Project Taurus Data Center

At a glance

What: Project Taurus, a large data center proposed for the city. A related project, Project Primestone, was also raised by a speaker.
Where it stands: On July 23, 2026 the City Planning Commission denied all five appeals of the June 11, 2026 administrative approval of the site's development plan major modification, but modified the approval with four conditions (6-2-1). Per remarks on September 22, 2026, Council postponed the Project Taurus vote (the appeal to Council) to the April 13, 2027 City Council meeting.
The proposal: Raeden, a data center developer, plans to convert the former Intel chip factory at 1565 High Tech Way (Corporate Ridge Filing No. 1 Lot 4, Council District 1, Business Park zone, near Garden of the Gods) into a data center. The plan as approved shows 36 chillers, 30 generators and 50 MW of electric service.
Why it matters: The 14-hour appeal hearing drew well over a hundred recorded public speakers, most of them for the appeals, and raised noise (especially low frequency sound), water, air quality, heat, power supply and the way the zoning code classifies data centers.

July 23, 2026 appeal hearing (City Planning Commission)

Source: the official minutes (Legistar status Final). The hearing began at 9:00 AM at the ENT Center for the Arts and, per Vice Chair Slattery, ran about 14 hours.

What was appealed. The Planning Department, acting administratively, approved the major modification on June 11, 2026. Five appeals were filed (related files DEPN-26-0039, APPL-26-0003, APPL-26-0004), among them a consolidated appeal by the group Integrity Matters on behalf of 34 residents. The agenda item is worded as appeals of the Commission's decision on earlier appeals and approval of the modification with conditions; the minutes do not explain that wording further. Planning Manager Daniel Sexton said the original development plan is file AR DP 00-00177, approved administratively in April 2000, and that the 2023 Unified Development Code lists a data center as a permitted use by right in the Business Park zone (it was folded into the light industrial category). Staff said Engineering, Landscape, Stormwater, Utilities, Traffic, Fire and Environmental Services all approved or had their comments addressed, and an independent noise audit by Hankard Environmental confirmed the applicant's noise analysis. Staff acknowledged that plan sheet M201 once showed 72 chillers and 60 generators, but said it was submitted only to document office square footage and was replaced; five mechanical sheets show 36 chillers and 30 generators.

Procedural votes.

Postponement request: Commissioner Slattery moved, Willoughby seconded, to deny the appellants' request to postpone to August 12 (City Code 7.5.415.C.3); passed 8-0-1 with Clements absent. Trevor Gloss of the City Attorney's Office said postponement could be granted for good cause.
De novo review: Cecil moved, Gigiano seconded, to hear the appeals de novo (7.5.415.C.1); failed 2-6 (aye Gigiano, Cecil; no Hensler, Robbins, Willoughby, Case, Engel, Slattery). Gloss said the Commission's standard practice is a limited review: was the decision contrary to the UDC, erroneous, or clearly contrary to law. He and Hensler also said the Commission has no authority over moratoriums, which are legislative actions for City Council.

Appellants. Katie Kloth argued the March 12 plan was incomplete and noncompliant with the UDC and PlanCOS, and raised wastewater and glycol risk during a declared drought. Nick Fallentine focused on low frequency noise and infrasound and urged a moratorium. For Integrity Matters, Katherine Kent opened (major modifications should be decided by the body that approved the original plan; data center demand, ratepayer costs and a moratorium); attorney Katherine Gayle argued the decision should be reviewed de novo and was void for an incomplete record, no determination that the former parcel was not of unanticipated size or intensity, only one of three walls evaluated, and no heat calculations, citing seven grounds for reversal and 115 reasons after supplementing; Jon Forshee said the noise study used light industrial rather than residential night limits, ignored low frequency sound and louver openings, and modeled 36 chillers at partial load against 72 on the approved plans; John O'Brien described health effects of low frequency sound and said the model could not handle louvers or terrain; Deirdre Aden-Smith said staff did not compare off-site impacts with prior uses (previous equipment sat inside 12,000 to 20,000 square foot outbuildings, now to be demolished) and that no fire, hazardous materials, water supply or access reviews had been done. Cynthia Hurwitz had withdrawn as an appellant and spoke in public comment.

