Uh which was um repealed and replaced in 2023, did contain data centers as a separate line item as a use type as a commercial use, uh which was most similarly evaluated as a type of office use uh under old chapter seven, but with the repeal and replace of chapter seven to now have the UDC in 2023, data centers uh were consolidated as part of the uh efforts to streamline land use uh regulation under code and data centers were placed uh under light industry as a as a use category.

They are no longer separately defined under use table.

Okay, that's the only thing I needed to know.

Thank you.

Trevor Gloss for the city attorney's over office.

Um sorry, just for the avoidance of doubt.

Um there may be questions later on about what version of code commission should be applying.

Um because of the timing of this application, the commission should be applying this current UDC code.

Uh you don't look back at previous versions, you just use this one.

So you use the light industry definition here, the z what the allowed zoning, the appeal criteria, the all everything we've discussed so far today.

Commissioner Willoughby, one follow-up question on that.

Would you say your interpretation of what a data center was when this code change happened for light industrial to include data center matches?

I'm trying to be careful with my words.

What you think the definition of a data center is today?

Do you do you think that term is too vague in light industrial that is a subjective question?

Um I mean, I think what I would say is there was a conscious effort through the uh development of the UDC to align uh certain uses and that were seen as similar impacts in terms of you know noise, traffic, so on and so forth, uh under larger categorizations of land uses.

Hence when the decision was made by city council to consolidate through their approval of the UDC uh the data center use, they made the determination that it is in alignment with a light industry level of impact.

Okay.

One interesting up sorry, Commissioner Cecil for the record.

One interesting observation I will make is that the version of the code that was reviewed by this planning by the planning commission, many of whom I don't believe Andrea might be the last one here.

Oh no, you didn't got to vote on it.

I was an alternate at the time.

When it was approved by the planning commission, it did not include data centers.

Now it's an amendment that took place at City Council as it was adopted and was not considered through the planning commission.

And so that addition in, I think does raise um Commissioner Willoughby's question a bit further on what exactly was meant and was it added in in a way that adequately reflects where we've gotten it Chair Hensler, is there a question in that or just a statement?

Oh no, that was total liberty there, just a statement.

Yeah, I mean I and I will I will just um add to that it we are going through and actually Commissioner Engel is sitting on the commit the committee for the UDC scrub, and so right, even at time of adoption, there are things that are um needing to be revised and amended and improved in any kind of code or document.

Um other questions for city staff.

We're ready to move on to questions for the applicant, it sounds like okay.

So we'll invite our applicant group uh to return to the stage and we will start with questions.

Is anybody ready to Commissioner Engel?

I think we'll we'll let you go first.

Now you've been waiting a bit.

Commissioner Engel, and I I will wait for them to get up here.

I'm gonna ask them to pick up a certain slide from the briefing if they can do that also.

Yes, the applicant applicant's slide, particularly the one that showed the sound the wall and the amount of attenuation that would go through the wall.

I think it was later in the brief.

Yeah, they know what you're not talking about.

I'm talking about the slide that had the wall, showed the uh attenuation the wall would achieve, and it had both DBA and DBC on it.

Got it.

Um further back or keep going later.

You have the clicker.

Oh thank you.

Uh you think it is.

No, I don't I don't think that is it.

It wasn't my imagination, I promise.

Go back?

It's the screen.

Yeah.

This one.

Oh it clearly showed the wall and it showed the attenuation both uh DBA and DBC.

What did your slides?

Uh sorry.

All right, let me let me just rephrase the question.

What do you anticipate the attenuation will be for a from the wall for both DBA and DBC type noise?

So the the sound study, and we can also have our sound engineer speak to that.

So we had to go through multiple revisions, because as we talked about, and I think it was mentioned from the city, is the DBC isn't a requisite criteria, right?

And so what we ended up doing was we have to do estimates based upon all of the intensity, if you will, of the wall.

So the big difference is the coefficient, basically the thickness of the wall and the height of the wall that prevents that dampening of the louvers.

The estimates that are in there in terms of it's a range of about 15 to 20 is the difference in numbers between DBA and DBC.

But you have to understand that they're not logarithmic and they're not directly associated with each other.

So the key is is that where the estimated impact of infrasounds is above 65 DBC, is that nothing in our estimates show that we would achieve anywhere near that.

So based upon the DBA ratings at 34 at night, 41 is operational, and a maximum of 46 at an absolute full load, none of those DBC correspondences would achieve above 65.

So we're what we're below any of the tolerances that could be considered potentially harmful from a DBC perspective.

Again, and there's a lot of factors that determine whether that is harmful.

So uh you do believe you will get some attenuation of DBC low frequency noise.

Oh, without question.

Absolutely.

I mean, one of the points of contention, and this is this is normal because people are trying to compare all data centers against each other.

So a number of the concerned data center implementations occur primarily in Northern Virginia, where there are much larger land swaths.

And so you don't have walls that are around any of these yards and nothing's contained.

So what we chose to do because and it was it was community prompting, was we said, okay, how do we look at materials that will dampen all of those infra sounds and hit particularly the 63 and the 125 levels that were of the significant concern?

So within the development plan, that's why we very specifically put in the actual criteria of the products that do that.

All of those products are industrial-based products.

So DBC data originally is an industrial concern.

It's also in a closed area industrial concern.

So we went and we looked for materials that you can use to attenuate walls and louvers that would not only just knock that down, would also dissipate it so it can't crawl.

So you will be providing the sensor system that will look at the sound that comes through, and you will meet the standards that the uh government gives you.

Is that is that correct?

That's your arrangement with them in terms of the sound plan.

Correct.

So we we at our at our cost, we hire an engineering firm to determine where the best placement is to capture the most accurate level of sound at the property line.

Will you be capturing uh the lower frequencies?

It depends on the monitoring system.

So really, I mean, there are monitoring systems that will capture DBC, but again, this is an inaccurate science right now.

So that's one of the challenges that we have.

And I I don't want to put you on the spot.

Do you feel comfortable talking about?

So one in doubt have the engineer.

So Scott is our sound engineer.

Uh hi, my name is Scott Petrovitz.

I'm with the L Adams Associates.

Um, any sound level meter that would be on site as part of this monitoring would be a type one sound level meter that is provides a linear response down to 10 hertz, which is within the range of infra sound.

The difference between DBA weighting, DBC weighting, and the full spectrum, the full breadth and depth of the sound, which is actually DBZ, um in abbreviation of DBZ.

So the sound level meter would capture everything in DBZ, and then afterwards, software can be used to express that sound level in terms of either DBA weighting or DBC weighting.

So that information would all be available with any commonly available um noise monitoring equipment.

Uh it's just a matter of um using the software to uh apply weightings and report the results in either DBA or DBC.

Final question Did you say you were going to use DBA sensors or DBZ sensors?

All the all every piece of equipment that would be used, any any microphone that would be set in place to monitor this noise would gather DBZ full range.

Thank you.

We got you now.

Tell me your name again, sir.

My name's Scott Petrovitz.

Okay, uh, Petrovitz.

Um so a couple questions.

So uh just this chair Hensler.

Um you can collect from A to Z, and then it just depends on what you may look at within your software model or what you may particularly look at, but you're able to capture all from A to Z.

Is that what you're saying?

The equipment captures A to Z.

You can look at B or C or whatever else there is.

It's typically A, B, and C.

Okay, B is less common.

Okay.

Um, A is tailored to the human ear, so that's used for uh hearing.

DBC has been proposed as a more accurate guide to um accommodate health human health effects from lower frequency noise, but as discussed previously, there is no current standard, so no way to determine what level would be appropriate.

But any microphone does capture everything, and then weighting is not rejecting or throwing away certain information, it is just applying a curve to generate a single number to make it more easy to compare levels to one another.

The data is all still there, it can all be pulled apart, nothing is being discarded or paired away.

It is all there and can be interpreted in any number of DBA or DBC or the full DBZ, which would be even higher than DBC because as much additional low frequency information as DBC provides, it does still roll off at a certain point.

So DBC is also not a hundred percent of the sound, but it is it is uh an established standard.

Okay.

I have two follow-up questions, and then we have another one.

So yeah.

Um my other two follow-up questions.

When we heard testimony today that the software that was used in the study is a free online software that anyone can download.

Uh, I'm not going to attempt to download that, but could you talk to us about the type of software that you do use?

And then maybe could you talk a little bit about either your individual or your firm's um education background qualifications just to give some context to uh the validity of the study.

Sure.

Thanks.

Um which I'll do this second one first.

Uh I have been an acoustic consultant having um achieved a bachelor of acoustics in uh 2000.

I've been an acoustic consultant since then, so 26 years of personal experience in all aspects of acoustics, not just industrial noise control, but room acoustics for rooms like this, um, mechanical noise control for air conditioning and uh also sound isolation.

So that is my full expertise.

My company has been in existence for I believe a little over 40 years now.

I have not been with them that long.

I have been with them since 2018.

Um your first question was about the software I used.

The free software.

That is indeed uh there is a free version available that has limited capabilities, much like uh of say Bandcamp or any other free software that you might use that has uh a good useful capability set, but can be further enhanced by a subscription.

And so the version of the software that I used uh is greatly enhanced and provides the full availability of ISO um parameters that can be used to accurately generate a noise um uh noise model.

Now that is still not the doesn't have the full capabilities of something that say the city's third party planner or third party consultant used, which is probably cadma.

But when it comes to the accuracy of the model itself, that is not where the benefits of cadma come in.

The benefits of a more elaborate software come into analysis if you want to really pick apart what sources are most problematic.

If there is a need to do that, cadnet is more useful for that.

But for generating or evaluating the noise uh level that we might expect at a property line, uh, from what I was able to evaluate, there is no functional difference between the subscription software that I used and say the software that that HEI used when they uh advised the city uh for review, and that's I think why they evaluated and came up to the same results that we well, almost the same results we did within a DB, which I think is within error range.

Okay, wonderful.

Thank you.

That's the end of my questions, I think.

Commissioner Casey Commissioner Case for the record.

So just a question on the mitigating factors that have been recommended from these different sound waves.

Um why potentially a wall versus an enclosed structure if you give some insight there?

