Council reviews data center noise-mitigation condition, outer-loop alignment ahead of planning review

City planning staff presented revised conditions for a proposed data center, including a required noise-mitigation plan, post-construction verification and a new proposed outer-loop alignment that would change the location of an access connection.

The presentation, given to the Temple City Council at a workshop, described a multi-part mitigation condition that staff said will be attached to the development as a condition of permit approval. Planning staff summarized the requirement as: "the plan must be submitted and approved," and added the plan would address not only decibel level but "duration, frequency, time of day, etcetera." Staff also said the developer had agreed to use "commercially reasonable efforts to design, construct, and operate the facility to minimize noise."

City planners said the noise condition would require a professional study, implementation of the study's recommendations, and a post-construction verification by a qualified professional to confirm mitigation measures were effective. If complaints persist and staff determine a complaint is valid, the condition would require the city and the applicant to meet and attempt resolution; if that fails, enforcement would be available through municipal-code violations or an arbitration option, the presentation said. Staff noted the city has both an absolute decibel limit in the Unified Development Code and a nuisance code provision that can apply even if the decibel limit is not exceeded.

Planning staff also showed an updated site plan and a proposed outer-loop alignment that moves the loop closer to Rob White (as presented), and said at least one vehicle access point will come off the nearby collector prior to the planning stage. Staff cautioned that the updated alignment is intended to supersede what is currently shown in the thoroughfare plan and that the thoroughfare plan itself will be updated to reflect the change.

Council members asked staff not to let summary language in the presentation override the full condition; staff agreed to ensure the ordinance and the presentation are consistent and said they would reference detailed mitigation parameters on slides 5–7 in the packet. One council member suggested the presentation summary be left general and point to the detailed slides so the final ordinance matches what was presented.

Staff described the condition as broader than the short summary: it would require the applicant to incorporate noise-control measures into both site design and operations, treat the UDC decibel limit as the absolute maximum, and also address nuisance noise even below that maximum. Staff said the applicant had been "very amenable" to the added conditions and that the package of protections was designed to address concerns raised at the prior workshop.

Council accepted the update and indicated staff should proceed with the presentation as revised. No formal vote or ordinance adoption occurred at the workshop.