Applicant. Land use counsel Caitlin Quander said this is a use by right and the only question is whether staff properly approved a major modification; the original plan was staff-approved ("AR") so administrative approval was the correct process; the site has been designated for data center use for 16 years; the appellants carry the burden. Jason Green of Raeden said conversion needs 785 million dollars of infrastructure upgrades; Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) can provide 50 MW and no more; the generators moved to the north side behind a 40 to 45 foot wall after resident requests; chillers sit in a yard behind a 30 foot sound wall (tallest chiller 21 feet below the top); equipment is fully attenuated and generators are Tier 4 with selective catalytic reduction, tested about once a month for 10 to 30 minutes on weekday daytimes; ambient sound measured 42 dB, modeled operation 41 dB typical, 34 dB at night and 46 dB at full load against a 54 dB(A) code limit; closed loop cooling needs about 200,000 gallons once and no flushing; 60 to 100 jobs (30 to 40 in security) versus the five jobs cited by opponents; at least 2.5 million dollars a year to CSU. On July 16 Raeden signed a 10-year development agreement with a 1 million dollar bond for noise remediation, city-enforced, with continuous sound monitoring paid for by Raeden and published data. He said the project began with Planning on December 9, 2025 and went through three submittals (81 comments, then 40, then a May 27 version) before the June approval. Sound engineer Scott Petrovits of D. L. Adams Associates said the monitors are Type 1 meters that capture the full spectrum so results can be reported as dB(A) or dB(C), though no accepted dB(C) standard exists.

Public comment. Many dozens of residents spoke in support of the appeals, with a two-minute limit. Recurring points: noise and infrasound; water use in a drought (200,000 gallons is a start-up figure only); diesel particulates from the generators; heat island effects near Garden of the Gods, wildlife and wildfire risk; distrust because of shifting numbers (50 MW versus 100 MW or higher, 5 versus 60 to 100 jobs, 36 versus 72 chillers); a 1 million dollar bond seen as too small; a shared law firm and conflict-of-interest claims; the weekday scheduling of the hearing; surveillance and military uses; and calls for a moratorium. A resident of the Chelsea Glen neighborhood about 1,000 feet away said a 24/7 industrial use cannot be harmonious with housing; a Keysight employee across the street raised power transparency (a CSU report showing 100 MW capacity from July 1 versus 50 MW in the analyses); an Integrity Matters speaker said El Paso County records list 3G Venture as owner of the site, so Raeden signed the owner authorization without a statement of authority. Environmental justice groups (Green Latinos) cited PFAS and chemical disclosure gaps. Speakers in opposition to the appeals were Johnna Reeder Kleymeyer (CEO of the Chamber and EDC), Tim Leigh (former Councilor and Utilities Board member, who said the vacant building cost School District 11 about 750,000 dollars a year in property tax and that Taurus would bring about 115 million dollars in tax benefits, roughly 6 million a year), two brokers who marketed the property, a real estate group president, electrical workers (IBEW) representatives, a Marine veteran and former city military liaison, and others, all stressing predictable application of zoning, reuse of a vacant industrial building and union construction jobs. Minors who spoke or were mentioned in the record are not named here.

City Utilities answers. Jared Miller of CSU said the customer has consistently been evaluated as a 50 MW user; the 300 MW figure came from early assumptions at the Rapid Response kickoff and fell as the site's transmission capacity was assessed; any expansion needs a new large load study; as a large load customer it pays under the January 1, 2026 electric large load tariff, a 10-year contract with 36 months of collateral, so costs are not shifted to other ratepayers; CSU would buy short-term market power, and the large load study (paid for by the customer) found no new infrastructure needed. Bryan English said CSU's water supply is 95,000 acre-feet a year against about 70,000 in use (five-year weather-normalized average, 2021-2025), and that glycol or other industrial discharges would go through an industrial pretreatment review that has not yet happened. Kevin Walker said the city does not recommend dB(C) limits because no validated standard links them to health effects, and the city's code (state and city) does not address low frequency sound. Daniel Sexton said the 30 foot wall is outside easements and meets setbacks, and that detailed diesel spill containment would come with later construction drawings.

Commissioner comments. Willoughby, Cecil and Engel said the code has not kept pace with data centers (scale, low frequency noise, heat) but the Commission can only apply the current UDC; Cecil asked for a future work session on data center definitions, cumulative impacts and community benefits; Gigiano said she lacked confidence in the acoustic testimony; Robbins and Case said the applicant had gone above and beyond and that the development agreement and monitoring plan help manage unknowns; Slattery said data centers should be their own land use category, possibly tiered by size and resource use; Hensler called it the longest hearing of her four years on the Commission.

Decision. Commissioner Slattery moved, Cecil seconded, to deny all appeals but modify the approval under City Code 7.5.415: (1) report utility usage data for the first 10 years of operation; (2) limit utility usage to 50 MW, with any proposed increase to be scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing; (3) replace the M201 plan sheet with the applicant's corrected version submitted at the hearing; (4) modify the Sound Monitoring Plan to include dB(C) monitoring and reporting in the same way as dB(A). Passed 6-2-1: aye Hensler, Robbins, Case, Engel, Cecil, Slattery; no Gigiano, Willoughby; Clements absent. Gloss noted the decision can be appealed to City Council, which is the hearing later postponed (see below). The minutes also record that an executive session on legal advice was listed on the agenda; none is recorded as held.