Thank you.

An enclosed structure, uh my understanding is that an enclosed structure would require more in the way of building permits.

Um I think primarily I think someone else on the team may be able to speak to that.

From an acoustic standpoint, uh an enclosure, I think on all five sides would be better, but there are functional concerns with that.

Um I think from a ventilation standpoint, and also I think there's some uh because of either wind loading or uh or snow loading, things like that that come into play.

From an acoustic standpoint, I I think it would be better, but I don't think it's necessary.

I think we can get the performance that we need to out of a four-sided barrier.

Thank you.

Oh, I got a question.

Okay, one more for you.

Uh Commissioner Robins here.

Um, real quick.

Um, was the noise the model that you guys used?

Was that involving all of the generators or just part of it?

The noise model included all uh 30 generators and 36 chillers.

The model allows you to turn on and off various uh pieces of equipment to model the the uh different operating capabilities.

So we modeled full-on everything running in an emergency situation.

We we modeled uh I think only maybe five or six running at a time for testing.

Uh so the the software uh the the equipment is in the model, and then we manipulate whether the the um we put the sound power data in for the various operational characteristics and then turn them an individual piece of equipment on and off to model the different operation conditions.

Okay, cool.

Um I have another question, probably for Karen.

Uh simple ones.

These are really easy ones.

How long does it take, do you think, uh, to put the uh to get all the construction done to be up and running?

Probably, et cetera.

I was just curious how long it might take to get up and running, finish the construction.

It's within nine months.

Time frame, nine months.

Nine month time frame.

Okay.

So that was a simple one.

Um as far as disposal, um, you know, you were talking about two hundred million or two hundred thousand gallons of of water circulating constantly.

Correct.

At some point, I would think you'd have to flush that and clean that out.

No.

None?

No.

So the way a closed loop cooling system works is intentionally it cannot have any exposure to anything that could create a dissipation of that medium.

So one of the reasons why you have a glycol and water mix is not just because it's got a thermal transfer.

So you optimally are allowing the ability to draw heat away.

This is as much cooling as it is drawing heat away.

The key is is that in those systems you're going to have some particulate, but they run through a filtration system.

So it's very similar to how generator systems actually also have a filter and a strainer.

And so a portion of that system at the chiller is actually recirculating that loop all the way through, and it's making sure that this finite particulate matter is constantly pulled out.

You change the filter, but you never have to change the medium.

So it literally doesn't have any exposures, so there's no dissipation.

Uh what about if it ever generates any leaks uh down the road?

Is that something where you prepared for not only repair but proper disposal of the system?

Yes, yeah, it's a great question.

So let's start with how leak management works.

So all of any data center, um, and frankly, every building, this building has one too.

It's managed by what's called a building management system, which is a software system.

And the data center, it's probably the most critical piece of equipment in the entire facility because it monitors and manages the performance of everything.

One of the single biggest concerns of data center performance is loss of cooling.

The worst condition for us is power stays on, cooling stops.

The computers will literally melt themselves.

Because if there's not any cooling, they literally, the temperatures get it's called thermal runaway, and they'll melt.

So, in order to ensure that that condition never happens, all of the piping is always double walled.

We always specify the lengths of pipe, no light, no longer than 15 feet, because then you've got a segment.

You've got redundant loops, so you can actually shut them off, and all of those valves that are managing those pipes are controlled by that software.

So you have a software remote, you also have a manual override.

That alone prevents any leaks.

However, beyond all that, you wrap what's called leak detection, which is a braided wire.

It's the three wire three three braid wire that runs all the way around the piping.

It monitors no less than 10 different criteria, and that building management software then goes to everybody that's operating the site.

So we heard somebody say there's only five jobs.

That's amusing.

Um I can't run a data center with five people.

So all of the software then sends an alert, not an alarm, but it sends an alert if any of that braided wire detects any one of those at least 10 criteria.

And one of the most prominent ones that concerns you is humidity.

There's a humidity increase at the surface of that pipe, that means a doubled wall pipe may be expecting a breach, it will notify you within an inch.

So someone immediately goes on their phone and they actually see that piece of pipe and they go right to that and they dispatch.

Now, let's continue.

The worst case scenario is let's say something actually happens.

These are all OSHA compliant cleanup systems.

So you have clean kits everywhere where the pipe actually resides, and they're typically every get 50 to 75 feet.

So that cleanup kit then has to go into very specified containers, it has to be signed off on, and we have to have a company come out and do containment.

So this is just standard operating procedure as part of our EHS, which is our environmental health and safety plan.

It goes into every is how any data center operates, not just us.

Cool.

Cool.

Great.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

All right, Commissioner Willoughby, I think you had some questions.

Sorry, I actually had a question from for the gentleman from DL Adams.

Yeah.

Sorry, Commissioner Willoughby for the record.

Um can you just confirm what um Mr.

Walker said that your report um predicted the audible environment in the like 20 to 63 Hertz range, and it didn't do an analysis on anything lower than that because that wasn't a regulate, like a requirement that you needed to meet.

Is that a fair statement?

Correct.

The noise study was from 63 Hertz up to, I forget if it's four kilohertz or eight kilohertz, um, because the noise code is written in terms of DBA.

If the noise code had been written in some other standard, we would have looked at other as other areas of the spectrum.

And then in your professional experience, what have you seen or heard about DBA and people developing model codes around that, or what you're the acoustical expert in the room, so unfortunately you get you get that question.

What what do you know about DBA?

DBA or DBC?

DBC, sorry.

Yes.

Um, I think as previously stated, there is some good data showing a possible link between low frequency mechanical noise and human health.

Um but to date, outside of I'm I'm actually learning today in Europe, um, no domestic uh uh inroads to uh regulatory framework for DBC.

Um I think it might definitely help uh highlight the relationship between low frequency mechanical noise and human health, but right now the the noise code is written in DBA, and so uh on a professional level, I don't deal with DBC very often because my firm mostly deals with audible noise.

Okay, good, thank you.

Any qu any other questions for our sound expert?

Or the applicant sound expert.

Okay.

Sorry, I do have a few questions for Rayden.

Sure.

I'm not sure who's best suited.

Okay.

Um Commissioner Cecil, go ahead.

But I'd like to start by just clarifying what's as these studies were performed.

What was the baseline used as the prior circumstance?

Is it today?

Is it some point in the past?

But when we're looking at comparing now to what could happen with the additional equipment, what's our baseline?

In terms of sound, I apologize.

Right.

So the baseline needed to be ambient today.

So there's nothing operating at the site today.

Um there's nothing running.

So the last vestiges of Bitcoin operations went away about six months ago.

Um they were still running on the north side of the building for some time, but there isn't any equipment that they're still running there today at all.

So the equipment was set up in the middle of the campus.

It's actually oriented because there's the technical college that's adjacent to 1615, which is 1575.

So it was in the midline of the property that's there, basically oriented where the two outbuildings that are that are located, and we ran a seven day test.

So the seven day was to go and assess and understand what ambient sound looked like or sounded like, if you will, for that period of time.

There was an interesting part about this Scott called me, and he said that there was a three-day period where it was almost 80 decibels in measured noise.

And we were baffled because there's nothing running.

And we were like, well, what could possibly be going on?

And it took about a week to try to figure out how that could have happened.

And it turned out it was wind.

So one of the things that we discussed is that there's a tremendous impact from ambient noise from things that we wouldn't likely suspect.

Rain is one.

Obviously, we don't get a lot of rain, but rain is one, wind is another one.

We're we've talked a lot internally about other noise and sound conditions.

There's an L90 protocol that came about, which is in terms of not including instantaneous noise.

So if a car backfires and it's 110 decibels, then that's an outlier.

So the goal was to take that L90 and normalize that seven days.

And what we came up with is that the average sound on that site is at 42 decibels.

So without anything running, everything just sitting there.

There's nothing there today.

It's at 42 decibels.

So our order after we spoke with the community and had a lot of engagement with the community was honestly, and Scott had some frustration with me, because I had him keep recalibrating and saying, how do we how do we honestly get to the lowest we can get?

What equipment can we buy?

What materials can we purchase?

It's more cost to us.

But we we'd be lying if we said we didn't want to be good neighbors all along if we weren't doing this.

So we've literally gotten this to the point where everything that we displayed in our slides earlier about attenuation at the device, meaning additional equipment we add to it, the in the enclosures that go around those and the types of materials that you buy, and then the wall and the wall construction as well as its coefficient, which is how thickness uh how thick it is.

The combination of all of that gives us literally the lowest possible sound that we could possibly could possibly achieve at that site.

And it's well below anything.

I have a colleague who is very proud of himself that his data center is going to be under 65 decibels.

And I said, well, we're at 41.

So related to the sound, I know there's an excess of sound produced when the backup generators are tested.

How often would the backup generators be being tested?

So generators test once a month.

If you test them, if you test them more than that, you break them.

Are they tested concurrently or consecutively over what time period?

So you do a 15-minute to 30 minute test, maximum 30 minutes.

The reason this is regulated by the state of Colorado, so air quality emissions actually manages how long you can run these.

Tier 4 generators mean that we can only buy a certain type of generators.

There's only a number of them that you can purchase.

They are what's called standby.

They can never be run in a continuous fan manner unless it's an emergency.

So in the event that you test them, then for 10 to 15 minutes, you turn them on.

They're designed in what we call units.

So there's essentially a block of equipment that goes correlates to the computers that we showed earlier.

You never test them all at once.

You also, and this is important because when Scott mentioned this earlier, that the model tested everything running.

We could never actually run all the generators and all the chillers at the same time.

You can't do that.

It's not possible.

The reason why is that we have to have redundant units.

So when we have four generators, there's a fifth waiting in standby.

We don't run all of those at once, because that means if there's a problem, then we don't have any redundancy.

So the testing, we go in stages.

You're typically going to test four or five at a time.

We've said this to the community at the outset.

We've done this at every data center company I've ever run and every data center I've ever built.

We go to the community and go, when do you want us to run them?

So we never test at night.

We never test weekends.

So it's always weekdays and it's always during normal hours.

So again, still, it's important to understand that some people work nights, you just need to know when that's going to happen.

