Appeals of the City Planning Commission’s decision to deny prior appeals of the Administrative Approval of the Development Plan Major Modification application for Corporate Ridge Filing No. 1 Lot 4, located at 1565 High Tech Way, and to approve the same Modification with conditions. (Quasi-Judicial) Related Files: DEPN-26-0039; APPL-26-0003; APPL-26-0004 Located in Council District 1...
Details
Minutes note: {\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Arial;}{\f1\fswiss\fprq2\fcharset0 Aptos;}{\f2\fswiss\fprq2\fcharset0 Arial;}} \viewkind4\uc1\pard\sl276\slmult1\b\fs24\par \par \fs28 Staff Presentation\fs24\par \b0\par Daniel Sexton, Planning Manager, City Planning Department, presented the Appeals of the City Planning Commission\rquote s decision to deny prior appeals of the Administrative Approval of the Development Plan Major Modification application for Corporate Ridge Filing No. 1 Lot 4, located at 1565 High Tech Way, and to approve the same Modification with conditions. He provided an overview of the vicinity map, applications, site orientation, zoning, project summary, site plan, timeline of review, stakeholder engagement, agency reviews, Planning Commission decision, application review criteria, and review criteria analysis. Mr. Sexton identified the acoustic (noise) impacts, development impact analysis, PlanCOS compliance, and optional motions.\par \par Councilmember Henjum asked if this appeal hearing is a \i de novo\i0 hearing.\b Stefanie Boster, City Attorney, City Attorney\rquote s Office, clarified that Council may hear the appeal \i de novo\i0 or limit it to matters raised on appeal, that the choice is Council's, and that Council did not make an election.\b0\par \par Councilmember Donelson asked if the dBA measurements include low frequency noise. \b Mr. Sexton agreed that dBA filters out low-frequency noise and stated City Code regulates only dBA.\b0\par \par Councilmember Donelson stated he is concerned with the low frequency noises impact on adjacent properties \par \par Councilmember Donelson requested additional information regarding the megawatts of the other data centers located in the Garden of the Gods corridor. \b Mr. Sexton gave the square footage of one facility (just over 200,000 square feet) and referred the power question to Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU).\b0\par \par Councilmember Henjum asked what the provisions of a violation of the sound parameters are. Mr. Sexton identified the parameters in place to mitigate any violations. Councilmember Henjum asked what the timeframe is to mitigate. Mr. Sexton identified the terms of the agreement for remedy regarding noncompliance.\par \par \b\fs28 Appellant Presentation\b0\fs24\par \par \pard\sa160\sl276\slmult1 Kate Kent, representing the appellants, stated their \b legal counsel was unavailable to attend the hearing today and even after repeated rescheduling requests, the hearing still moved forward for today. She stated the applicant is subject to the burden of proof, not the appellant, City Council \kerning2 cannot convert an appeal into the application that should have been filed and the remedy is not to hear it faster, it's to remand it so that can be heard properly. \b0\f1 Ms. Kent \kerning0\f0 identified the four City Code requirements not met, what is Administratively approved at this site,and the seven claims of the appeal.\par \pard\sl276\slmult1\par Deirdre Aden-Smith, representing the appellants, went over the City\rquote s finding/record, what the approved plan used to say, the comparison, which was never made, the yards never changed-only the description of them, and their six requests for the documents regarding the data center designation.\par \par Jon Forshee, Acoustician, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, UCCS, representing the appellants, identified the noise, health impacts of noise, and played a video by Jamie Banks Quiet Communities, who provided an overview of Artificial Intelligence (AI) data center noise, noise characteristics, identical decibel level, setting/time of occurrence, 1968 determination of noise impacting health, auditory/non-auditory health impacts, nighttime noise effects, vulnerable groups, pets, agricultural animals, wildlife, and AI data center noise characteristics, and community survey results. Mr. Forshee also played a video by Peter Wilson, Technical Director, Industrial Noise Vibration Center (INVC), in conjunction with Quiet Communities, who provided an overview of the faulty data center noise impact evaluation, Project Taurus noise problems, Atlas Power data center in Williston, North Dakota, $5 million wasted on A-weighted decibels (dBA), low frequency noise/hum, why dBA is deaf to low frequencies, frequency analysis, and simple solutions.