I just want to let folks know we're getting more time for people to be able to sign in.

Uh, they're still coming in from outside, so we'll start the hearing in a few moments.

Just wanted to keep you updated.

Okay, it is uh nine eleven now, and we are gonna wait four more minutes, and at nine fifteen, we're gonna start the hearing.

I believe we still have folks that are trying to sign in and trying to get into the room.

So again, thank you for your patience, but I don't want to delay our start much longer.

Thank you.

Okay.

Good morning, everyone.

I call this special meeting of the hearing of the Colorado Springs Planning Commission to order at 9.15 a.m.

First of all, I'd like to start with our roll call of Commissioners.

Chair Hansler.

Here.

Commissioner Robins.

Present.

Commissioner Clemens.

Commissioner Diano.

Here.

Commissioner Willoughby.

Here.

Commissioner Case.

Present.

Commissioner Engel.

Commissioner Angel.

Here.

Commissioner Cecil.

Here.

Commissioner Slattery.

Here.

Thank you.

We have eight members present.

Thank you so much.

Today's hearing concerns the corporate ridge filing number one lot four development plan modification application, commonly known as Project Taurus.

I would first like to thank each and every one of you for being here today and taking time out of your days and lives to participate in your community in this way.

Like you, we are all volunteers who make time to serve our community because we believe that civic engagement and public discourse are important values of a thriving community.

So you have our gratitude for being here.

With that said, as a reminder, this is a quasi-judicial appeal hearing.

This means the planning commission is acting in a formal decision-making role, similar to a judge, and must base its decision on the hearing record, the applicable city code, and the evidence presented today.

Today's hearing will proceed in the following order.

Public comment will be taken in support of the appeal and then against or in opposition of the appeal.

We will have a dinner recess, probably around 6 p.m.

Uh, depending on again how timelines play out.

We will then hear appellate and applicant rebuttal presentations, and then finally the planning commission will deliberate and vote.

Commissioners may ask questions during presentations.

Those questions do not count against the party's allotted presentation time.

We anticipate that public comment will begin after lunch, but likely no earlier than 1 15 p.m.

Speakers must sign up in person with city staff in the lobby.

And if you haven't done so, you're welcome to do that at any point.

Public comment will begin with those that are speaking in favor of the appeal, therefore opposed to the project, and then followed by those speaking in opposition of the appeal or in favor of the project.

So remember, speaking in favor of the appeal is speaking against the administrative decision.

Each speaker will be given two minutes, and each side will have up to three hours of testimony.

Speakers will be called in order they registered.

So again, if you've not signed up, please do so.

Following public comment, the appellants and the applicant will have an opportunity to provide rebuttal, and the commission will then deliberate, which may include follow-up questions to the appellants, the applicant, and the staff in order to make our decision.

Parties with legal standing may appeal that decision to city council in accordance with city procedures, and I will read the appeal instructions uh later today.

Before we begin, I just want to review a few additional expectations for the hearing today.

Please treat everyone with respect.

Do not interrupt speakers or shout from the audience, and please refrain from applause, cheering, booing, or other demonstrations so that every speaker has an equal opportunity to be heard.

I understand there's a lot of interest, there's a lot of passion, there's a lot of emotion in the room, but any displays that take time only take time away from the next speaker.

So be respectful so that everyone can have an opportunity to be heard.

Please silence your cell phones and please refrain from any discussions in the audience.

Please follow directions from staff and security and keep aisles, exits, and accessible routes clear at all times.

Signs are permitted, however, they may not block another person's view, obstruct the aisles or walkways, interfere with accessibility, create a safety hazard, or otherwise disrupt the hearing.

And again, thank you for your cooperation and thank you for your civic engagement and for being here today.

We will now begin with our agenda and a vote on a request for postponement, which has been submitted by one of the appellants.

So, Trevor, would you like to give us a little background on that, please so we can move forward with a vote?

Yes, just uh loss, the attorney's office.