But in the proximity of where that generator plant is now located on the other side of the building, the sound, if you will, there's no propagation to the other side.

So the community making that request made a strong request in a good way.

And it's literally all puns intended, muted the effect of those generators.

But maximum five at a time, maximum 30 minutes each, once a month.

All right.

And I don't remember if I said it this time or not, Commissioner Cecil, um, for the record.

Um also interested in right now, your plan shows diesel generators in its notes.

Um have you all considered any other generation types?

Absolutely.

And what were they?

So the the initial this is interesting, and we built a slide on this, is that we talked about the phases of due diligence.

So before we even engage, we did what's called bench due diligence.

We just sit around at our computers and we go and look at the site and we just look at available data.

So that gave us enough of an inclination.

But one of the only things that we could really operate about specific information of the site was what was called an offering memorandum to sell it.

So the site boasted that there was the ability to actually obtain 60 megawatts which of natural gas generation.

But I took that, you take that at face value, and then what we did is we did formal due diligence.

And what we learned is, and we had three different engineering studies done on the natural gas.

There is zero natural gas available at that site.

None.

There is an existing eight-inch pipe that is so old it can't be used, and there's no capacity we could get anywhere else.

We looked at one pipeline that had capacity, and it's 10 miles away.

So if you think people are frustrated now, imagine us trenching through everybody's neighborhood for 10 miles to go and get us natural gas.

We liked natural gas for a couple of reasons.

One of which is that it actually, quote, burns cleaner.

Although when we talked earlier about adding the selective catalytic resistors that go onto the generators, the diesel generators, you eliminate Knox emissions to the same level.

So that actually gets us to the same point.

So we've balanced that out.

Those were the most likely ones.

The other problem that we have with other prevailing technologies, there's some hydrogen units that are out there.

Their start time isn't fast enough, and they won't actually support the data center the way it needs to.

They're not in production.

That's what we would refer to as bleeding edge technology.

Our customers won't allow that to be put in place.

The only other thing you could potentially consider would be batteries.

And the only batteries that could withstand the load for this site would be lithium ion, and that's a massive fire risk.

So given the thermal runaway condition in this area, and I live in Northern California where we know fires very well, that's not an option.

So diesel is what we have.

Are there was there any consideration given to um the small site nuclear?

No.

So uh Would there ever be at this site?

No.

So SMRs, and I'll just give a quick background if you don't mind.

I master plan the first direct nuclear power data center campus in the world that's now owned by Amazon.

It took three years just to figure out the regulatory part of that.

There isn't a world in which what are called SMRs, so small modular reactors, could be in anywhere near where that Garden of the Gods location would happen to be.

That would have to be installed where a CSU fully controls it.

It is way away from everybody else for all the obvious reasons.

And now we're not talking about plutonium anymore.

So these are different chemistry type solutions for nuclear.

It is still not proven in a state where we could figure that out in any time frame.

I appreciate you clarifying that, and I would feel comfortable if that maintained if that was the state of things forever for everything.

Um could you tell me what is the standard life cycle for a server that's in your facility?

It's a great question.

The technical response is this technology is brand new and we don't know.

And what I mean by that is is that there are still servers that are running.

This is interesting.

If you saw IBM's earnings take a massive plummet earlier in the week, IBM still has equipment that's called Z series equipment that's 25 years old and it's still running.

What we do know is after a period of time it degrades.

So the basic estimate right now for the computers that would be installed here is there's going to be a four to five year refresh rate.

So that means that at year one, roughly three billion dollars of computer equipment goes into that facility, and at year four, that's going to be refreshed to maintain its optimal use.

That's what we're estimating right now.

I can't imagine based upon the types of services that are expected by the clientele in this market, which is primarily the military and security, that they're going to operate with a degraded level of service.

So we could fully expect that call it no earlier than four years and probably no later than six years, there's going to be a tech refresh inside of the building.

And when you all retire servers, do you have any standard uh environmental protections that you adhere to to recycle them or prevent heavy metal leakage or store them off-site or anything like that?

So it's actually an entire industry.

And it encompasses everything from it starts with security and then it goes through environmental.

So there are multiple firms that you hire, and all they do is they come in and they actually take the devices out.

They're wrapped in a bag, every single one of those actually wrapped in its own bag.

It's taken off-site, there's a full audit process by which it's dismantled into all of its component parts and pieces.

There's then a seven-layer process by which any secure information is scrubbed off of every single element within side of that device, and then each of the parts and pieces are recycled.

Anything that is left, that gets destroyed.

You typically, for these types of devices, can recycle over 95% of the of the unit itself.

Does the current uh development agreement include any provisions around decommissioning the full site at any point in the future?

It doesn't.

Oh, do you commission the entire site?

Right.

I mean, we're gonna have a lot of generators and chillers there if this gets developed.

What happens if Reagan shuts down or there's a big AI bubble?

Yeah, so we've gone through multiple cycles in the history of technology, and data centers actually always end up having another tenant.

There's a very rare instance where you have a data center that just doesn't have a use case for another data center function moving forward.

Furthermore, generators have a 40 to 50 year life cycle as long as they're maintained properly.

The equipment that's at the at the site is a minimum 20 year timeline for everything that's there.

So in the event that let's say it no longer has a use.

No one wants to be there.

It needs to go, all of those parts and pieces are going to get decommissioned and they will get sold off because they have value.

Thank you.

Um would you be willing to provide transparent public reporting on your energy, water consumption, environmental emissions impacts in any way going forward uh if you were approved?

Absolutely.

Everything is monitored by the building management system, and none of that is proprietary.

And so we certainly wouldn't have a problem.

We talked, and that goes into the agreement with the city that was part of the communication with the community to develop that contract, is we would publish all of the sound data.

We have no problem publishing any of that data.

And frankly, it's better for our industry.

It then shows that we're validating what the entire design of this was represented to be.

So I would have no problem with that whatsoever.

And just to confirm, you all specialize in co-location data centers rather than single occupant.

Is that right?

So we have co-location facilities, but at this stage, the way that the industry operates, they're only single tenant.

And the reason I'll just explain real quick why that's the case.

It is almost impossible to separate the power and cooling equipment from multiple customers.

It becomes literally an organizational nightmare.

No one wants to be sharing anything with anybody else.

So these are all single tenant facilities.

All right, that's my list.

Thank you.

Commissioner Wilby, um, can you quantify the heat rejection that you're expecting from those 36 chillers?

So we can't quantify it because there isn't actually a good model right now at all for heat rejection, but I can give you some information that I think will be interesting.

Is within the last year, NVIDIA in particular, has changed the way that their chips operate in a way that was never expected.

And what I mean by that is is that previously computers and chips required a very low temperature of what we call supply.

So it could be supply water or supply air, supply water glycol, or air.

The maximum of that, and it's an ash ray standard, which is a regular statute for how you I mean you guys are probably familiar.

So the ash ray top end of that was going to be 80 degrees.

You could give 80 degree supply.

The Vera Rubin chips that are being released now by NVIDIA, there is only a few in production right now, but they're set to release a monumental number, which are targeted for this site.

They will allow 113 degree supply temperature.

So if you think that's antithetical because it's not cool, the chips actually don't require as much cooling in the way that we think about it.

What they've realized is that at the high performance level they function, that cooling medium or that liquid medium is extracting heat away.

So the function now is that the higher the temperature, it now actually shrinks the top end, which means you can't boil the solution that's there.

So you have what's called a delta T.

It's a change in temperature.

So essentially the return, which is when it's really hot, is now much in a much narrower band to the supply.

So we don't have to cool as much.

The chillers don't work as hard.

We're not releasing as much thermal energy.

So the estimations from NVIDIA's what's called their reference architecture is that the chiller units themselves will actually require about 60 percent less management, energy management, overall utilization under these models.

Therefore, thermal rejection ends up about 60 percent less.

The actual numbers, they're gonna fluctuate based upon the use of the chips.

We don't have a formal measurement for what that actually looks like.

But this isn't us being smart, it's just time and space.

We're right at a time where all this technology became available and we've designed the systems because we have to.

NIVIA won't let you do it differently.

It becomes a monumentally less thermal impact to the environment than it would have if it was a year ago.

Thank you.

Um this is Chair Hensler.

Just following up on that.

So we've heard a lot of questions today about heat island effect and so forth, which I think is is kind of right along the lines of what you're talking about.

So do you have any quantification of um of maybe what those heat island effects might have been with a more traditional product versus I think you just said 16 percent uh I think that was the number.

Yeah.

Is that is that a reduction in what one might expect in a normal versus what this would be, or can you talk about that a little bit more in depth?

Because we we certainly heard a lot of that conversation.

Yeah, the heat island thing is is is both real but also really challenged to quantify.

So where it comes from is Northern Virginia.

It's the largest cluster of data centers in the world, and they're in such a relatively small geographic space that you have a multiplicity of this thermal energy release.

And so it's real that that actually happens.

You have the same thing.

Someone mentioned earlier about being from Houston, and you have all of these industrial complexes.

Well, it happens in Houston.

Houston itself is a heat island because of that.

So all we can tell you right now is that without a quantifiable level of measurement, there isn't a benchmark for this.

Is that we can tell you that the chiller itself that now operates at a 60% less heat rejection threshold, that's how much less heat is bypassing out of that of that compressor and the way that it's actually functioning at the engine level, if you will, that that's our that's got to be our number.

It in terms of we've never even been asked to do this.

So this is one of those things.

Like I told somebody recently we asked about sound.

I've built a lot of data centers.

I never had to do a sound study until a year ago.

Ever.

No one ever asked for it.

It was never a concern.

And so these are the types of things that are evolving, but we honestly just don't have an industry benchmark.

So all I can tell you is about the performance of the equipment itself.

Commissioner Case for the record.

So as you mentioned, you've developed these all around the nation.

Um I'm curious if you have any specific concerns as you've been building these throughout the nation.

Concerns in what regard?

Specific concerns to developing data centers just in general regarding the heat.

I have a lot of concerns.

Yeah.

Please elaborate.

Yeah, I think I've been doing this for 25 plus years.

Um and I'm one of the few people in my industry that's actually worn almost all the hats.