\par \par \b\fs28 Chair's Procedural Statements\fs24\par \par \pard\sa160\sl276\slmult1 President Crow-Iverson \kerning2 reminded the crowd of decorum and stated there are Colorado Springs Police Officers at both doors, and if they continue to see individuals which continue to disrupt this hearing, they will be removed.\kerning0\b0\par \pard\sl276\slmult1\b\par \fs28 Applicant Presentation\b0\fs24\par \par Jason Green, Founder and Co-owner, Raeden, representing the applicant, provided an overview of Raeden, the compliance with City Code criteria, definition/function of a data center, reasons behind the existing building/location, addressing community concerns in regard to noise, and water usage, community commitment, responsibility, and contract. \par \par Caitlin Quander, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Land Use Counsel, representing the applicant, identified the UDC review criteria, local priorities, environmental stewardship, and industry-leading sound mitigation.\par \par \b\fs28 Public Testimony/Comment\b0\fs24\par \par Citizens Johnna Reeder Kleymeyer, CEO of the Colorado Springs Chamber and EDC, Tim Leigh, former Colorado Springs City Councilmember and Utilities Board Member, Jan Weiland, Bonnie Goff, Vice President of Economic Development Colorado Springs Chamber and EDC, Steve Mulliken, Lesley Thompson, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Betty Clark-Wine, Gabe Andrews, Jessie Kimber, Bob Thompson, Bruce LePage, Market Director, Mortenson, Maxwell Rist, listing broker for the property, Tom Ashley, Seth Harvey, Founder, Blue Stack, Bill Shaner, Tim Prime, Brandon Krame, Managing Director, Marcus and Millichap, part of the brokerage team that marketed the property, Lamia Hovelsen, Sean Blumenheim, Sean Page, Jen Furda, UCCS, spoke in support of the applicant and in opposition to the appeals.\par \par Citizens Matt Martin, Electrical Engineer, Keysight, Kyle McGuffey, Lindsay Ang, Renee Sanders, Kane Carlton, Sarah Debusek, Carol Lucking, Linda Burton, Sarah Jane Baker, Rachel Hallum-Montes, Christopher Bonham, union member of Communications Workers of America (CWA) 777, David Cronenwett, Kevin Bowersox, Aubrey Fennewal, Tracy Starratt, Griffin Ash, Ted Brassfield, Kerry Ann Buckman, Zuri Horowitz, Allen Strass, Dailyn Souder, Eva Syrovy, Saul Maravilla, Ali Lang, Caleb Angelin Miller, Michelle Stuart, Sarah Jane Fromme, JoAnn Jones, Grace Samuelson, Mary Gilcrest, Thomas Carlson, Collen Andrae, Stephanie Vigil, Representative, Colorado House of Representatives, District 16, Celeste Hakes, Nick Raven, Producer of BNLO, Eric Stegell, Cathy Malone, Adam Gillard, Chair Progressive Veterans, Lotus, Nick Fallentine, Phillip "Marty" Wells, Victoria Tonski, Lindsay Stephenson, Sarah Garlick, Thomas Carter, Josh Hoskins, Anita Miller, Bethany Akeroyd, Candance Aberville, Janae Hansen, Taylor Gray, AJ Nienhusser, Ciara Guerrero, Matt Grubesic, Loring Rybell, Vincent Alvarez Montello, Amy Paschal, Colorado House of Representative, District 18, James Petty, Hossein Forouzandeh, Laura Tille, Stephanie Salyers, Maureen Malone, Bart Williams, Susan Pinnabel, Emery Gray, Kirsten Viers, Craig Farrell, Jennifer Thompson, Heather Glenn, Colin York, Kathleen Stock, Brooklyn Colvin, Kathleen Cabral, Mary Sprunger-Froese, Derek Saxton, Joseph Malzotti, Emiline Jenson, Angela Alvarado, Isaac Contreraz, Justin Wolfe, Dorothy Macnak, Genevieve Gustafson, Apollo Seal, Destiny Barbara, Ben Peterson Seal, Quinn Scott, Jack Bergren, Renee Lundglen, Ryan Gonzales, Dexter Gatehouse, Ryan Fuller, Matt Stys, Taralyn Romero, Alex Sommers, Memphis Curry, Zhane Ortega, and Oren Frey spoke in support of the appeals.\par \par \b\fs28 Chair's Procedural Statements\par \fs24\par President Crow-Iverson stated the reason the speaker was not permitted to proceed late is because they had already bypassed ten to fifteen citizens who were called earlier but were not present, both those in support and in opposition.