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.
Case: O’Neil V. Sherwin Williams, et al. United States District Court Central District of California
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to petroleum distillates who later developed a bladder cancer. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Case Result: Summary judgment for defendants.
Case: Moore V., Shell Oil Company, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to chemicals while benzene who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.
Case: Raymond Saltonstall V. Fuller O’Brien, KILZ, and Zinsser, et al. United States District Court Central District of California
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to benzene who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.
Case: Richard Boyer and Elizabeth Boyer, husband and wife, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-7G.
Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.
Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of a family exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
Case: JoAnne R. Cook, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-9R
Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.
Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.
Case: Patrick Allen And Susan Allen, husband and wife, and Andrew Allen, a minor, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-W
Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.
Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of a family exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.
Case: Michael Fahey, Susan Fahey V. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. United States District Court Central District of California Civil Action Number CV-06 7109 JCL.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons.
The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.
Case: Constance Acevedo, et al., V. California Spray-Chemical Company, et al., Superior Court of the State Of California, County Of Santa Cruz. Case No. CV 146344
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive exposure assessment of community members exposed to toxic metals from a former lead arsenate manufacturing facility. The former manufacturing site had undergone a DTSC mandated removal action/remediation for the presence of the toxic metals at the site. Opinions were presented regarding the elevated levels of arsenic and lead (in attic dust and soils) found throughout the community and the potential for harm to the plaintiffs in question.
Case Result: Settlement in favor of defendant.
Case: Michael Nawrocki V. The Coastal Corporation, Kurk Fuel Company, Pautler Oil Service, State of New York Supreme Court, County of Erie, Index Number I2001-11247
Client: Richard G. Berger Attorney At Law, Buffalo, New York Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons.
The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Case Result: Judgement in favor of defendant.
SELECTED AIR MODELING RESEARCH/PROJECTS
Client – Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of criteria pollutants, air toxins, and particulate matter emissions from a carbon black production facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model will be used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and will be incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation.
Client – Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of air toxins and particulate matter emissions from a railroad tie manufacturing facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model have been used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and have been incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation.
Client – Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), Los Angeles, California
Dr. Clark is advising the LAANE on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) operated by the Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) Authority. He is working with the LAANE and LAX staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
Client – City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica, California Dr. Clark is advising the City of Santa Monica on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the facility. He is working with the City staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports.
Client: Omnitrans, San Bernardino, California
Dr. Clark managed a public health survey of three communities near transit fueling facilities in San Bernardino and Montclair California in compliance with California Senate Bill 1927. The survey included an epidemiological survey of the effected communities, emission surveys of local businesses, dispersion modeling to determine potential emission concentrations within the communities, and a comprehensive risk assessment of each community. The results of the study were presented to the Governor as mandated by Senate Bill 1927.
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized cancer types associated with exposure to metals and smoking. Researched the specific types of cancers associated with exposure to metals and smoking. Provided causation analysis of the association between cancer types and exposure for use by non-public health professionals.
Client: Confidential, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Prepared human health risk assessment of workers exposed to VOCs from neighboring petroleum storage/transport facility. Reviewed the systems in place for distribution of petroleum hydrocarbons to identify chemicals of concern (COCs), prepared comprehensive toxicological summaries of COCs, and quantified potential risks from carcinogens and non-carcinogens to receptors at or adjacent to site. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation.
Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency
Dr. Clark is part of team that performed comprehensive evaluation of soil vapor intrusion of VOCs from former landfill adjacent residences for the United Kingdom’s Environment Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
Agency. The evaluation included collection of liquid and soil vapor samples at site, modeling of vapor migration using the Johnson Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, and calculation of site-specific health based vapor thresholds for chlorinated solvents, aromatic hydrocarbons, and semi-volatile organic compounds. The evaluation also included a detailed evaluation of the use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, and toxicology of chemicals of concern (COC). The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals.
EMERGING/PERSISTENT CONTAMINANT RESEARCH/PROJECTS
Client: Ameren Services, St. Louis, Missouri
Managed the preparation of a comprehensive human health risk assessment of workers and residents at or near an NPL site in Missouri. The former operations at the Property included the servicing and repair of electrical transformers, which resulted in soils and groundwater beneath the Property and adjacent land becoming impacted with PCB and chlorinated solvent compounds. The results were submitted to U.S. EPA for evaluation and will be used in the final ROD.