So I started off, I was a I was an architect for Sun Microsystems, so date myself, I'm old, so we've been doing this a long time.

And I've been an operations side where I've run the facilities, and we've designed them and built them.

And so we've gone through all of these iterations and phases.

And what I'll tell you is is that the condition right now of frankly our industry, not collectively, having let people really know how data centers function and operate has created a lot of concern.

And then there's a lot of folks that honestly haven't done right by the communities around them, and I'm not trying to sit here and be pious.

We've never had any of those issues, but it's making things hard.

And what we do know is that the way that technology is evolving, and we know that how rapidly, like if you're familiar, there's a terminology called Moore's Law.

So Moore's law was essentially how fast compute would double.

Someone killed Moore a long time ago.

It's going so fast that you can't even keep up.

So by virtue of that, there it's not a race.

It's how do you support the demands that we all place on technology?

And I think what I struggle with is that any time we take somebody to a data center, it's that kind of aha moment.

The problem is that there aren't data centers you can just go hang out at.

So we've got this factor of limitation is that the security of them limits how many people have exposure.

But when we look at the collective challenge of resources, so it's land, it's power, it's water, it's overall responsibility, and then we look at all of the components that are required to build them and be effective.

We've now got a real concentration that's that's hard.

So I do have a lot of concerns about our ability to collectively as an industry keep up with the pace of technology the way it's required.

I'm not gonna fear monger about competitions with other countries and whatnot.

It's just what we're doing here.

And what none of us really actually think about or understand enough is that I've heard people go, I don't ever use my phone.

That that's fine.

But do you go to the supermarket?

You know, do you ever call 911 services?

And this isn't me sitting here trying to make a case for data centers.

We now live in a case where all of you have some technical device that is to your person.

And all of that requires a data center somewhere.

So the challenge that I'm concerned about is if you end up at a point where we can't go any further, and now we have to play catch up, how do you do that?

At the same time, we have a huge responsibility in this.

So that's that's one of the reasons why I can take a lot of pride in the work that we did with the community to redevelop a lot of the elements that we originally put forth in ways that we really didn't think about.

I told you, no one's ever asked me some of these questions.

And I'm like, uh okay.

Well then let's if that's a concern to you, then let's figure that out.

Right.

So secondary question and follow-up to that is you talk about how we have our phones in our pocket, data is used everywhere, that demand is there.

Um specifically help locally, nationally, or even globally with your users or your data storage.

So the only thing that we can do, and I'm not backtracking off anything, our job is to deliver and operate the building.

So when we think about local, national, global, I think it leads honestly with responsible design.

And what we can feel very confident about is that the extra work and frankly cost.

This data center here costs roughly a million and a half to two million dollars more a megawatt than if I built this somewhere else.

You don't have the same limitations.

And so in our minds, however, that's worth it.

Now it does some things referentially.

It may cost more up front, it actually preserves the equipment.

It helps you deliver a more efficient product for a longer period of time.

That's a major benefit.

So I think for us, the responsibility begins with aligning the facilities with the technology that goes inside of them.

And we are different in that regard.

We are partners, we're engineering partners with the companies that make the computers that go inside.

It doesn't mean we manage them, but the closer we understand the way that those companies have designed those products, the more efficient and effective the data center is from an environmentally sensitive perspective, from an overall performance perspective.

If you just built a building and then let someone go install it, there's a misalignment.

So for us, we place a massive focus on something that's called solutions engineering.

The lay term is really simple, it's just requirements.

But we have an entire team full of people that all they do is sit there and work with those providers like NVIDIA, like AMD, like Broadcom, who makes TPUs, and understand the requirements, and that's how the building gets built.

So I think as long as we adhere to that, and we have colleagues in this space that believe just like us, and they're building really quality credible facilities.

As long as we do that, then we can continue to prove to people.

Go back to the transparency.

Will we show about energy use, show about water use?

Why not?

So again, we're not trying to stand at the top of the mountain and act like we're special, but we've never done anything differently.

Every company I've ever run, I've never done it differently than this.

Great.

Thank you.

Another question on regards to how you pick sites, adaptive reuse is obviously one of your main models.

Um, and you've selected the site specifically for the different building requirements, but I'm gonna give you a heart throb question here, and why specifically Colorado Springs.

So two years ago, we wouldn't be here.

Full stop.

I mean, I've been aware of all the data centers that are here.

I know the other companies, I've been in the SAP data center multiple times, and I'm very familiar, but there wasn't a market, to be honest with you, there wasn't a market.

AI as a as a fulcrum, but then also overall compute.

We always talk about AI, but cloud computing continues to increase.

All the other computing services continue to grow.

We frankly need just more space.

We don't need more locations.

Colorado Springs became a hey, this could be a place for a couple of reasons.

The technology evolved where you could actually serve Colorado Springs to Denver.

But then referentially, you could serve it out to Salt Lake City.

This means the traffic, the capacity could be served, and this is improvements on the network size.

So technology is evolving.

So by virtue of it evolving, we already knew well about this building.

I mentioned to somebody earlier, I toured this in 2009.

I'm very familiar with the asset.

We know what these transform into.

So for us, we sat there and said, okay, chip fabs make great data centers.

There's existing infrastructure at this site that makes it enabled to be able to go and be a quality site.

And we also knew from our existing client relationships that there was a customer demand here that was significant.

So when we aggregate all of those things together, that makes a recipe for look, if the building works, if it's zoned, if it's entitled, if there is an actual support mechanism, not just on the client side, but let's add to that.

This is one of the single best markets for talent for a data center operation anywhere in the United States.

The other one comes close, and I'm sorry, bad word is Huntsville, Alabama.

So, you know, I I get it, is that we have you have folks that have come out of the military where there's there's a term.

In the data center world, when you hire electrical engineers, you always want to hire a Navy nuke.

Navy nuclear engineers are the gold standard.

Well, you guys got a few of them here.

So the idea that, and I've said this and it is also important to me personally.

My father ran VA hospitals for 45 years.

My son was in the Navy.

So for us to be able to tap into that as a network and transition people out of that into this space where these are jobs for life and they're incredibly tied into delivering a product, that's all mutually beneficial across the board.

So why here?

All of those elements and ingredients.

The environment that we talked about, the temperature, it makes things more efficient, all of those are components, but the foundation is right building, right location, right customer base, right time.

Thank you.

Certainly.

Uh I have a follow-up to that, and and this was on my list from before.

So we've heard discrepancies or we've heard um claims of only five jobs.

Uh you've claimed 60 to 100 jobs.

Uh-huh.

Could you just articulate for us like what are those jobs?

I guess there's some ex-Navy uh nuclear engineer jobs, but what what are those?

Um 60 to 100 jobs.

So let's start peripherally.

So, irrespective of the fact that the service from this space will apply to the federal government on the military sector, which means that you have to be adherent to DOD compliance security.

But let's start from there.

So you have to have two to three shifts a day plus swing shifts.

This is always man, this is a 24-7 operation.

So there are people there all the time.

You don't have bots that go check people in.

That's not what we do.

So the security staffing for this alone at an aggregate is gonna be somewhere between 30 and 40 people.

And that's gonna cover you over the span of all daytime swing, graveyard, and weekend shifts.

You have to have swap outs, those are all local jobs, by the way.

They range, and these aren't just folks that are sitting there like you know, making minimum wages, checking folks in.

This is where the military comes into play.

We want military level security experience.

You have what's called multi-factor authentication at every gate in which you need to get in.

So you're gonna have a badge, plus you're gonna have some form of biometric, and then at the most mission critical areas of the site, you're gonna have three factors of authentication.

Furthermore, someone brought up and I mentioned I heard somebody talk about another data center that wasn't doing things properly.

No vendor is allowed on our site without security escorting them.

And they don't escort them and walk away and be like, okay, you do well, that'll be great.

No, they're monitored all the time.

So when you look at the staff that's required, and there's vendors on the site constantly.

We have folks that are in there changing out servers.

You have folks that are adding more wires and working inside of the space.

You have folks that are doing repair and maintenance on all of this equipment.

There has to be staff to watch them.

So the security bill is high.

And they have to be trained, not just so I was watching them and I didn't know what happened.

They actually have to understand how the data center works.

So these are highly trained folks in the security side.

On the engineering side, we need electrical and mechanical engineers.

So I actually talked to a gentleman today.

So this certain person has built medium and high voltage electrical systems, which means they have to know how to work on the incredibly high powered equipment that the utility has installed on site that we own, and they have to be safe doing that.

People die.

So if you don't have someone that knows what they're doing, you literally get electrocuted and you fry.

So electrical engineers are an inherent at the at the medium high voltage level, and then going all the way down to the actual computer level itself.

So you need a spate of those folks.

On the mechanical side, all these chillers, and then the downstream infrastructure that supports the space, you need mechanical or cooling engineers.

You also need engineers that specialize in piping and transformation of this liquid medium that goes through the entire building.

So those are also required.

We then have operation staff, that's a whole nother level.

The operation staff is required to run the building.

So they make sure that that building management software system that we talked about earlier is constantly keeping track of all of the devices.

These are the power, the cooling, everything in this building is monitored.

It's probably outside of the military, probably the most sensitive building that would be in this entire area.

And these tolerances are constantly reporting.

So anytime there is any type of threshold of concern, there's a ticket that's generated, someone has to go address that.

So you have a multifaceted operations staff that's then working in the facility itself.

Finally, you have the staff that belongs to the customer.

So the customer themselves is going to then hire their own.

That's outside of our 60 to 100 jobs.

This is beyond that.

These are experts in how the computers operate, they're experts in how the network operates, they're experts in how everything interconnects.

And our final piece that belongs to us is we have at least one network engineer on staff all the time.

That's the internet.

So it's a wide variety of jobs.

And when you figure that we have to have redundancy in all of this staffing, you can't have one person that only does one thing, then we have failure.

So the adherence to the customer is in the contracts.

They're called service level agreements.

They have monetary penalties if we miss targets on everything from temperature to interruption of power to even someone getting access.

So let's say that you just walked into the data center and didn't have authorization and access, that immediately becomes a credit.

