Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Center Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council on data‑center ordinance timing, noise enforcement and planning‑commission conflict concerns
Summary
Public commenters urged clearer enforcement and transparency on a draft data‑center zoning ordinance and raised complaints about JP’s Waterfront noise and a possible Planning Commissioner conflict of interest; city attorney review and a moratorium on data centers were described as the reason for the pause.
Multiple residents used the public‑comment period to press the council over two related issues: the draft data‑center zoning ordinance’s review process and ongoing neighborhood complaints about noise and potential environmental impacts from a waterfront business.
Lenore Bolthouse, who attended a May 19 Planning Commission discussion, asked why the draft zoning language was sent to the city attorney before a follow‑up public Planning Commission meeting; she said that sequence raised concerns about public input being curtailed. City Administrator Witherspoon later responded that the attorney’s review is intended to consolidate edits and avoid multiple competing drafts; once legal review is complete the draft will return to the zoning‑ordinance committee, then the Planning Commission for first and second readings, and finally to council for first and second reads if recommended.
Several speakers — notably Carrie Valadez and Mike Webber — described localized impacts. Webber said his neighborhood had circulated a petition alleging near‑daily noise and water‑quality problems linked to JP’s Waterfront and said FOIA requests were filed to clarify the business’s zoning and permitted operations. Valadez raised a potential conflict of interest, saying a Planning Commissioner is employed by DTE while serving on the commission; she asked whether that relationship had been disclosed publicly.
Administrator Witherspoon and staff said enforcement mechanisms are an active part of the draft ordinance; possible tools being considered include 24/7 noise monitoring technology and coordinated enforcement by the ordinance officer, building department and public‑safety staff. Staff told residents they should continue to use the city’s non‑emergency dispatch for noise complaints at the time of occurrence because retroactive investigations are limited.
No enforcement action was announced at the meeting. Staff said the city attorney is reviewing the draft and that enforcement provisions and monitoring approaches will be discussed with the relevant departments before returning the ordinance to committees for additional public review.