\b0\par \par \b\fs28 Applicant Rebuttal\b0\fs24\par \par Ms. Quander clarified that the item under review is a specific Development Plan modification, not a rezoning, and not a broader referendum on data centers, the proposal involves the adaptive reuse of an existing industrial building in a long-established industrial corridor that has been zoned to allow data centers as a permitted use for approximately thirty years. She stated the Development Plan includes \b thirty generators \b0 and thirty-six chillers, as shown in the plan on record, the generators do not operate regularly; they run only during power outages and undergo periodic testing to ensure functionality, therefore, ongoing noise from generators should not be expected. Ms. Quander stated multiple iterations of the sound study were completed in response to community feedback, including concerns regarding dBC, the applicant incorporated additional evaluations and mitigation measures into the final study, and the Planning Commission added a monitoring and reporting condition, which the applicant accepted. She explained that Raeden followed the required development review procedures, confirmed that data centers are a permitted use, submitted a modification to the Development Plan, responded to Staff comments through several rounds of revisions, held community information meetings, and made changes based on public concerns which included relocating generators, adding a sound wall, and performing additional studies. The final plan was reviewed for compliance with the code and was approved. She emphasized that the modification is consistent with the Colorado Springs Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the BP Zone District, in 2019, the City identified the Garden of the Gods industrial corridor as an appropriate area for industrial uses, data centers are specifically referenced in the corridor\rquote s vision as desirable development, and the project represents an adaptive reuse of an existing industrial building, aligning with both PlanCOS and City Code. Ms. Quander stated that the applicant intends to operate transparently, return the building to productive use with the necessary power and water infrastructure, a Development Agreement and bond are in place to ensure accountability, and as the use is permitted by right and the Development Plan meets all applicable criteria, \b applicant's counsel asked City Council not to impose the Planning Commission's power condition\b0 , and requested that the Planning Director\rquote s approval be upheld.\par \par Councilmember Donelson asked what the acceptable level of dBC in the City is. Ms. Quander stated the City Code does not have requirements regarding the dBC, so Raeden agreed in its Sound Monitoring Plan to monitor and report what the dBC levels are. Councilmember Donelson stated he is concerned that the City has no enforceable standard for the monitoring of dBC.\par \par Councilmember Donelson asked if there is proof from other Raeden facilities that they do not make tonal low frequency hum. Mr. Green stated complaints are what will drive whether there is a concern and they have never had a complaint in the twenty-five years he has been managing data centers.\par \par Councilmember Donelson asked if any of Raeden\rquote s other facilities have been analyzed for Db or dBZ frequencies. Mr. Green stated they have never had to do it before for existing facilities because there has never been a complaint or issue.\par \par Councilmember Donelson asked if any of the other facilities are located within 380 feet of residential homes. Mr. Green confirmed they are because they are located in metropolitan areas and there is a forty-megawatt data center located one hundred feet from homes in Colorado Springs.\par \par \b\fs28 Appellant Rebuttal\fs24\par \b0\par Ms. Aden-Smith stated that the applicant\rquote s counsel argued the appellants must prove the Planning Director erred, however, she noted that the City Attorney earlier described this as a \i de novo \i0 hearing, meaning the City Council is not bound by the Planning Commission\rquote s determination, emphasized that both statements cannot be true simultaneously, and that a \i de novo\i0 process places the responsibility for making the finding directly with City Council, and asked City Council to determine which document constitutes the original approval under UDC 7.5.516. She addressed concerns regarding noise, clarifying that no one has claimed noise emits from inside the building, instead, the issue is the outdoor chillers/generators, which are located near homes in the Chelsea Glen neighborhood and the noise referenced during public comment came from chiller equipment and low-frequency sound, not from generators. Ms. Aden-Smith stated that Council had been told the Development Plan fixes the number and location of generators and chillers and that no additional units can be added and noted that Sheet 13 (M201) listed 72 chillers, 60 generators, 30 double-stacked units, and two 50-megawatt data halls which reflects the approved numbers as of the June 11, 2026 Planning Commission decision, and changing those numbers to 36 chillers and 30 generators constitutes a major modification, requiring a new quasi-judicial public