So the vigilance around making sure that there is staff to govern all this is pretty significant.

So it's 60 to 100, but depending upon the severity of those SLAs, it can easily be 100.

If a customer is like, I need three people for every position on every shift.

Um looking for the button there.

Um thank you.

That is much more clear.

Uh I think my final question for you was when I tried to get answered before.

You talked about um system monitoring and the double walls and the braided wires and the closed loop.

What's the maintenance cycle like on that system?

On just the the monitoring of that system?

Um of the cooling system and the closed chill closed loop, chilling, so yeah, what's the maintenance cycle like?

And is there a flushing period?

Is there how does that work?

There's there's no flushing.

So the term blowdown has been used earlier, and unfortunately, that ascribes to something that's not applicable here.

It's a different system.

Yeah, that's a completely different system.

Tell us what the maintenance is like out there.

Yeah, so maintenance is going to be there.

So you you end up having three levels of maintenance.

So there's quarterly, biannually, and annual maintenance.

Your quarterly happens no matter what.

So your biannual doesn't replace your quarterly.

They are different maintenance thresholds and they're prescribed by the manufacturers.

The manufacturers then specify which vendors, and these are additional jobs, by the way, so not just trying to add that in there, but all of the vendors that are locally that have to support this equipment, both on the cooling and the mechanic on the electrical side, they're gonna have to hire to go support this because it's never ending.

The analogy I give is that if you've ever crossed the Golden Gate Bridge and you watch carefully, they never stop painting it.

Right?

So this is the same thing.

Like we we don't get to stop.

So the quarterlies or quarterlies or quarterlies, the semi-annuals have a different level of maintenance, and the annuals have a different level of maintenance.

It actually increases in its maintenance over time.

So when you get to about year five, the threshold of those quarterly semis and annuals doesn't change, but the intensification of how much work is done.

We don't do it's not a maintenance feature, but we also do testing on a monthly basis.

So all of the electrical equipment has to be infrared scanned.

So the guys have to go put on suits, they have to IR scan all of the electrical, that goes into all of the system data that we have throughout the entire environment.

Uh thank you for clarification on the frequency.

Could you describe what types of activities would happen at those quarterly and biannual uh events?

So in the first three to five years, these devices really don't need much of anything.

You're literally just checking settings and making sure that they're okay.

When you start to get about five years, you start to have to replace parts.

There are filters that may be replaced more frequently than that, but that's not part of regular maintenance.

Every single device has multiple, we call them points.

So if you take a chiller, there could be 50, 60, 80 points, which means all the different parts and pieces that are monitored.

Each one of those, and they have a specific modality.

So it's modbus or backnet.

That's the essentially the communication language that it talks to the system, meaning the overall software system.

They will notify when there's a problem.

So if there's a filter, it goes, look, I'm clogged, go clean me.

So the air filtration that you have on the chillers, those typically will fall within the normal maintenance schedules.

But as you go over time, then you may have to start replacing those more frequently.

But it literally, first five years is just system checks.

Is everything running okay?

It doesn't need these are these are not a lot of movable parts and pieces that require component replacement.

That five to eight year period, you start replacing some parts and pieces.

The eight to twelve year period we may have some more major modification that needs to be done.

So you take like some of the exhaust systems on the generators, they need to be overhauled.

You may actually do have to do some system work on the generator engine itself.

So you take it offline, you may have to rebuild parts of it.

It's not too extreme, but as they get older, you have to do more work.

So as you're replacing, and uh I think I was um heard more concerns uh about the glycol, the about the cooling system.

As you're replacing parts on there, are you replacing what happens to the glycol if you're you know, say draining some pieces to replace pipes or valves?

What what is the process and environmental regulation with that liquid specifically?

So in the lifespan, the only world in which we're replacing pipes is an emergency, and the same thing with valves.

In the lifespan of the chiller environment, so you're talking 25 years, these things don't need to be replaced.

But we'll talk about an emergency situation, absolutely.

So anything that has a glycol component into it must go in a tote.

So OSHA mandates the specific type of vessel, if you will, in which that can go into and then leave the site.

You are not allowed to just go and flush that somewhere.

So all of those kits, if you will, those are checked on a regular basis.

That's part of our EHS plan.

So in the event that let's say we had some type of catastrophic event, some of that 15-foot pipe had some issue, it had to be replaced.

We then have to replace some of the cooling medium that's in there, and there's some glycol that has to go in that place.

We have a third-party group that comes in.

So you have it, you have a and via an EPA regulated organization that we contract with, they're all local.

They come in there, everything has to be pictures of everything.

Everything has to actually be weighed out.

You then take that tote, it goes and gets signed off.

It gets signed off at the receiving location as to where that goes, and it's got to be a certified location, and we have to pay for all of that.

So that's all of the overhead and oversight.

And by the way, that's built into our contracts with our customers.

So the clients ask for that on an overall green perspective so that we're being environmentally sensitive.

So we don't have the luxury of doing anything differently.

All of the staff are trained in how to manage that.

So you have cleanup kits, they're every, I think we talked about this a little bit ago.

Every incremental step of where piping is located, and then in the event that you have to do something at a larger scale, then you're gonna bring in a third party to even manage that entire process.

And they're all on call.

Our on calls work for things like fuel replacements, in the event that the generators need more fuel, you have an on call to bring those guys out.

If you have water, we actually bring in water tankers, so you can all call them out.

It is no longer than a four hour run.

So in the event that anything occurs, we typically want between an hour and two hours response time to the site.

But all the staff is trained to manage anything.

Certainly.

Yeah, sorry.

This is Commissioner Gigiano for the record.

Um, this may actually be a question for acoustics again.

I apologize.

I'm not trying to um diverge, but um, according to Hankard, the software that was used by your you um isn't used by professionals.

So I just maybe wanted you to state for the record why you used what you did and if you feel that it's adequate again.

Yeah, I I do think the software is accurate.

As I said, I looked through the documentation of the software to determine that it um uh adequately reflected the uh uh ISO standard that is typically used to generate noise models of this type.

Uh as to why I used that, uh it was um I'm not trained on CADNA and uh occasionally staffing issues cause uh uh people that would normally be producing those models on that more complicated software to have to use other software.

So the initial noise model was built in the software that I used, the noise tools um website, and there was not a need at any point to cull more data from that model.

If there had ever been, uh, or if there is uh any point, we can uh move that model over to the cabinet software that that Hank Hankard used.

So I do think that the software that I used is adequate.

Uh, if there is a need to use the other software, uh there that is available to us.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Uh other questions from commissioners.

Okay.

With that.

It is 1030.

Are we um we need to we uh uh need to take a break at 1045 or before is maybe fine too.

Okay, we need to take a break sometime in the next 15 minutes for uh city staff, communication staff to reset the communications for the online feed, otherwise it times out.

Um so I'm gonna maybe suggest that we we just take a break right now for 10 minutes.

We let city staff reset the online feed so we don't lose um the feed during the middle of a crucial conversation and motion, and that perhaps when we come back we can gather our thoughts and commentary and move towards a motion.

And in another logistical issue, we must be out of here at midnight, is what I've been told.

So uh yes.

I guess that's when our contract ends.

So uh so uh we are gonna take a 10 minute break, we're gonna reset comms, and we're gonna come back and gather our thoughts.

Okay, thank you all.

I'm Apollo Ono, and you're watching Springs TV in Colorado Springs, Olympic City USA.

Inside the planning department, you'll find Johnny.

He's part of the team that maintains the city's comprehensive plan and updates the unified development code and zoning map.

These tools serve as the roadmap for developers, businesses, and residents as our city grows.

You can receive alerts via text, phone call, or email by going to PeakAlerts.org.

Include multiple addresses when you sign up, such as your home, work, and school.

Download the Reach Well app to receive emergency alerts in more than 130 languages.

Visit PeakAlerts.org to learn more.

You ready?

Feeling ready?

Chris, I'm all set.

Let's go.

Hello, I'm Fire Marshal Chris Cooper.

And hi, I'm Mayor Yenny.

When it comes to preparing for wildfire, ready means sign up for emergency alerts and get your family's gold bag ready.

Set means there's an extreme threat.

It's time to load the car.

Go means evacuate now.

Ready?

Set.

Go.

I'm Amber Glenn.

This is Springs TV in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Olympic City, USA.

Go.

When it comes to preparing for wildfire, remember, ready means prepare early.

Set means there's an extreme threat.

Monitor fire conditions and load essentials into your car.

Go means evacuate now.

Listen to first responders and don't return until officials say it's safe.

Visit Colorado Springs.

She's part of the city's innovation and technology or IT department, which handles more than twenty-eight, thousand requests each year, allowing the city's three thousand employees to work smoothly and efficiently.

We train the defenders of air and space.

We conquer America's mountain and spend time in a garden fit for the gods.

We power the future and protect the past.

He uses geographic information systems or GIS to track local properties required to pay the city's stormwater fee.

That money goes toward critical infrastructure projects to keep residents and property safe when it rains.

Let's start the party.

Come on, you know that go make your bodies my life.

Puffs are right.

Can't care you feel your phone, girls can get it.

All the way to Bombay, we don't get it all tonight.

Everything is going right.

We don't even go around, cause we believe in a beat the local.

Everything is going right.

We don't even come around, so pretty much we were seeing that pretty much, but I did it when the vision was going because it needed that with me.

I believe it drink it above, and I'm gonna do it on the door as I'm doing it up and we're gonna say I'm doing a no one come back to him.

Start the most belly store delight.

She delight I was still hungry and twenty-five of life, my soul.

Pretty much we're the seat, though, six for me, pretty much follow whatever we don't custom every spending at all.

We have our ladies follow whatever we don't cost me, every smoke and that on the stuff, we have a ladies follow what that but we don't custom every spending at all.

We have a ladies follow what that we don't custom every spin off.

I've been doing it.

Right here.

This is the beginning of sound.

All right, thank you so much.

That was more than ten minutes because none of us can take a 10-minute break.

But comms has reset the live feed.

Uh and I'm gonna call us back to order.

So I think at this point, we're gonna move to uh commissioner comments.

I think we are uh through any questions.

Is that correct?

Can I get correct?