What the September 22 record shows

Donelson said he proposed moving the vote to before the April election, but that was voted down. He then voted to postpone to April 13, 2027 without realizing it falls in the two-week lame-duck period after the election, which he said has created suspicion and frustration among voters. He raised it during the Reclaiming Civility proclamation.
Leinweber replied that this was not a civility conversation but a politically driven one, and objected to accusing Council of making actions.
During citizen discussion, three residents spoke against Project Taurus and one against Project Primestone. One speaker thanked Council for postponing Taurus; another said he disagreed with the postponement but praised the professionalism of the hearing. One speaker also raised a conflict-of-interest concern about a law firm and Project Taurus.

Sources

City Planning Commission minutes, July 23, 2026: https://legistar2.granicus.com/coloradosprings/meetings/2026/7/2846_M_City_Planning_Commission_26-07-23_Meeting_Minutes.pdf
City Council minutes, September 22, 2026: https://legistar2.granicus.com/coloradosprings/meetings/2026/9/2801_M_City_Council_26-09-22_Meeting_Minutes.pdf
City Council minutes, September 8, 2026: https://legistar2.granicus.com/coloradosprings/meetings/2026/9/2798_M_City_Council_26-09-08_Meeting_Minutes.pdf
City Council minutes, August 25, 2026: https://legistar2.granicus.com/coloradosprings/meetings/2026/8/2795_M_City_Council_26-08-25_Meeting_Minutes.pdf

Earlier citizen comment

August 25: two residents spoke against Project Taurus during citizen discussion, one of whom (Taylor Gray) was joined by a young resident in objecting to the hearing date set for the appeal; that speaker also raised transparency concerns about police license plate reader records.
September 8: the same young resident again spoke against authorizing the data center in the city.
Related: on the same dates Council took up data center restrictions in zoning, prohibiting them as a condition of record at Buckingham Drive Industrial Rezone (Donelson's amendment, August 25).

Earlier record (August 2026)

August 6 Planning Commission work session: Chair Hensler thanked the Commission and staff for the lengthy hearing; Ryan Tefertiller said the hearing ran about 15 hours and was the longest, most controversial and most charged in his 22 years with the Planning Department. Trevor Gloss of the City Attorney's Office advised against discussing Project Taurus or data centers because the project could still be remanded to the Commission or the Planning Department.
August 11 City Council: during citizen discussion, Taylor Gray and Allie Smith spoke against Project Taurus being authorized in the City.

Log

The July 23 hearing is the oldest entry below; it is listed at the bottom because the Log is newest first.

2026-09-22 - City Council

Project Taurus discussed in Council remarks and citizen comment; vote already postponed to April 13, 2027.

2026-09-21 - City Council Work Session

During Councilmember reports, Donelson requested that the date of the Project Taurus hearing be moved to later in the month of April or before the election (as written in the minutes).

2026-09-08 - City Council

One resident spoke against Project Taurus in citizen discussion.

2026-08-25 - City Council

Two residents spoke against Project Taurus and its appeal hearing date during citizen discussion.

2026-08-12 - City Planning Commission

Kevin Walker told the Planning Commission that Council had scheduled the hearing for September 17 at the Pikes Peak Center (later postponed per this page).

2026-08-11 - City Council

Two residents spoke against Project Taurus in citizen discussion.

2026-08-06 - City Planning Commission Work Session

Commission thanked for the 15-hour hearing; attorney advised against discussing the project or data centers pending next steps.

2026-07-23 - City Planning Commission

Special appeal hearing (about 14 hours, ENT Center for the Arts). Postponement request denied 8-0-1; de novo review failed 2-6; all appeals denied with the approval modified by four conditions (utility usage reporting for 10 years, a 50 MW cap with a Planning Commission hearing for any increase, replacement of plan sheet M201, dB(C) monitoring and reporting), 6-2-1. Detail above.

2026-07-02 - City Planning Commission Work Session

Work session preview of the July 23 special appeal hearing: five appeals (one with three primary appellants and 26 co-appellants) of the June 11 administrative approval; about 1,000 comments during administrative review; 60 minutes per side, 2 minutes per speaker, 3 hours of public comment per side, expected 8 to 10 hours at the ENT Center for the Arts.

2026-06-09 - City Council

Citizen discussion: Ali Lange, Caleb Miller and Taylor Gray spoke against Project Taurus and large data centers; Miller and Gray also opposed the raise for the Colorado Springs Utilities CEO.

2026-06-04 - City Planning Commission Work Session

Planning Director Walker briefed the Commission on appeal scheduling for a pending data center project without discussing substance: administrative review to end the following week, a ten-day appeal period, scheduling within seven days, and a hearing 30 to 60 days later, so late July dates were requested (Thursday or Monday preferred). The appeal hearing was held July 23.

Sept. 17 minutes on the Project Taurus hearing pulled over accuracy concerns; approval postponed 5-4. Utilities staff said no application had been received from the applicant.