process. She stated under City Code Section 7.5.516(A), any modification to an approved Plan must follow the proper application process, therefore, City Council cannot simply substitute new numbers without triggering a modification review. She further stated that on July 1, 2026, the Planning Manager informed the appellants that revising sheet M201 would be interpreted as a subsequent Plan modification affecting each appeal, yet the Sheet was revised twenty-two days later and now reflects office space square footage, its purpose is solely to support parking calculations, and that no other layout aspects apply to the overall development plan. Ms. Aden-Smith questioned how the Plan can \ldblquote lock in\rdblquote the number of generators and chillers if the only page showing those numbers was removed and noted that there are twelve sheets with two stamps each, while Sheet 13 has only one stamp and no Land Use review approval,\b \b0 and that City Council was told the numbers were already locked in.\par \par Ms. Kent stated that three acousticians have reviewed the applicant\rquote s sound study and reached the same conclusion: the analysis is inadequate, the City hired an independent acoustical consultant who, on May 14, 2026, returned the study with seventeen comments which do not appear in any of the documents currently before City Council.\par She summarized several of the consultant\rquote s concerns, including:\par \bullet The acoustic modeling software used in the applicant\rquote s study is not consistent with the higher tier packages commonly used by leading environmental noise consultants.\par \bullet The report does not specify which power levels were used or where that data was obtained, leaving reviewers unable to audit the analysis.\par \bullet Statements regarding generator enclosures are vague and unsupported by detailed data.\par \bullet Nighttime noise levels of 50 dBA should not be categorized as \ldblquote quiet,\rdblquote particularly when existing nighttime levels are measured in the high 30s.\par \bullet The section addressing infrasound lacks rigor and consists only of opinion.\par Ms. Kent noted that Mr. Sexton acknowledged methodological concerns earlier in the day, yet signed off on the study two weeks later, the modeling shifted multiple times, including an April layout that was superseded five weeks later, modeling scenarios with 34 chillers at 75 percent load and no generators, and later scenarios involving five of the 30 generators, and no acoustician has ever modeled the configuration shown on the approved plan, which lists 72 chillers and 60 generators. She stated Peter Wilson, an experienced acoustician and member of the Institute of Acoustics, identified similar issues, found that octave-band noise levels used in the calculations were not provided anywhere in the report, rendering the predictions unverifiable, tonal noise, specifically the \ldblquote hum\rdblquote raised throughout public comment was not addressed, despite being a major factor in assessing data center noise, and mitigation measures shown to City Council reduce higher frequencies but are ineffective against low-frequency sound. Ms. Kent stated that Dr. Jon Forshee of UCCS reviewed the same materials and reached identical conclusions, and none of the three acousticians could independently audit the study. She stated that the applicant presented 41 dBA daytime and 34 dBA nighttime levels, claiming the dBC component was equal, however, the study itself shows chillers at 41 dBA and 62 dBC which is a difference of 21 decibels, existing background levels are 38.8 dBA and 47.4 dBC, a gap of under 9 decibels, and the project would increase that gap to 21 decibels, which is the source of the hum because dBA readings filter out low-frequency sound, meaning the facility was effectively measured \ldblquote with the bass turned down.\rdblquote Ms. Kent stated that the appellants proposed an enforceable dBC threshold that would cost the developer nothing if the facility performed as described, the applicant refused this condition multiple times, low-frequency sound is a persistent and unresolved issue in the data center industry, and that refusing a no-cost limit suggests a lack of confidence in meeting it. She stated that the community requested a binding agreement addressing environmental, residential, energy, and noise impacts, the applicant agreed but said it could only be executed after the initial appeal deadline had passed, regarding the bond, she noted that Section 2 of the Agreement does not include noise among the secured obligations, Section 6 assigns all enforcement authority to the City at its sole discretion, with