Okay, so we're through any questions.

We're gonna move to commissioner comments and then look to uh a motion.

So is there anyone who would like to lead off with commentary?

Commissioner Willoughby.

Uh Commissioner Magby here.

I think um this appeal is an important example of how land use codes evolve.

So the city administrative staff is required to review the application under the UDC as it exists today.

So under the UDC's current definitions and use classifications, the data center is treated as a permit it and is permitted uh light industrial use in the business park zone.

Um if the application application satisfied the applicable standards and approval criteria as staff understood them, staff may have had limited legal discretion to reject it simply because it's scale, technology, or community impacts of modern data centers are different from what people historically associated with that term.

This is precisely why this appeal matters.

The appeal brings the decision before the public decision making body and creates an opportunity to examine whether the code's existing terminology and review framework have kept pace with the rapid evolution of the data center industry.

The term data center now encompasses an extraordinarily wide spectrum from relatively modest enterprise server facility to a utility scale computing operation with tens of megawatts of electrical demand.

Extensive cooling infrastructure, dozens of generators, continuous outdoor mechanical equipment, on and on and on.

Second, regardless of the outcome of this particular appeal, the case provides the city with valuable evidence where the UDC may need to change in the future.

Codes are often revised in response to real projects that reveal gaps and ambiguity or consequences that were not fully anticipated when the language was written.

This project may demonstrate a need for the city to distinguish between traditional hyperscale and high density or AI-oriented data centers and maybe establish um intensity thresholds based on electrical load, cooling capacity, generator capacity, water use, exterior equipment, things of that nature.

And identify thresholds and technical information necessary to evaluate effects on surrounding properties.

In that sense, this appeal should not be viewed solely as an argument whether the staff should have rejected and otherwise permitted use.

It's also an opportunity to ask whether the code provided staff with the right tools, definition, and discretion to evaluate a rapidly changing land use, because as stated earlier, applicants need a fair, consistent and predictable process.

So staff may have been constrained by the code as written.

This body is now responsible for determining whether the required findings were adequately supported under the code.

City Council and the broader code amendment process can then decide whether the rules should be revised so that the future applicants are evaluated under standards that better reflect what modern data centers have become.

So all that long-winded note taking just to say I think I'm feeling a little conflicted about really deciding if no greater adverse effect is happening on the adjacent properties because it's hard to compare something we know so little about to what was previously there.

I think that the term data center may be too vague as it's used in UDC today.

Um I do appreciate some of the comments in uh about a fair and predictable process in terms of businesses and developers should be able to come here and be able to rely on the process in which projects are reviewed and the criteria which they are reviewed under and yet not be changed on them.

Um sorry, it's a long day.

I'm trying to gather my thoughts.

Um I think that's it for me for now.

Okay.

Do we want to go down the line or um does anyone else want to jump in?

Okay.

Sounds good.

All right, that works.

I um I concur pretty heavily with what Commissioner Willoughby said.

This is Commissioner Cecil now for the record.

I I find myself now wondering what was in council's mind when they amended the UDC to explicitly include data centers in 2022, because I know certainly at that time my understanding of data centers did not include 30 generators and 36 chillers, and this is actually such a relatively small data center compared to what could be coming our way.

Um I'm concerned that the current zoning may not fit at all.

However, in deciding this matter, um we have to look at exactly what is before us, and in that way, the Bitcoin mining facility that was there immediately established a pretty enormous adverse effect that appears to possibly be less adverse.

Um proposal seems to be less adverse than, although I do thoroughly acknowledge all of the ambiguities around the potential impacts of the um DBC levels and noise that aren't well studied and that may have consequences we can't yet predict.

It's also not within the exact criteria that we can cause a decision to be hinged on.

So, based on the records governing the appeal, I viewed this proposal as a sort of least worst case scenario for this particular site.

The property already has significant industrial and data center-related infrastructure.

The proposed reuse avoids some of the impacts that would accompany other uses that were permitted or previously approved like that coin mining facility.

But I do see that there are some operational questions around the noise, and I would like that to be a place that we as a city focus greater attention on, but I'm not sure that any modification we could impose tonight would have would justify any major, or sorry, that any condition we could apply tonight could affect a major outcome, could actually make a difference based on our current understanding and the research.

But all of that is to say I don't think our current code adequately addresses the evolving scale and characteristics of modern data centers.

Those broader questions should not be decided through an appeal involving a single applicant.

Last year during our working sessions, I asked staff to examine how the rapidly evolving scale and operating characteristics of data centers intersect with zoning and land use regulation.

The information we received focused primarily on Colorado Springs utilities, long large load tariffs, and while that information was useful, it did not address the broader land use questions that I had hoped to raise, like definitions and siting and noise and infrastructure demands and cumulative impact mitigations and community benefits.

So while I may see that by the letter of the law, the appeal potentially is not fully just not something that I can fully stand behind.

Requesting that the chair or the planning director place on a future agenda a work session concerning data center definitions, land use and cumulative impacts, because while this may not be the worst case scenario that could come up, there are many larger scenarios that could have much larger impacts, and we may not find people willing to work at all with communities.

I know that's been an issue nationwide.

So I'd like to suggest or at least introduce to the commission the possibility of requesting that item be added to a future agenda of ours so that we can determine whether and how to move forward if a study of the different scales of data centers, as Commissioner Willoughby mentioned, would be appropriate.

Thank you, Commissioner Cecil.

Commissioner Ingall.

Commissioner Engel, and uh I agree with my colleagues uh pretty much everything they said.

I would like to just say this a little bit of different way.

I think this is a case where technology has run away, not run away, has come along faster than our code has adjusted.

And particularly two things.

One was the low frequency uh noise, DBC and infra uh infra infra sound, and the second was uh heating, heating of the atmosphere by the temperatures from the cool cooling process put into the atmosphere.

The latter one is a particularly difficult thing to solve because I don't think we really have imminent technology for it.

As we go forward, I think the planning staff has done a superb job of working within the code and working with both the uh developer as well as the community to get significant changes made to the original plan, and therefore it is in my mind uh consistent with what the present code is.

Having said that, I would like to uh suggest uh two things.

One, some conditions be added to the way we go forward, particularly that we ask the uh developer as they do put together the sound system that they report the full spectrum of sound, even though the code only holds them accountable for certain portions of it.

I think it's important for us to have that other information if medical science comes along and tells us that there's there's areas where we should be more concerned.

In the same vein to that, I I would suggest that it's worthwhile for us to explore other portions of the world, including other businesses that may have looked at these low frequency noises.

There may be an answer out there or some guidance we could provide to the developer that would give us more comfort and reduce what we think might be the residual risk.

The second issue is one that we kind of tangentially was brought up by the appeals.

And that issue had to do with what do you use to evaluate something.

The planning staff, I think quite correctly, based their evaluations on section seven or chapter 7.5.516.

And that was uh that was excellent, and I thought they worked that very well.

There is the broader question of Section 7.5.515, and where it leads you to is 7.5.409.

The latter one in particular is pretty uh undefinitized.

It is in general terms and way it what it describes, and it's someone could make the argument well, you ought to use that, and then when the code isn't where it should be, you could make judgments.

I understand that argument, but I think that would uh really open up a very difficult set of circumstances, not only for the planning staff, but for the commission.

Because that's uh having the undefined drive the train is uh probably a set of problems all its own.

So those are the two things I would consider.

In the case of the latter one, I agree with uh Commissioner Cecil, that's probably something we should discuss at a commission meeting and say, okay, we should or should not.

Uh this gets into a discussion we have philosophically had before about narrow versus uh wide criteria.

That's uh where I am.

Thank you.

I think we'll go down to the other end of the table and kind of work our way back.

Uh so Commissioner Gigiano.

Uh Commissioner Gigiano for the record.

Um, in my opinion, where I'm at um is just that the noise impacts I don't feel have been adequately addressed.

Um I'm not confident on the acoustic um testimony by the um applicant, uh specifically the effects of the low frequency on health and the residents.

Um so that's what I'm struggling with right now.

My thoughts.

Thank you.

Commissioner Robbins.

Um I feel like that the uh that you guys have gone above board, and I really feel like a lot of the questions and concerns that our board has um have really been studied and evaluated many times over.

And I've basically answered them.

Um, but I think that uh there's going to be an a need to reiterate these these items.

I want to thank you for all the hard work that you guys have done too.

You've been over backwards to uh work with the community um to make it all happen.

And uh I know it eventually we're gonna get this through here.

Um, further advancements that are made in all the product lines, everything that uh composes or you put together for this data system.

I would hope that as that comes around, uh you're always looking to improve and make this system this database system here in the springs, the gym that is the example so that uh you can move forward uh throughout the nation.

Anywhere else that you want to build it.

So I really appreciate that at this point.

And I don't know how else to thank you for all the work you've done.

And uh I know you're not gonna give up on it.

That's a good one.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Case for the record.

So uh overall, I just want to thank the public for coming out here.

I think this has been uh hopefully a model for at least Colorado, if not nationally or globally for a forum like this.

Uh it's been civil at times and also uh very emotional, and so um obviously this matters, and I think there's a lot of educated people here who have come here to present uh based on facts and to also give their uh heartfelt opinions, and so all of those matter.

Um, specifically to the review process and the process that the city which in my opinion has done a great job in having public engagement, having town halls um notifying folks about even this meeting, and you know, just overall the public process, I believe has done um its job in engaging the public.

Um with that said, I also think the review agencies uh as I'm looking at this, there's six different review agencies that review this project.

Um I'm not a subject matter expert in everything.

We rely on agencies to give us the information and we evaluate at that time.

Um, and I trust in our city agencies uh to give us that information.

And so when they give us the comments and our city staff gives us the approval on things based on that information, and they say that they have the capacity, there is no traffic impact um study that's needed.

The engineering, the SWENT stormwater enterprise uh has reviewed the material and they don't have any issues with it.

Um landscape reviewer and economic development is involved.

There's a lot of stakeholders that are involved that don't have any paycheck and revolved to this, they're serving our people, and so I respect that.

Um at the end of the day, too, there's a heartfelt piece of health and wellness, and I recognize that I think we've heard that is the question here, and so with the development plan, um I see that our city has made that decision in a development agreement and a sound monitoring plan.