Client: City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita, California Dr. Clark is managing the oversight of the characterization, remediation and development activities of a former 1,000 acre munitions manufacturing facility for the City of Santa Clarita. The site is impacted with a number of contaminants including perchlorate, unexploded ordinance, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The site is currently under a number of regulatory consent orders, including an Immanent and Substantial Endangerment Order. Dr. Clark is assisting the impacted municipality with the development of remediation strategies, interaction with the responsible parties and stakeholders, as well as interfacing with the regulatory agency responsible for oversight of the site cleanup.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of perchlorate in environment. Dr. Clark evaluated the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of perchlorate. Perchlorates form the basis of solid rocket fuels and have recently been detected in water supplies in the United States. The results of this research Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
were presented to the USEPA, National GroundWater, and ultimately published in a recent book entitled Perchlorate in the Environment.
Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Dr. Clark is performing a comprehensive review of the potential for pharmaceuticals and their by-products to impact groundwater and surface water supplies. This evaluation will include a review if available data on the history of pharmaceutical production in the United States; the chemical characteristics of various pharmaceuticals; environmental fate and transport; uptake by xenobiotics; the potential effects of pharmaceuticals on water treatment systems; and the potential threat to public health. The results of the evaluation may be used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.
PUBLIC HEALTH/TOXICOLOGY
Client: Brayton Purcell, Novato, California
Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of residents exposed to methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) adjacent to the subject property. The symptomology of residents and guests of the subject property were evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to MTBE. The study found that residents had been exposed to MTBE in their drinking water; that concentrations of MTBE detected at the site were above regulatory guidelines; and, that the symptoms and outcomes expressed by residents and guests were consistent with symptoms and outcomes documented in published literature.
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Identified and analyzed fifty years of epidemiological literature on workplace exposures to heavy metals. This research resulted in a summary of the types of cancer and non-cancer diseases associated with occupational exposure to chromium as well as the mortality and morbidity rates.
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized major public health research in United States. Identified major public health research efforts within United States over last twenty years. Results were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Quantified the potential multi-pathway dose received by humans from a pesticide applied indoors. Part of team that developed exposure model and evaluated exposure concentrations in a comprehensive report on the plausible range of doses received by a specific person. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation.
Client: Covanta Energy, Westwood, California
Evaluated health risk from metals in biosolids applied as soil amendment on agricultural lands. The biosolids were created at a forest waste cogeneration facility using 96% whole tree wood chips and 4 percent green waste. Mass loading calculations were used to estimate Cr(VI) concentrations in agricultural soils based on a maximum loading rate of 40 tons of biomass per acre of agricultural soil. The results of the study were used by the Regulatory agency to determine that the application of biosolids did not constitute a health risk to workers applying the biosolids or to residences near the agricultural lands.
Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency
Oversaw a comprehensive toxicological evaluation of methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MtBE) for the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MtBE. The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals.
Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) in municipal drinking water system. TBA is the primary breakdown product of MtBE, and is suspected to be the primary cause of MtBE toxicity. This evaluation will include available information on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport in the environment, absorption, distribution, routes of detoxification, metabolites, carcinogenic potential, and remediation of TBA. The results of the evaluation were used as a briefing tool for nonpublic health professionals.
Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in municipal drinking water system. MTBE is a chemical added to gasoline to increase the octane Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
rating and to meet Federally mandated emission criteria. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MTBE. The results of the evaluation have been were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.
Client – Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, British Columbia Dr. Clark assisted in the development of water quality guidelines for methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) to protect water uses in British Columbia (BC). The water uses to be considered includes freshwater and marine life, wildlife, industrial, and agricultural (e.g., irrigation and livestock watering) water uses. Guidelines from other jurisdictions for the protection of drinking water, recreation and aesthetics were to be identified.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) assessment of lead risk of receptors at middle school built over former industrial facility. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.
Client: Kaiser Venture Incorporated, Fontana, California Prepared PBPK assessment of lead risk of receptors at a 1,100-acre former steel mill.
This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.
RISK ASSESSMENTS/REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS
Client: Confidential, Atlanta, Georgia
Researched potential exposure and health risks to community members potentially exposed to creosote, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pentachlorophenol, and dioxin compounds used at a former wood treatment facility. Prepared a comprehensive toxicological summary of the chemicals of concern, including the chemical characteristics, absorption, distribution, and carcinogenic potential. Prepared risk characterization of the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic chemicals based on the exposure assessment to quantify the potential risk to members of the surrounding community. This evaluation was used to help settle class-action tort.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
Client: Confidential, Escondido, California
Prepared comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of dense nonaqueous liquid phase hydrocarbon (chlorinated solvents) contamination at a former printed circuit board manufacturing facility. This evaluation was used for litigation support and may be used as the basis for reaching closure of the site with the lead regulatory agency.