no community recourse, the Sound Monitoring Plan includes no thresholds, allows the developer thirty days to mitigate any issues, requires no independent monitoring, and provides no community protections, and the Plan was finalized thirty-five days after approval. Ms. Kent stated that the City\rquote s argument rests on two letters stamped \ldblquote AR,\rdblquote meaning Administrative Review which reflects what was done, not what should have been done, and that the City\rquote s own filing system distinguishes deciding bodies by prefix (CPC for Planning Commission, CC for City Council), therefore, \ldblquote AR\rdblquote identifies the body that made the decision, but not whether that body was authorized to do so. She noted that Section 7.5.516(B)(2) requires identifying the original approval, over the past 91 days the appellants have repeatedly requested this information, including five formal Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request, and have received conflicting documents, varying spellings, and no definitive answer. She added that the applicant\rquote s own cover sheet cites an April 2000 document the City has never produced, the approval letter references a different landscape and irrigation plan, and the Planning Manager explained that staff selected the document that would allow the current application to proceed administratively, which she described as \ldblquote Code being run backwards.\rdblquote Ms. Kent stated that if the original approval cannot be identified, the required finding cannot be made, and the authority to approve the application did not exist, whether at the staff level, Planning Commission, or City Council, there were several items missing from the record at various points, including the 1995 conditions and the City\rquote s own acoustic consultant\rquote s comments. She then urged Council, as the first elected body involved, to \ldblquote look behind the doors,\rdblquote identify the correct document, or reverse the decision, stating these are the only two actions allowed under City Code.\par \par Councilmember Donelson asked if CSU had a forty-megawatt customer. Travas Deal, Chief Executive Officer, CSU, stated the largest customer in their service territory is thirty mega-watts which is not a data center and the largest data center is around six mega-watts. Mr. Walker clarified that the Development Plan does not specify the amount of mega-watts or electrical/power usage inside the building, it identifies the impacts on the neighborhood outside the building.\par \par \b\fs28 City Staff Comments\b0\fs24\par \par Kevin Walker, Director, Planning Department, stated City Staff had no further comments.\par \par \b\fs28 City Council Deliberation\b0\fs24\par \par Councilmember Rainey stated he does not believe the City is ready for this project and there are items which will need further review and study to develop rules and standards for data centers in general and made a motion, seconded by President Pro Tem Risley to postpone the appeal hearing on the development plan modification for Corporate Ridge Filing No. 1 Lot 4 and required the following information prior to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on Tuesday, April 13, 2027: \par \bullet Independent land use compatibility analysis (City Planning)\par \bullet An additional independent noise analysis, with focus of low frequence noise or megahertz ranges (City Planning)\par \bullet Military coordination analysis (City Planning)\par \bullet Large-Load Electricity Study/Agreement (CSU)\par \bullet Framework for potential code requirements or standards for data center uses (City Planning)\par \par Councilmember Leinweber stated the City already has data centers, but not as large as this one that is proposed and asked how many noise complaints have been received. Mr. Walker stated there have been three complaints in the last six to eight years; one of them was related to the Bitcoin operation in 2018/2019, and there has been two complaints in that area within the last six months, but both of those were tested and were found to be in compliance of City Code.\par \par Councilmember Leinweber asked who requested the sound study. Mr. Walker stated the Planning Department requested it just to make sure there were no issues with sound even though there is no requirement to do it in City Code.\par \par Councilmember Leinweber asked how long the Garden of the Gods corridor has been zoned light industrial. Mr. Walker stated it has been an industrial corridor since the late sixties and the residential developed in the nineties.