Uh, just for the commission's knowledge, uh post-callons is allowed pursuant to city code section 75415.

Uh, if the appellants shows good cost good cause to appeal.

Or sorry, good cost to postpone.

Um pursuant to planning commission rules that is decided through a vote of the planning commission at this time.

Uh so with that, do we have an actual motion or no?

We just are looking for motion.

Yes.

Yeah.

So with that, the request for postponement of the special appear hearing uh was requested for our commission regular meeting of August 12th, 2026.

So I would look for a discussion and/or a motion to either accept that continuance request or postpone it request necessary uh or to deny.

Commissioner Slaughter here.

Um, given the magnitude of this hearing, the number of people in the audience, the logistics that went into creating this, um, advertising it and um the time collective of folks in the room.

Um I believe it's in the best interest of the public and of this um the appeal to hear this um to host the hearing today.

So I would propose a motion to deny the request for continuation.

Do we have a second?

Commissioner Willie and second that you slides, I like to do a roll call vote, please.

Chair Hansen.

Hi.

Commissioner Rogens.

Commissioner Zidiana.

Hi.

Commissioner Wilby.

Aye.

Commissioner Case.

Aye.

Commissioner Engel.

Aye.

Commissioner Cecil.

Aye.

Commissioner Sandary.

Aye.

Thank you.

We have any members in favor.

Thank you.

All right, we will move into communications.

Really the only communication that I have to say, besides the long preamble that I gave at the beginning, is as you notice Chris Clemens isn't with us today.

He had a family emergency was unable to attend.

Mr.

Walker.

Kevin Walker.

Kevin Walker Planning Director, I don't know communications.

Okay.

Well, with that, we will move into new business.

Item 4A and Solange if you can read that into the record.

Please.

Item 4A.

Appeals of the administrative position, approving the development plan notification application for Carpere Ridge filing number one, log 4.

Establishing a data center using the existing industrial building and site improvements of the approximate 21.96 acre site, BP zone located at 1565 High Teg Way.

So again, as was noted, we are here to discuss the appeals of the administrative decision, which approved corporate ridge filing number one lot four administrative application, which was a major modification to the existing development plan for the site.

So just giving you some context here on the administrative decision and how we kind of arrived at our decision and some background on the property.

So the site as highlighted here in blue is just over two acres.

Through the review process, we were determining what was the existing use of the property, which according to the previous entitlement was a light industry use.

So from all appearances from a land use perspective, that use did not require a use change to the property, but did require uh staff to evaluate the scope of change that was being proposed with the for the site.

Is the property is jumped to Hitler is zoned business park.

So these two images, I know it's a lot on the screen here for you all, but what you can see with the image that's on the left is an aerial imagery of the property.

It does denote some of the areas of change uh on the site, which staff considered in its determination of a major modification versus a minor modification of the proposed scope of the project.

As noted, it does include, which I'm I'm certain that the applicant and appellants will get into greater detail in their presentations denotes uh significant kind of uh demolition of existing structures on site, uh, the establishment of a generator yard, a chiller yard, the installation of a 30-foot tall sound wall on the southern perimeter of the property adjacent to uh South Douglas Creek.

Um, but the site and its location, uh, which is somewhat uh a reflection of the envisioned build-out of this area, uh, is an industrial property.

Um this site, as noted uh previously was business park.

Um, prior to the adoption of the unified development code, uh, this site was zoned PIP, which is uh a planned industrial park.

Uh and that has been the zoning on the property since annexation into the city in the 1970s.

Um so really from the get-go of this corridor uh on Garden of the Gaz, as well as this property more specifically, it was always envisioned to contain and be utilized for industrial purposes.

It was always envisioned to contain and be utilized for industrial purposes.

Now, you will note on the image to the right, there are adjacent land uses for both residential and commercial.