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized epidemiological evidence for connective tissue and autoimmune diseases for product liability litigation. Identified epidemiological research efforts on the health effects of medical prostheses. This research was used in a meta-analysis of the health effects and as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.
Client: Confidential, Bogotá, Columbia
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated with the redevelopment of a 13.7 hectares plastic manufacturing facility in Bogotá, Colombia The risk assessment was used as the basis for the remedial goals and closure of the site.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally cadmium) and VOCs from soil and soil vapor at 12-acre former crude oilfield and municipal landfill. The site is currently used as a middle school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and was used as the basis for regulatory closure of site.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Managed remedial investigation (RI) of heavy metals and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) for a 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The RI investigation of the site included over 800 different sampling locations and the collection of soil, soil gas, and groundwater samples. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The Remedial Investigation was performed in a manner Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
that did not interrupt school activities and met the time restrictions placed on the project by the overseeing regulatory agency. The RI Report identified the off-site source of metals that impacted groundwater beneath the site and the sources of VOCs in soil gas and groundwater. The RI included a numerical model of vapor intrusion into the buildings at the site from the vadose zone to determine exposure concentrations and an air dispersion model of VOCs from the proposed soil vapor treatment system. The Feasibility Study for the Site is currently being drafted and may be used as the basis for granting closure of the site by DTSC.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally lead), VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs from soil, soil vapor, and groundwater at 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of VOC vapor intrusion into classrooms of middle school that was former 15-acre industrial facility. Using the Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, the evaluation determined acceptable soil gas concentrations at the site that did not pose health threat to students, staff, and residents. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.
Client –Dominguez Energy, Carson, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated with the redevelopment of 6-acre portion of a 500-acre oil and natural gas production facility in Carson, California. The risk assessment was used as the basis for closure of the site.
Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California
Prepared health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for a fiftyyear old wastewater treatment facility used at a 1,100-acre former steel mill. This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
ANR Freight - Los Angeles, California
Prepared a comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of petroleum hydrocarbon and metal contamination of a former freight depot. This evaluation was as the basis for reaching closure of the site with lead regulatory agency.
Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California
Prepared comprehensive health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for 23-acre parcel of a 1,100-acre former steel mill. The health risk assessment was used to determine clean up goals and as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. Air dispersion modeling using ISCST3 was performed to determine downwind exposure point concentrations at sensitive receptors within a 1 kilometer radius of the site. The results of the health risk assessment were presented at a public meeting sponsored by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in the community potentially affected by the site.
Unocal Corporation - Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive assessment of petroleum hydrocarbons and metals for a former petroleum service station located next to sensitive population center (elementary school).
The assessment used a probabilistic approach to estimate risks to the community and was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Managed oversight of remedial investigation most contaminated heavy metal site in California. Lead concentrations in soil excess of 68,000,000 parts per billion (ppb) have been measured at the site. This State Superfund Site was a former hard chrome plating operation that operated for approximately 40-years.
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Coordinator of regional monitoring program to determine background concentrations of metals in air. Acted as liaison with SCAQMD and CARB to perform co-location sampling and comparison of accepted regulatory method with ASTM methodology.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Analyzed historical air monitoring data for South Coast Air Basin in Southern California and potential health risks related to ambient concentrations of carcinogenic metals and volatile organic compounds. Identified and reviewed the available literature and calculated risks from toxins in South Coast Air Basin.
IT Corporation, North Carolina
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of potential exposure of workers to air-borne VOCs at hazardous waste storage facility under SUPERFUND cleanup decree. Assessment used in developing health based clean-up levels.
Professional Associations
American Public Health Association (APHA)
Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) American Chemical Society (ACS)
California Redevelopment Association (CRA)
International Society of Environmental Forensics (ISEF) Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Publications and Presentations:
Books and Book Chapters
Sullivan, P., J.J. J. Clark, F.J. Agardy, and P.E. Rosenfeld. (2007). Synthetic Toxins In The Food, Water and Air of American Cities. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.
Sullivan, P. and J.J. J. Clark. 2006. Choosing Safer Foods, A Guide To Minimizing Synthetic Chemicals In Your Diet. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.
Sullivan, P., Agardy, F.J., and J.J.J. Clark. 2005. The Environmental Science of Drinking Water. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.
Sullivan, P.J., Agardy, F.J., Clark, J.J.J. 2002. America’s Threatened Drinking Water:
Hazards and Solutions. Trafford Publishing, Victoria B.C.
Clark, J.J.J. 2001. “TBA: Chemical Properties, Production & Use, Fate and Transport, Toxicology, Detection in Groundwater, and Regulatory Standards” in Oxygenates in the Environment. Art Diaz, Ed.. Oxford University Press: New York.