\par \par Councilmember Leinweber requested additional information regarding the Planning Commission\rquote s Condition of Approval on sound. Mr. Walker stated the Planning Commission accepted the sound study and the operations, and in the Condition, they requested Raeden also report the sound, both dBA and dBC, in the Monitoring Plan.\par \par Councilmember Leinweber asked if the Bitcoin operation located at this facility was a problem which may have created some trust issues with the neighbors. Mr. Walker confirmed it created a lot of issues which is why City Staff went farther beyond just a sound study that showed that they met the sound requirements in the City Code, but also to require them to do a Monitoring Plan, to agree to remediation, and to also put up a bond that the City could call on if there were continuing obligations or fixes that needed to be done in order to make sure that the sound Code was met. \par \par Councilmember Leinweber asked what the City could do if sound became an issue. Mr. Walker stated they would enforce it as City Code directs, the Sound Monitoring Agreement remediation mandates, and the bond. \par \par Councilmember Leinweber asked if Raeden has entered into an agreement with CSU regarding how much power they will be using. Jared Miller, Strategic Customer Relations Manager, CSU, stated they are not in that part of the process yet.\par \par Councilmember Leinweber asked if CSU is a for profit organization. Mr. Miller stated they are not.\par \par Councilmember Leinweber asked if CSU shareholders are the community. Mr. Deal confirmed they are and stated CSU rates are based on cost of service and the Large Load Tariff they implemented last year protects ratepayers.\par \par Councilmember Leinweber asked if CSU was the first utility across the state to implement Large Load Tariffs. Mr. Deal confirmed they were. Mr. Miller explained the process of the Large Load Service Agreement.\par \par Councilmember Donelson asked if there are standards on dBC limits in City Code. Mr. Walker stated there is not and there is no place in the country which has that standard.\par \par Councilmember Donelson stated there are studies that if the dBC levels are at a certain level, it could cause health issues.\par \par Councilmember Donelson asked if there are other data centers interested in coming to Colorado Springs. Mr. Walker stated they have uses similar to data centers, but no data centers.\par \par Councilmember Donelson asked who approved the Conflict of Interest Waiver which allowed Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck to represent Raeden. Ms. Boster stated the City Attorney\rquote s Office with the Mayor\rquote s consent and Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck does not provide any legal services to the City Attorney\rquote s Office or the City.\par \par Councilmember Donelson stated he does not believe this is an appropriate location for a data center and the City should conduct studies for future data centers.\par \par Councilmember Henjum stated that at the Planning Commission meeting in July, it was said that AR\expndtw30 \expndtw0 DP\expndtw30 \expndtw0 00-00177\expndtw30 \expndtw0 is the original Development Plan and there was a Special Permit issued by City Council in 1995 and if it was in the record before City Council today. \b Mr. Sexton stated the 1995 Special Permit is not in the record, described it as a glorified concept plan, and confirmed it was a City Council action.\b0\par \par Councilmember Henjum asked if there were other City Council or Planning Commission approvals for this property between 1985 and 2000, and if any of those are in this record. Mr. Sexton stated the Conditional Use approval for a temporary tent structure on the site which did go through the Planning Commission is denoted on the history table on the front of the Plan set as well as a Non-Use Variance that was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission for use of off-site parking which is the ancillary parcel to the southwest of the current site.