And so, in my eyes, that is a way to mitigate some of the unknowns and to continue to understand and learn from each other as this project goes about.

Um with that said, too.

Um there's a lot of people that are involved in this, and so um from my basis, uh the environmental impacts um are noted, um, whether they're confirmed or not, that's another question.

Um at the end of the day, public health impacts, air quality, heat island effects.

Um we asked the applicant directly, he's been building these all throughout the nation.

What are his concerns?

And he elaborated those.

So I think uh oftentimes in projects that are unknown, there's there's partnership, and I think that's been done through this and pioneering potentially what is needed to be done to make things successful, not only for our city, but for all stakeholders involved.

Um so from where I come from, I think this project is a benefit to our community, but I do believe it needs conditions of approval.

Thank you.

Commissioner Slattery, um I agree with my um fellow commissioners who stated that data centers should be considered as their own use category, and I would like to add it potentially um multiple use categories and tiers based on uh size and scale consumption.

Um today it's what 14 hours now with you know a couple breaks, but 14 hours of of engagement, um, interest, a lot of passion.

Um, and it gives me um I think excitement to see passion coming uh from people and pointing it towards the status center, I don't know is um necessarily the right place.

I you know, there's a lot of anger and there's a lot of fear about um AI and its impacts on society that are yet to be determined.

Um and and just general um unrest um with society and and our government at large.

I don't think that um let me go back.

You know, there was several folks who talked about humanity, right?

And and that was a great thing bringing us together, and I hope that um through the process you'll see that all of the people who um are serving here and are serving your city are also um humans trying to do the right thing for our community um and our citizens.

Uh I think that there has been an evolution of um you know, while we don't have um while data center is still a light industrial use, um, I think some of our other um entities, specifically CSU, um, are providing protections to the ratepayers with the high use tariffs and rate program and structure that's gone into place, uh which is how this proposal has gotten as far as it has, um, and some of the inconsistencies with previous statements about not um allowing or welcoming these things to our community.

So I think that having those provisions in place can be beneficial and protect our folks from some of the other use cases across the country that have been causing detrimental cost impacts to their ratepayers.

So I think we have a structure in place where and protections in place for that.

And as we've been reminded several times, our decision today is the planning manager authorized to approve this.

It was an administrative approval to begin with.

This is was another administrative approval.

Um and did it meet the criteria.

So I think there's a few conditions of record and things that will be placed upon it, but it was an allowable use in an allowable zone with capacity.

So as a reviewer, I would say yes, it meets the criteria.

Um with some.

And there's not an egregious integrity does matter, right?

All of us in and um how we conduct things and the facts that we share are really important.

And so I believe that integrity was upheld by the city in their process.

I'll leave it there.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Um Chair Hensler for the record.

Um I certainly want to thank all of you that are here and that are still here, and I know probably many folks are online watching.

This has been the longest hearing of my four years on the planning commission.

And um we, as you may have heard many times already, we don't take our roles lightly.

We really do uh come forth to bring integrity to every decision and to listen to all of the facts as as impassioned as they were throughout the day.

Um, so um I hear your concerns, and personally, I share many of the questions that you um all have brought forth.

Sound, heat, energy, water, long-term impacts, uh how what's the impact on our community?

Those are all very valid concerns.

And I agree with my fellow commissioners about the inclusion in the code and also the further study of this type of use.

Um nearly all of us rely on phones, computers, cloud storage, streaming, digital every day.

We we really can't get away from that in many ways.

And those services depend on data setters, whether or not they're associated with AI, whether or not they're doing surveillance, uh, it just means that that is part of our our digital life.

It doesn't mean that every data center should be approved in every location, but it does mean that the question before us is not whether data centers have a purpose, it's whether this particular application satisfies the standards that we are legally bound and required to apply.

So some of the concerns today, Heat Island, low frequency, uh, infrasound, DBC, I've learned so much about sound in the last few days reading this, those broader health impacts are important policy questions.

But as we've explained and staff has discussed, many of those issues are not presently addressed through specific specific standards in our unified development code, in state regulation or even in federal regulation.

And so that creates a very difficult situation for this commission.

We may listen to and consider the evidence that's presented, but our decision must ultimately be tied to the code criteria that's before us.

We cannot create new citywide regulate regulations, impose moratoriums, establish technical standards.

Um these are legislative matters that are meant for another day and another body.

Um I also recognize the desire for our commission to impose some additional protections.

Um, and I would describe our limitation to do that not as an unwillingness, but as a lack of legal authority to legislate from the dais.

But I do feel like maybe we have some path forward today of um of being able to impose some conditions that try to help bridge uh the gap that we feel with this project.

Um and I think as we've heard too, the obligation to apply the code fairly matters not only to the public who came and spoke, but also to the applicants and business owners and those that are looking to seek to invest into our community and to provide good services and products.

We have to be able to have in a modern community with a recently resided devised recently revised development code.

Um landowners or developers should expect that those standards will be consistently predictably applied and not being changed midway through a process.

So fairness requires that we hold applicants to the code, but it also requires that we not impose standards that the code does not contain.

So in um concurrence with some of my fellow commissioners, um, I too agree that based on everything that was presented, the manager was authorized to approve the application, and it does satisfy the criteria for approval of a major modification.

I think I'll leave it there because I think there may be some further conversation around how we may want to um message a motion and create some conditions around a motion.

And I forgot to read the appeal instructions earlier, and I might want to do that, but it looks like Mr.

Glass has Trevor Gloss in the city attorney's office.

Um I can walk you through the possible motions and their effects and what certain votes would do if you all would like.

Um could you do that?

And then also, do you want me to then read the appeal instructions or do you want to do those at this time?

I just think that regardless of how this vote goes, someone's going to appeal it.

So I think we might as well get those appeal instructions on the record.

Uh I mean our standard process is after the decision, but it is late, so if you want to read those now, so people can leave right after the decision, I think that's fine as well.

Um either way.

Um so the motions tonight uh because there are five appeals can get a little complicated.

So I want to walk you through them perhaps a little bit more slowly than we normally would.

Um so the first option is to approve all five appeals, uh, find that the planning departments are overturned the planning department's decision, and uh and have that being your decision.

If that's the case, um Raiden as the developer applicant can appeal that decision to city council.

Um alternative option is to deny all appeals and approve the administrative approval by the planning department, uh in which case um the appellants could also appeal this to city council.

Um the uh in that vein, you can deny the appeals and approve the administrative application, but condition it on modifications.

Um the modifications can only be tagged on can only be tagged onto uh a motion that allows the planning department's decision to survive, if that makes sense.

Um third, you can remand this back to the planning department.

Uh if you remand it back to them, it goes back for further consideration in line with your comments.

Um the review, they make another decision, and then it could be appealed at a later date.

Um if an item is remanded, it's cannot be initially appealed unless there is a until there's a new decision.

And uh depending on well, the board could also approve some appeals and deny other appeals uh through a singular vote, or uh it can divide the vote, it can divide it into five votes where you basically vote on one appeal at a time, whether you want to approve or deny.

Um and a further complication is uh tie votes because you're uh body or because you're in a person bought each night.

If you have a 4-4 tie vote, um the vote fails, and when a vote fails, essentially the opposite happens.

So if you voted to deny all the appeals and approve the administrative decision, but the vote fails, the appeals actually succeed.

So I'm happy to clarify as we go along.

Uh Trevor, could you restate the reading on the process of the Sure.

Uh so if the uh commission goes to remand it, uh it goes back to the appling department for further consideration in line with the planning commission's comments.

Um review the application again to uh make any adjustments needed and uh issue a decision based on the criteria.

Okay, and um just as uh again um just as uh refresh because we're an even numbered body tonight whether there's a uh motion to uphold the appeals or to deny the appeals if we have a split vote either way that fails and if it is uh upholds the appeal that it still it just fails all the way around if we're a split vote.

Is that what you said?

I just want to make sure I understand that if it's a split vote and it fails essentially the opposite happens, right?

So um you voted if the motion was to approve the appeals, but that motion failed, the appeals would also be approved.

Okay.

Would you and I would be you two but also maybe uh damage here um would you like to attempt a conversation around your thoughts around your thoughts?

Um potential conditions that um I believe should be applied to this application would be to one modify the sound monitoring plan to include reporting of DBC levels.

Um two, speaking of reporting that uh Raiden would be also transparent in reporting for water and electrical usage.

Um three to swap the M201 sheet with the correct version, um verifying and codifying into the record um the maximum of 36 chillers, 30 generators, and 50 megawatts of power usage.

And additionally, a condition that if the property were to exceed 50 megawatts, a new development plan would be required.

Does anyone have any conversation around that uh to add or team commissioner case for the record?

I would be in favor of those conditions.

Commissioner Engel, I would also support those conditions.

This is Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Slattery.

I had a question about the swapping of sheet M201.

Um and whether your intention was to correct the content there, um where there were erroneous statements around the number of units, or if your intent was to have a separate stipulation added on to that sheet that also said nothing over 50 megawatts, or if that would be yet another condition separately.

I just got a lost.

Um that's a great question.

I don't know if I articulated that well.

So in the replacement sheet that was provided, I did find that um it essentially removed the notes.

It seemed like it was an old um cut sheet that had described the office um square footage.

And so even the layout of the data center, like the equipment piece was different in the new layout.

Um so all of the notes were removed were the conflicting information about number of chillers and um and generators were there, they are on the other sheets.

I mean, we could um I guess just codify into the record that those are the caps that are approved in the development plan.

And if if staff has a particular place that those would be um best placed, that those are the intentions to state state those um clearly Trevor Gloss for the city attorney's office.

So uh just to make sure I have the uh potential modifications in mind clearly uh the first was to monitor uh the sound, the info sorry, the DBC.

And the second was to monitor and uh publicly display the utility usage, correct, and then and specifically the sound was on that um the sound monitoring plan that was a part of the development um conditions, the development so in line so reporting in line with the with the plan.

Yes, modify the plan to include DBC level reporting.

Okay.

And utility reporting.

And then uh three, correct the M201.