Clark, J.J.J. 2000. “Toxicology of Perchlorate” in Perchlorate in the Environment.
Edward Urbansky, Ed. Kluwer/Plenum: New York.
Clark, J.J.J. 1995. Probabilistic Forecasting of Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations At The Soil Surface From Contaminated Groundwater. UMI.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
Baker, J.; Clark, J.J.J.; Stanford, J.T. 1994. Ex Situ Remediation of Diesel Contaminated Railroad Sand by Soil Washing. Principles and Practices for Diesel Contaminated Soils, Volume III. P.T. Kostecki, E.J. Calabrese, and C.P.L. Barkan, eds. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, MA. pp 89-96.
Journal and Proceeding Articles
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equialency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 002254.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 000527 Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2007). “Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” Environmental Research. 105:194-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J., Hensley, A.R., and Suffet, I.H. 2007. “The Use Of An Odor Wheel Classification For The Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria For Compost Facilities” Water Science & Technology. 55(5): 345-357.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. 2006. “Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006, August 21 – 25, 2006. Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2005. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Compost Facility Evaluations” The U.S. Composting Council’s 13th Annual Conference January 23 - 26, 2005, Crowne Plaza Riverwalk, San Antonio, TX.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2004. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Urban Odor” WEFTEC 2004. 77th Annual Technical Exhibition & Conference October 2 - 6, 2004, Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Clark, J.J.J. 2003. “Manufacturing, Use, Regulation, and Occurrence of a Known Endocrine Disrupting Chemical (EDC), 2,4-Dichlorophnoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) in California Drinking Water Supplies.” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Minneapolis, MN.
March 20, 2003.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
Rosenfeld, P. and J.J.J. Clark. 2003. “Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity, and Regulatory Guidance” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Phoenix, AZ. February 21, 2003.
Clark, J.J.J., Brown A. 1999. Perchlorate Contamination: Fate in the Environment and Treatment Options. In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation, Fifth International Symposium. San Diego, CA, April, 1999.
Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Health Effects of Perchlorate and the New Reference Dose (RfD).
Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998.
Browne, T., Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Treatment Options For Perchlorate In Drinking Water.
Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998.
Clark, J.J.J., Brown, A., Rodriguez, R. 1998. The Public Health Implications of MtBE and Perchlorate in Water: Risk Management Decisions for Water Purveyors.
Proceedings of the National Ground Water Association, Anaheim, CA, June 3-4, 1998.
Clark J.J.J., Brown, A., Ulrey, A. 1997. Impacts of Perchlorate On Drinking Water In The Western United States. U.S. EPA Symposium on Biological and Chemical Reduction of Chlorate and Perchlorate, Cincinnati, OH, December 5, 1997.
Clark, J.J.J.; Corbett, G.E.; Kerger, B.D.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996.
Dermal Uptake of Hexavalent Chromium In Human Volunteers: Measures of Systemic Uptake From Immersion in Water At 22 PPM. Toxicologist. 30(1):14.
Dodge, D.G.; Clark, J.J.J.; Kerger, B.D.; Richter, R.O.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996. Assessment of Airborne Hexavalent Chromium In The Home Following Use of Contaminated Tapwater. Toxicologist. 30(1):117-118.
Paulo, M.T.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clark, J.J.J. (1992). Effects of Pretreatment with Ipratroprium Bromide in COPD Patients Exposed to Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A96.
Harber, P.H.; Gong, H., Jr.; Lachenbruch, A.; Clark, J.; Hsu, P. (1992). Respiratory Pattern Effect of Acute Sulfur Dioxide Exposure in Asthmatics. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A88.
McManus, M.S.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clements, P.; Clark, J.J.J. (1991). Respiratory Response of Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease To Inhaled Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 143(4):A91.
Gong, H., Jr.; Simmons, M.S.; McManus, M.S.; Tashkin, D.P.; Clark, V.A.; Detels, R.; Clark, J.J. (1990). Relationship Between Responses to Chronic Oxidant and Acute Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
Ozone Exposures in Residents of Los Angeles County. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 141(4):A70.