\par \par \pard\sa160\sl276\slmult1 Councilmember Henjum stated the Planning Commission was told the Department may act administratively when the original plan was administratively approved, but when asked how the deciding body was chosen, Mr. Sexton had answered that the Department looks to the last approval and asked which one is the correct one. Mr. Sexton stated for the project, the original Development Plan was approved in 2000, which has subsequently been amended and with the adoption of the UDC, the protocol for reviewing the original approval was enacted as part of the UDC, and this consideration did not previously exist under old Chapter 7. \kerning2 He stated City Planning staff reviewed the record history and determined the parent record was adopted administratively in 2000 and subsequently amended administratively. \kerning0\b Mr. Sexton stated the Plan modified was the last amended Plan set, but the deciding body was determined from the original 2000 parent approval\kerning2\b0 , which was decided administratively, \f2 and City Planning staff processed this Development Plan Major Modification administratively, which is in accordance with City Code. As of the date of the hearing, no further clarification or policy has be enacted by City Planning to clarify the UDC requirement to review the \ldblquote original permit or approval\rdblquote language. \kerning0\f0 Councilmember Henjum stated this is confusing to her and there is a difference of opinion of how to interpret this which is a problem for her in terms of approving the project.\par \pard\sl276\slmult1\par Councilmember Henjum asked what security and insurance obligations would a Chelsea Glen homeowner need to take on if they host a sound monitor. Mr. Sexton stated that would be a contractual agreement between the homeowner and the applicant.\par \par Councilmember Henjum asked if the results from the sound monitoring will be publicly disclosed. Mr. Sexton confirmed they would be.\par \par Councilmember Henjum asked how a sound complaint would get investigated. Mr. Sexton explained the tiered process for reviewing the data and remedying the problem.\par \par \pard\sa160\sl276\slmult1 Councilmember Henjum asked what the consequence of the dBA being above the projected limit is. Mr. Sexton stated it is setting a threshold for monitoring what goes above what was projected, a remediation plan, a supporting Development Agreement, a million-dollar bond, and City Code provisions. \kerning2\f2 Given that the manner of remedy would be unique to the identified noise emitter or problem, hypothetical situations are challenging to answer. City Planning staff in consultation with others, determined than undefined remedy was the best approach.\kerning0\f0\par \pard\sl276\slmult1\par Councilmember Henjum asked why the cure is undefined and there is no notice of a cure procedure in the Development Agreement. Ms Boster stated this is standard language in a Development Agreement for the City and\b a defined cure is not something the City typically includes .\par \b0\par Councilmember Henjum asked if the third-party beneficiaries identified in the Development Agreement apply to the residents of Chelsea Glen. \b Ms. Boster confirmed the no-third-party-beneficiaries provision applies to Chelsea Glen residents, who have no recourse under the Development Agreement and would need their own attorney to explore other remedies.\par \b0\par Councilmember Henjum asked if the applicant would agree to accept liquidated damages for confirmed exceedances of noise. Ms. Quander stated she will present that to her client as a potential condition.\par \par Councilmember Henjum asked if a parent company from the Raedon Corporation requested the provision to \b release of the owner on conveyance, leaving a Delaware single-purpose entity as counterparty\b0 . Ms. Quander stated that provision is because the property is currently owned by someone else and they wanted to make sure upon sale that they were not going to have to put up a million dollars. \par \par Councilmember Henjum asked which of the obligations would survive the ten-year term. Ms. Quander stated there is not a broad survival provision past the ten years in this agreement.\par \par Councilmember Henjum stated she thinks the mitigation efforts need more work and what is proposed for enforcement is not strong enough.\par \par Councilmember Henjum stated that the standard before City Council was narrow under Section 7.5.415.A(2), allowing reversal or modification only if the decision was contrary to the City Code, erroneous, or clearly contrary to law, the burden rests on the appellants and that City Council must rely solely on the record and testimony presented. She acknowledged that Project Taurus has become symbolic of broader public concerns, including data centers, artificial intelligence, utility rates, energy and water consumption, and neighborhood noise, and although she shares these concerns, she emphasized that they are not part of the criteria for the appeal and have been set aside in her deliberation. Councilmember Henjum stated that her central question was whether the decision on the Major Modification application was made by the body authorized to do so. She cited Section 7.5.516.B(1) and 7.5.516.B(2), which assigns Minor Modifications to the Manager and requires Major Modifications