And number four, uh, if the property is ever um to use uh more than 50 megawatts, uh they will need to come back for a new development plan.

Correct.

Okay.

Um so if it pleases the commission, I could read a proposed motion and into the record with those uh modifications.

I have one more question for you, Commissioner Slattery.

Should that 50 megawatt limit be exceeded?

Would you is it your intent that it come back before the board or that it come back before the staff with a new development plan review?

Um technically it would go before the staff if you would like to put a condition where it would be reviewed um through a public through a planning commission hearing, I would not be um opposed to that.

I mean maybe others are Chair Hensler.

I'm not opposed to that, but I think it adds in a step that may not be necessary because if it is another major modification or a whole new development plan, would we and I'm trying to see Trevor uh I'm not Trevor, but Kevin or Dan, would we not see those anyway?

So it seems like adding a condition that it comes back, if it would be something that we would see anyways, it's say a major modification, and to your commentary earlier, we don't if it were to change beyond 50 megawatts, we don't know what type of uh application that would trigger.

So it just seems like that is uh uh uh we are not able to really institute that mandate if we don't know in the future what and it might come back to us anyway.

Trevor Gloss for the city attorney's office.

So um sorry, it's late in my mind just blanked.

I apologize.

Um so uh yes, having the requirement development plan when one may not normally be required, uh could create certain conflicts in code.

Um so there may be unforeseen circumstances that we just can't know ahead of time.

Um it will uh well everything is appealable in the UDC at the current moment.

So um whether it's a major modification development plan or some other uh applicate application decision, it can be appealed.

Um I do think it is within the um commission's authority to perhaps say that no matter what type of application is to bring it back to the planning commission for consideration, just skip the uh potential wait for the appeal, if that's the concern there.

Um but just uh without knowing the type of application needed, it does raise some potential complications.

So what I'm hearing um from our attorney is that perhaps a better condition is that if the property were to exceed 50 megawatts or or a um desire to that a um an approval by city planning commission would be required.

But we are not the decision-making authority on the original plan.

We're we're hearing an appeal right now.

So I'm uh I guess while we're while we're um mulling this.

A new development plan will automatically trigger public notice.

Is that correct?

Uh new development plan will, uh major modification will, uh, a number of different processes trigger the uh public notice requirement.

There's there's a lot of public notice.

Um but yes, you can um require it on coming back to planning commission for hearing um and potential approval.

I I still I I mean I think a new development plan would be appropriate.

Um so I would I guess look to fellow commissioners to see if that would be supported.

Commissioner Schlattery, maybe clarification from my end.

I think we're trying to keep the public involved if there is a rate increase or five megawatts for whatever it is.

The development plan would trigger that.

We believe it'd be a stakeholder involvement where it'd be noticeed amongst public, right?

Correct, correct.

Um and I think this is um you know, in response to the public um sentiment that there were discrepancies or um potential discrepancies or or lack of clarity within what exactly is being approved in this.

So this is trying to codify the promises that were made into record and not exceeding those.

Just real quickly, Kevin Walker Planning Director.

I think I am anyway.

So I I think it's it's just really what your intent is.

I think the um the intent would be to require a new development plan.

And then that would trigger the process.

Okay.

Right.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.

Do you have um are you tracking?

Yes.

Um so the let's see, development plans.

So the commission's primary concern is public notice, public involvement, and uh there seems to be the belief that the development plan is the best way to go through that process.

Um I will say it's one of the processes that we have.

I think that all of our processes have public notice, um, have public involvement.

Um I mean, this was a major modification, it wasn't a development plan, and we have quite a bit of uh public comment today and public involvement.

So a development plan is not technically required.

If that is really the route you want to go, uh we can uh we can do that.

But uh I mean you can also just require Jacob Hack to Planning Commission for a hearing and decision, and uh then it's notice then it has all the same um public notice and public comments, and uh the public is involved.

Would a um requiring a major modification to the development plan be more congruous with our current code and also still trigger those same public process hearings?

So, yeah, so the public process triggers basically no matter what type of modification or process you go through.

Um there's going to be newspaper, there's gonna be posting, there's going to be postcards.

That is going to be pretty similar no matter what type of application you get.

Sorry, maybe I'm not understanding the question.

Is there something that you're no, I think we're just thinking this through.

Any other comments from anyone else?

This is Chair Hensler, by the way.

This is Commissioner Cecil.

I feel like the broader safety net of requiring an additional review by the planning commission should the site exceed the 50 megawatt capacity, is actually going to provide the triggers that we're aiming to provide in the public notice.

Um in more scenarios than narrowing it down to just as a development plan, and if that appears to be legally acceptable in amendment drafting, then I would rather, in an abundance of caution with the speed in which this field is evolving, have a wider net of things that will bring the public back in to weigh in, especially if we make progress on more regulations and frameworks here.

So if I this chair Hensler, if I'm understanding correctly, uh maybe our motion then would say any future change of this project beyond the stated size of 30 and 36 and 50.

I'm just gonna condense those down, would require, and regardless of what regardless of the type, development plan, major modification, minor modification, anything would come back to planning commission for a hearing.

Is that possible?

Sorry, I was reviewing a proposed uh motion.

Can you please repeat that?

Uh basically we could state that anything would come back to planning commission.

Yes.

Okay.

So whatever it is, development plan, minor, major.

Yes.

Okay.

Let's just do that as a suggestion to vote on.

I can't say, let's just do that.

Uh but I can say we can vote on that.

Uh so if it pleases the commission, I can read a proposed motion into the record.

Please do, thank you.

Okay.

Uh motion to deny all appeals and affirm the city planning department's decision on the development plan modification application for corporate ridge filing number one, lot four, based on the planning commission's finding that the review criteria for approving the application are met, and that the appellants fail to meet the reversal criteria in city code section 75415, conditioned on modification of said application as discerning as determined by the city planning commission to wit, uh reporting utility usage data for the first 10 years of operation, limit the utility usage to 50 megawatts, but should the megawatt usage to be increased beyond that stated limit a development plan or shall be required or the uh or the uh owner must come back to the planning commission for approval.

Um replace the M201 sheet provided by the applicant in the supplemental materials submitted to the planning commission for this hearing, and four modify the sound monitoring plan to include DBC monitoring in the same fashion as the DBA monitoring.

I think the only suggestion I would make is uh use the development plan or coming back to planning commission.

I would just strike that and just any any future change above 50 megawatts and meet uh automatically comes back to planning commission or however, but no or statement.

So the modification two will be limiting the utility usage to 50 megawatt, and should there be any proposed increase beyond that coming back to the planning commission for approval?

Yes.

So that was the proposed motion.

There will need to be a first and second on it if there is uh if that's the desired motion.

Can we seek uh first on that and then open for final discussion?

So moved.

Commissioner's lottery.

Okay, any final discussion on those on that motion and the conditions.

Commissioner K.

I just have a quick question as we look at moving that forward, which is a procedural one.

Um I know the code allows us to ask for studies or ask for opinions of staff.

Um, if we do want to further the conversation moving forward around the larger issue, I'd like to know the right way to initiate that process going forward.

Uh Kevin Walker, uh planning director, I think that's been initiated with your comments.

We will we will uh work towards achieving what you uh discussed and asked for.

In that case, I um I find that this amendment and the knowledge that we are going to continue the conversation about the larger studies or regulations around the growing field.

Um, I think that's sufficient.

I don't have any further changes to the conditions placed on this motion.

Would you like to make a second since you have the mic?

Or is it not?

I can second.

I will second.

Okay.

So we have a motion and a second to deny all appeals and affirm the city planning commission's decision based on the conditions as read into the record.

Does anyone want to hear that motion one more time or do you feel confident in your vote?

Okay.

Okay.

Sorry, I apologize.

Thank you.

Trevor, do you mind repeating the motion?

Please, yeah.

Commissioner Robbins is having trouble hearing.

Thank you.

The motion is to deny all appeals and affirm the city planning department's decision on the development plan modification application for corporate corporate ridge filing number one, lot four, based on the planning commission's finding that the review criteria for approving the application are met, and that the appellants fail to meet the reversal criteria in City Code Section 75415.

Conditioned on modification of said application as determined by the city planning commission to wit, reporting utility usage data for the first 10 years of operation, uh limiting the utility usage to 50 megawatts, but should this megawatt usage be proposed to increase beyond that state of limit, uh be scheduled with the planning commission to act uh act on the request for approval.

But should this megawatt usage be proposed to increase beyond that state of limit, uh be scheduled with the planning commission to act uh act on the request for approval, uh replace the M201 sheet provided by the applicant in the supplemental materials submitted by the City Planning Commission at the hearing, or submit to the city planning commission, sorry.

And uh four, modify the sound monitoring monitoring plan to include DBC monitoring in the same fashion as DBA monitoring.

Right, or the reporting on it.

I think it was good reporting the word reporting on the DBC.

Okay.

Okay.

Great.

We had a motion and a second.

So Solange, if you can do a roll call, please, Chair Hansler.

Aye, Commissioner Robbins.

Okay, Commissioner Rollins.

Aye.

Commissioner Gidiano.

Uh nay.

Commissioner Wheeloughby.

Nay.

I'm sorry.

Nay.

Folks, we we can't hear the votes.

Please, if you could hold the applause.

Can we do that again?

Nay.

Commissioner Case.

Aye.

Commissioner Engel.

Aye.

Commissioner Cecil.

Aye.

Commissioner Slattery.

Aye.

The motion passes with six commissioners in favor and Commissioners.

Um Giano and Willoughby opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I will read the appeal.

This is why I should have done the appeal instructions.

Please, please maintain uh order in accordance with the requirements of section 7.5.514 of the city unified development code.

An affected party may appeal to the city council any action of the city planning commission in relation to the zoning code where the action was averse to that party within 10 days from final action on the item being appealed, which is Monday, August 3rd, 2026.

The appellant must file a notice of appeal and pay the 176 dollar fee with the city clerk.

The appeal notice should address specific zoning code requirements that were not adequately addressed by the city planning commission.

City Council may elect to limit discussion at the appeal hearing to the specific matters set forth in the appeal notice.

Thank you.

And with no other business on