Tierney, D.F. and J.J.J. Clark. (1990). Lung Polyamine Content Can Be Increased By Spermidine Infusions Into Hyperoxic Rats. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 139(4):A41.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
EXHIBIT B
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
30 East 20th Street, Suite 3RW Tel: +1.212.785.0485
New York, NY 10003 E-mail: [email protected]
USA
Wilson Ihrig is a consultancy within RWDI, specializing in acoustics, noise, and vibration. This document is intended for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately. Accessible document formats provided upon request. ® RWDI name and logo are registered trademarks in Canada and the United States of America. © RWDI USA LLC (“RWDI”) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED w ilso n ih rig .com | rw d i.com 7/6/2026
Kelilah D. Federman
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
Re: Review and Comment on Noise Report
300 Holger Way Data Center
RWDI Reference No. 2601901
Dear Mrs. Federman,
Per your request, Wilson Ihrig has reviewed the City of San Jose Staff Report regarding the 300 Holger Way Special Use Permit. The Project proposes to develop a 20-megawatt (MW) data center within an existing 97,800-square-foot research and development building on an approximately 4.86-gross-acre site in northern Santa Clara County. According to the Staff Report, no changes to the site and building exterior, no expansion of the existing building footprint, and no site improvements are proposed.
The Staff Report maintains that, since the existing building use is similar to the project, no noise study needs to be conducted. We believe that this is an oversimplification of the footprint of the data center and an underestimation of the potential for operational noise increases. The lack of analysis is especially troublesome since the closest residential receiver, at 373 Los Encinos Court, is only 200 feet away, and is likely to be impacted by the project’s operational noise.
Wilson Ihrig, Acoustical Consultants, has practiced exclusively in the field of acoustics since 1966. During our nearly 60 years of operation, we have prepared hundreds of noise studies for Environmental Impact Reports and Statements. We have one of the largest technical laboratories in the acoustical consulting industry. We also utilize industry-standard acoustical programs such as Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), SoundPLAN, and CADNA. In short, we are well qualified to prepare environmental noise studies and review studies prepared by others.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
Mrs. Federman
Adams Broadwell
Job# 2601901
7/6/2026
ADVERSE EFFECTS OF NOISE1
Although the health effects of noise are not taken as seriously in the United States as they are in other countries, they are real and, in many parts of the country, pervasive.
Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. If a person is repeatedly exposed to loud noises, he or she may experience noise-induced hearing impairment or loss. In the United States, both the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) promote standards and regulations to protect the hearing of people exposed to high levels of industrial noise.
Speech Interference. Another common problem associated with noise is speech interference. In addition to the obvious issues that may arise from misunderstandings, speech interference also leads to problems with concentration fatigue, irritation, decreased working capacity, and automatic stress reactions. For complete speech intelligibility, the sound level of the speech should be 15 to 18 dBA higher than the background noise. Typical indoor speech levels are 45 to 50 dBA at 1 meter, so any noise above 30 dBA begins to interfere with speech intelligibility. The common reaction to higher background noise levels is to raise one’s voice. If this is required persistently for long periods of time, stress reactions and irritation will likely result.
Sleep Disturbance. Noise can disturb sleep by making it more difficult to fall asleep, by waking someone after they are asleep, or by altering their sleep stage, e.g., reducing the amount of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. Noise exposure for people who are sleeping has also been linked to increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, increase in body movements, and other physiological effects. Not surprisingly, people whose sleep is disturbed by noise often experience secondary effects such as cognitive decline, increased fatigue, depressed mood, and decreased work performance.
Cardiovascular and Physiological Effects. Human’s bodily reactions to noise are rooted in the “fight or flight” response that evolved when many noises signaled imminent danger. These include increased blood pressure, elevated heart rate, and vasoconstriction. Prolonged exposure to acute noises can result in permanent effects such as hypertension and heart disease.
Impaired Cognitive Performance. Studies have established that noise exposure impairs people’s abilities to perform complex tasks (tasks that require attention to detail or analytical processes) and it makes reading, paying attention, solving problems, and memorizing more difficult. This is why there are standards for classroom background noise levels and why offices and libraries are designed to provide quiet work environments. 1 More information on these and other adverse effects of noise may be found in Guidelines for Community Noise, eds B Berglund, T Lindvall, and D Schwela, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. (https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/66217)
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
Mrs. Federman
Adams Broadwell
Job# 2601901
7/6/2026
STAFF REPORT DOES NOT STUDY OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Community concerns regarding data center developments frequently focus on the potential for continuous operational noise generated by mechanical equipment, including cooling systems, chillers, cooling towers, generators during testing, transformers, and associated ventilation equipment. Unlike many commercial or industrial uses that exhibit varying activity levels throughout the day, data centers typically operate on a 24-hour basis, raising concerns about sustained noise exposure during sensitive nighttime periods. Neighbors have expressed concerns regarding tonal noise, low-frequency hum, intermittent generator testing, and cumulative noise from multiple pieces of rooftop or ground-mounted equipment, particularly where data centers are proposed adjacent to residential neighborhoods and other noise-sensitive land uses. As a result, comprehensive acoustical analyses and appropriately designed noise control measures are commonly requested to ensure compliance with applicable local noise standards and to minimize potential impacts on surrounding communities.