to be approved by the same body and procedure as the original approval, the City classified the Taurus application as a Major Modification but approved it administratively. She further stated that the administrative decision documents did not identify the original approval, the deciding body, or the procedure used, as the City Code requires. Councilmember Henjum referenced two differing interpretations offered at the Planning Commission; one asserting the Planning Department may act administratively if the original approval was administrative, and the other asserting decisions follow the most recent approval, but neither interpretation appears in the official decision documents. She stated the City Code requires a finding that the modification is consistent with any conditions of the original approval, the administrative memorandum stated no conditions existed, while the appellants cited the April 2000 Record of Decision, which contained seven conditions, and she could not determine which interpretation was correct, and that the dispute itself made the required finding unclear. Councilmember Henjum stated her concerns may appear technical, but adherence to adopted procedures is essential to maintaining rule-of-law decision-making, rather than responding to external pressures, and her vote was based solely on whether the June decision followed the City Code. She stated she believes the City Code assigns Major Modifications to the original deciding body, using the original procedure, and that this requirement was not met. Councilmember Henjum stated her vote does not prevent the project from being built in the future but ensures that an application of this scale is processed consistently with the City\rquote s adopted procedures so she would vote in favor of the appeal.\par \par Councilmember Henjum stated she is uncertain how she will vote on the postponement because it would be after the election. \b She noted the date falls right after the election and that a vote against postponement would reflect her view that Council should rule on the appeal.\b0\par }
Other appearances:
Thu, Sep 17, 2026 (City Council — Postponed / continued); Thu, Sep 17, 2026 (City Council — Postponed / continued)
Documents:
CPC Attachment 9 - CGS Response Letter · CPC Attachment 10 - Rapid Response Certificate · CPC Attachment 11 - Project Statement · CPC Attachment 12 - Approval Letter · CPC Attachment 13 - Approved Development Plan · CPC Attachment 14 - DLAA Acoustical Design and Impact Report · CPC Attachment 15 – HEI Memo (Noise) · CPC Attachment 1 - Appeal Application · CPC Attachment 2 - Appeal Application · CPC Attachment 3 - Appeal Application · CPC Attachment 4 - Appeal Application · CPC Attachment 5 - Appeal Application · CPC Attachment 6 - Ordinance No. 4312 (1971) · CPC Attachment 8 - Geologic Hazard Report · 7.5.415 APPEALS · 7.5.516 MODIFICATION OF APPROVED APPLICATIONS · CPC Attachment 16 - Development Agreement · CPC Attachment 17 - Sound Monitoring Plan · CPC Attachment 7 - Public Comments 7192026 · AdministrativeDecisionAnalysisMemo · CPC SAH_Staff Report_Project Taurus_FINAL · CC APPL-26-0003 Packet (1) - Kent and Graham-Becker · CC APPL-26-0003 Packet (2) - Kent and Graham-Becker · CC APPL-26-0003 Packet (3) - Kent and Graham-Becker · CC APPL-26-0004 Packet (1) - Katie Kloth · ApprovalLTR_ProjectTaurus_FINAL_wAppeals_8.11.2026 · CPC Presentation - Appellant 1 (Katie Kloth) · CPC Presentation - Appellant 2 (Fallentine) · CPC Presentation - Appellant 3 (IM) · CPC Presentation - Applicant Presentation · CPC SAH Presentation_Project Taurus_Appeal_FINAL · Data Center Noise Monitoring Plan_FINAL · PROJECT TAURUS_Development Plan Modification · Public Comments_Post CPC Appeal Hearing · CC APPL-26-0003 - Kent and Graham-Becker_P11589 taurus presentation final · CC APPL-26-0003 Supplement (1) - Kent and Graham-Becker_Corrigendum Appeal Project Taurus_9.8.26 · CC APPL-26-0003 Supplement (2) - Kent and Graham-BeckerProject_Taurus_Appeal_Package_FINAL_COMPLETE · CC APPL-26-0003 Supplement (3) - Kent and Graham-Becker_Project_Taurus_Appellants_Objection_Packet_2026-07-23 · CC APPL-26-0003 Supplement (4) - Kent and Graham-Becker_Project_Taurus_M201_Supplemental_Submission_with_Exhibits · CC APPL-26-0003 Supplement (5) - Kent and Graham-Becker_Supplement_COMPLETE (16) · CC APPL-26-0003 Supplement (6) - Kent and Graham-Becker_Council_Notice_PACKAGE_REVISED (1) · CC APPL-26-0003 Supplement (7) - Kent and Graham-Becker_Council_Supplement_FILING_COPY - Google Docs · CC APPL-26-0003 Supplement (8) - Kent and Graham-Becker_Exhibit_Binder_AC_to_BT · CC SAH Presentation_Project Taurus_Appeal · Special CPC minutes 7.23.2026 - Final