These concerns are only growing as Data Center construction expands2.
The only analysis of operational noise in the Staff Report states that the “proposed use is a data center, which does not require regular employees for its operation; less employees are anticipated at the project site than in its current research and development use. Therefore, there would be no increase in traffic noise” and that no “generators are proposed as a part of the project. The project would have no impacts to operational noise” (Staff Report, Page 7).
The Staff Report is adamant that since no extra generators would be included as part of the project, there are no changes to the noise environment, and no analysis is needed. However, mechanical equipment and emergency generators aren’t the only noise sources associated with Data Centers. One of the most intrusive noise sources is the cooling equipment needed for the servers3 which can run for 24 hours a day and generate a significant amount of noise4 . These server cooling loads can generate around 40% of the total power needs of a Data Center5 .
Recent articles have documented the significant operational effects of Data Center chillers,6 including an article in Atlantic Magazine,
7 which explains that that for a previously constructed Data Center “the whine of the chillers falls between 630 and 1,000 hertz—directly in the mid-frequency spectrum, the range our ears are most sensitive to—and is a pure-tone sound, widely considered exceptionally irritating” (Page 81, November 2019). This demonstrates that operational noise from data centers can have psychoacoustic effects where the human brain perceives higher than measured noise levels. A pure-tone sound is generally perceived as more annoying than a broadband sound because it concentrates acoustic energy within a very narrow frequency band, causing it to stand out distinctly from the surrounding acoustic environment. The human auditory system is particularly sensitive to tonal sounds because they are easily detected and difficult to ignore, even when their overall sound level is relatively low. In contrast, when the noise is broadband, the energy is distributed across a wide range of frequencies, making it less conspicuous and more readily masked by ambient environmental sounds. In fact, the 2 Communities Are Raising Noise Pollution Concerns About Data Centers | Article | EESI 3 A guide to noise control solutions for Data Centers
4 Noise Control in Data Centers: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How to Get It Right | Ketchum & Walton Co. 5 Analysis of power consumption proportionality in data center. [8], [24] | Download Scientific Diagram 6 See e.g. Data Center Knowledge, What are the 5 Main Causes of Noise in Data Centers? (March 17, 2025), available at https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/data-storage/what-are-the-5-main-causes-of-noise-in-data-centers-. 7 https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/11/the-end-of-silence/598366/ Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
Mrs. Federman
Adams Broadwell
Job# 2601901
7/6/2026
Santa Clara County Code of Ordinances8states that when the “alleged offensive noise contains a steady, audible tone such as a whine, screech or hum … the standard limits … will be reduced by five dB” (Section B-11-152b) meaning local decision makers have already anticipated this type of noise being more sensitive to the community. The City failed entirely to address this impact on the Project’s nearby sensitive receptors, including a residential receptor located just 200 feet from the Project site.
Furthermore, the current building use is empty9 meaning cooling noise will be a completely new noise source over ambient levels. The City did not quantify the increase over ambient, which is likely substantial. To assert that the operational noise from an empty research building will have the same energy and cooling needs as a fully and continuously operating data center is unsubstantiated. There is no way to verify that noise levels from the project will be within community limits without a quantitative study, which should be presented in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The next section includes the outline of a typical analysis.
STAFF REPORT INCLUDES UNDEFINED EXISTING CONDITIONS AND POTENTIAL
UNDISCLOSED IMPACTS
The manner in which the Staff Report has determined the existing noise environment is unsupported. The Staff Report does not provide any measurements that reflect current conditions near the sensitive receivers.
CEQA requires evaluation of whether a project would cause a ‘substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels.’ Without knowing how loud the environment is, it is impossible to determine if the new project will increase noise in the surrounding community. Baseline noise measurements are the preferred way to determine background noise sources. These measurements serve as a crucial reference point for evaluating the potential noise impacts of proposed projects or activities. Without establishing baseline noise conditions before any new development occurs, decision-makers cannot effectively determine whether the project complies with noise regulations or identify any potential adverse effects on the surrounding environment and communities.
Noise levels should be physically measured to be accurately determined, due to the potential of traffic noise, operational noise from office and manufacturing facilities along Holger Way, and the presence of the San Jose Mineta International Airport roughly three miles away. The Santa Clara County Code of Ordinances specifically mentions ambient noise limits in Chapter VIII of Title B-11. Table B-11-152 shows that for the Receiving Land Use Category for One- and Two-Family Residential, the nominal nighttime limit is 45 dBA. However, the Ordinance states that if a “measurement occurs on a property adjoining a different land use category, the noise level limit applicable to the lower land use category, plus five dB, will apply” (Section B-11-152a (4)). Since the receiving measurement is on residential land, while the source is industrial/commercial land, the receiving nighttime noise limit is 50 dBA.
Additionally, the Santa Clara County Code of Ordinances states that if “measured ambient level exceeds that [which is] permissible … the allowable noise exposure standard will be increased in five dB increments in each category as appropriate to encompass or reflect the ambient noise level” (Section B-11-152a (3)). As such, measurements are recommended to determine ambient noise for residential receivers of interest. The omission of noise measurements leaves noise thresholds 8 https://library.municode.com/ca/santa_clara_county/codes/code_of_ordinances 9 https://therealdeal.com/san-francisco/2025/12/02/nvidia-prepares-north-san-jose-building-for-data-center/ Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
Mrs. Federman
Adams Broadwell
Job# 2601901
7/6/2026
undefined. The Project should conduct properly documented ambient measurements near sensitive receptors that capture the worst-case (quietest) baseline conditions to determine if there is an impact. This should be conducted in an EIR.
As an example, Wilson Ihrig did an acoustic analysis for another Data Center within Santa Clara County. As part of the analysis, we modeled a Trane TCAA 330 Chiller with a Sound Power Level of 100 dBA. It is worth noting that the other project was rated at 52 MW, but multiple rooftop chiller units were assumed on this project. Assuming a similar chiller model is used, but only one as a conservative assumption, the resultant sound level would be 55 dBA at 200 feet. This is 5 dBA over the nighttime ambient limit and would constitute an undisclosed impact that should be studied in an EIR.
CONCLUSION
The Staff Report does not study the potential effects of operational cooling noise from data centers, does not compare these levels to ambient conditions and local ordinances, and does not determine if there is a possibility of impact to the community. As a result, we believe the Staff Report’s conclusions are flawed, the Project may have significant operational noise that has not been disclosed, and the proposed environmental exemption is not appropriate.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this information.
Yours truly,
Wilson Ihrig / RWDI
Jack Meighan
Senior Acoustician
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
JACK MEIGHAN
Associate
Jack joined Wilson Ihrig in 2021 and is an experienced acoustics engineer with expertise in projects involving rail transit systems, highways, CEQA analysis, environmental noise reduction, mechanical drawing reviews, and construction noise and vibration mitigation. He has hands-on experience with project management, including client coordination and presentations, as well as in designing, developing, and testing MATLAB code used in acoustics applications. Additionally, his expertise includes taking field measurements, developing test plans and specifying, purchasing, setting up and repairing acoustic measurement equipment. He has experience in using Traffic Noise Model (TNM), CadnaA, EASE, Visual Basic, LabView, and CAD software.
Education
• B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Project Experience
Metro Regional Connector, Los Angeles CA
Planned, took, and processed measurements as part of a team to determine the effectiveness of floating slab trackwork for a new subway in downtown Los Angeles that travels below the Walt Disney Concert Hall and the Colburn School of Music.
Rodeo Credit Enterprise CEQA Analysis for New Construction, Palmdale, CA Wrote an accepted proposal and executed it for a noise study project to determine noise mitigation requirements on a new housing development. Led all aspects of the project and managed the budget during all phases of project completion. Completed 5 separate projects of this type for this developer.
Blackhall Studios, Santa Clarita, CA
Led the vibration measurement effort for a new soundstage directly adjacent to an existing freight and commuter rail line. Tested equipment, processed data, and analyzed results to determine the vibration propagation through the soil to the proposed soundstage locations, and was part of the team that developed mitigation techniques for the office spaces directly next to the rail line.
Octavia Residential Condos CEQA Study, San Francisco, CA Calculated the STC ratings for the proposed windows to meet Title 24 requirements, modeled the acoustic performance of floor and ceiling structures, researched noise codes, helped with a mechanical design review, and wrote a report summarizing the results for a new Condominium project being developed in San Francisco.
San Diego International Airport Terminal I Replacement, CA Conducted interior noise and vibration measurements, analyzed measurement data to help determine project criteria, modeled the existingand future terminals in CadnaA, and was part of a team that did a complete HVAC analysis of the entire terminal, as part of a CEQA analysis where a new terminal for the airport is being designed.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
WILSON IHRIG
Jack Meighan – Page 2
*Work done prior to working for Wilson Ihrig
Five Points Apartments Noise Study, Whittier, CA
Took measurements, researched sound data and solutions, and recommended mitigation for a new apartment complex that was located next to an existing car wash, as part of a CEQA review.
USC Ellison Vibration Survey, Los Angeles, CA
Conducted vibration measurements as part of a survey to determine the effectiveness of vibration isolation platforms that are used to insulate cell growth in a cancer research facility. Determined the effectiveness and presented this information to the client. Researched and recommended a permanent monitoring system so the client could view data in real time.
TEN50 Condos ‘Popping’ Noise Investigation, Los Angeles, CA Was part of a team that investigated the noise source of an unwanted popping noise in luxury condos in Downtown Los Angeles. Helped isolate the noise source location with accelerometers to determine where vibrations were occurring first and used an acoustic camera to determine where in the condo the noise was coming from.
2000 University Project, Berkely, CA
Wrote a construction noise monitoring plan based on environmental noise calculations, wrote a report summarizing the results, and attending a meeting with the client to discuss options.
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) On‐Track, CA, San Francisco Bay Area, CA* Day to day project manager, responsible for meetings, presentations, and coordination with the client for an ongoing noise study on the BART system. Developed MATLAB code to process measurements and determine areas where high corrugation was present, contributing to excessively high in-car noise levels. Performed noise measurements inside both the right of way and the vehicle cabin, in addition to rail corrugation measurements.
California I‐605/SR‐60 Interchange Improvement, Los Angeles, CA* Developed a noise model of the area that predicted sound levels for abatement design, in addition to conducting noise measurements and analysis. Led the Team in use of the FHWA Traffic Noise Model Software for the project, involving three major highways and two busy interchanges extending over 17 miles in southern California.
Sound Transit On‐Track, Seattle, WA*
Took measurements, fixed equipment, and developed software in MATLAB to process Corrugation Analysis Trolley measurements as part of an ongoing noise study on the Sound Transit Link system.
Tested vibration data to determine the best measurement and processing techniques to store the data in an online database for in-car measurements.
LA Metro CRRC Railcar Testing, Los Angeles, CA*
Led the effort to plan the measurements, determine measurement locations and finalize the test plan. Formulated a method to capture speed data directly from legacy train vehicles. Executed noise and vibration specification measurements for new rail cars delivered by CRRC.
City of Los Angeles, Pershing Square Station Rehabilitation Noise Monitoring, CA* Built noise models, wrote a construction noise plan, and assisted in on-site construction noise issues as they arose for a renovation of the Pershing Square metro station in downtown Los Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application
WILSON IHRIG
Jack Meighan – Page 3
*Work done prior to working for Wilson Ihrig
Angeles. Trained construction personnel in techniques for noise reduction and how to conduct noise monitoring measurements to meet project specifications.
City of Orange Metrolink Parking Garage Construction Monitoring, CA* Wrote an adaptive management vibration monitoring plan, set up equipment to monitor live vibration levels, and generated weekly reports as part of an effort to build a new parking garage.
Designed, planned, and completed measurements to predict and mitigate pile driving construction impacts at three historic building locations adjacent to the construction site. Coordinated with the client whenever an on-site problem arose.
LA Metro Westside Subway Construction, Los Angeles, CA* Planned, organized, and processed noise measurements for the Purple Line extension construction.
Implemented both long term microphones to measure noise levels and accelerometers to measure vibration levels in existing subway tunnels. Oversaw noise monitoring at sensitive construction sites for the project and worked with the contractor to find ways to reduce construction noise levels by approximately 10dB.
Montreal Réseau Express Métropolitain, Canada*
Conducted vibration propagation measurements used to create models to predict operational vibration levels for an under-construction transit line. Managed equipment, solved problems in the field, and wrote parts of the report summarizing the findings of the acoustic study.
NHCRP Barrier*
Took on-highway measurements and wrote, designed, developed, and tested MATLAB code to identify specific spectrograms to use for analyses for a project evaluating barrier reflected highway traffic noise differences in the presence of a single absorptive or reflective noise barrier.
Siemens Railcar Testing for Sound Transit, Seattle, WA* Measured in-car noise and vibration for new rail cars delivered by Siemens. Developed new internal techniques for measurements based on the written specifications. Contributed to the team that helped identify issues that new cars had in meeting the Sound Transit specifications for noise and vibration. Participated in developing the test plan and specified then acquired new equipment for the measurement.
Toronto/Ontario Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail, Final Design, Canada* Assisted in vibration propagation measurements, analysis, and recommendations for mitigation for a 12-mile light-rail line both on and under Eglinton Avenue. Set up and ran equipment for at-grade measurements with an impact hammer for underground measurements with an impact load cell that was used during pre-construction borehole drilling.
Attachment C: Environmental Appeal Application