They are reflection of their base zone as an R1600 zone district, as well as some of the NXM and LI zones that flank it up the slope from the site, a little bit further away, but just off the image there is you do see kind of just at the edge of the Mesa there kissing camels on the south side of the image on the right.

Now, in terms of the project itself, sorry, this is a really weird orientation.

Looking here or there.

But so what we have with the project, as I noted, we did an administrative review of the application evaluating all the proposed changes that the applicant had desired for the property, including as I noted before, that generator yard and chiller yards adjacent to the existing 400,000 plus building, which was proposed to be retained and to house ultimately the data center use.

So with this project, just to be clear, there was no proposed demolition of the existing primary structure on the site, but other ancillary structures that have been developed over the years on the property were proposed to be removed in order to accommodate the various yards.

Through the review on the southern edge, as I noted before, uh, in as in response to, and I'll kind of touch on a greater detail in the remainder of the presentation, but there were some changes proposed along that South Douglas Creek area to kind of mitigate the visual and aesthetic impact of the proposed use to the adjacent uh residential properties in development.

We did have, in accordance with the administrative decision, which was uh issued in mid-June for the property.

Um, within the 10-day appeal period, five appeals, uh I should say six appeals were filed.

One appeal was ultimately not uh found to be uh consistent with uh the determination of an affected party for their ability to appeal.

They were outside of the three mile radius and had not actually provided public comment during the administrative review process.

The remaining five appeal applications were determined to be complete, uh, and hence why we're having the hearing today to discuss those those applications, each with their unique perspective.

There is some overlap there, which the appellants will get to, but in large part, each with their unique perspective as to the basis and grounds for their appeal.

Um touching on the process from the administrative side, um, as I noted before, we had taken this application in uh earlier this year.

Uh I guess the specific date was March 12th of 26th.

We went through four review cycles.

Uh review cycles include distribution of revised plans, uh comments, both public and agency to the applicant for consideration and revision to the project plans.

Uh ultimately that decision, as I noted earlier, was issued in mid-June, uh, and then we had our close of our appeal period on June 22nd.

Um, just also as a note, um, this project, while it did receive from the city a rapid response certificate that does not change the regulatory structure in which the administrative decision was made, um, such that really from a processing standpoint, the only pivot with that rapid response certificate is on the initial intake side, typically an application of this scope or scale, would typically have a four-week review cycle.

Uh that was shortened down to a three-week review cycle to align with the other agency partners that are reviewing the application, but there's been no incentives, there's been no consideration of the project with respect to offsetting of fees with that rapid response certificate.

Simply put, it just elevates the review when an initial or resubmittal is provided, elevates it to the top of the list for the review agencies to consider as it relates to their larger project review queue.

Stakeholder engagement, as many of you here today in the public are well aware, this project to a degree kind of took on its life with a life of its own from a public engagement, largely due to the interest from the community, uh both from the surrounding uh residents perspective, but also the broader community as a whole.

We did conduct uh from a standard City Code process, uh, three notifications for the application.

Uh, two were prior to the previously held neighborhood meetings that were facilitated by the applicant, as well as one uh public notice that was issued for the hearing today for the appeal.

That public notice per city code requires that to be posters on the property, postcards issued within a thousand-foot radius of a subject property that is being considered for an application.

We did get well within that radius, I should say, for a thousand feet, is we had uh just shy of 200 properties, uh specifically 168 uh property owners that were identified and notified through the postcard process.

In addition to that, uh, as the project went on, we increased uh the level of engagement doing email notifications based on the members of the public that have expressed interest in the project and continue to provide public comment through the course of the administrative review and of course in advance of the hearing today.

Uh I'll note while this slide here does show uh plus or minus 1500 comment.

I will say, as of this morning, to be honest, it's probably around 2,000 written public comments that have been submitted for the project, and those public comment do represent uh positions in opposition and support for the administrative decision.

Uh so again, it's not just narrowly focused on one side, uh complete opposition to a project or the decision.

Uh, there is a broad breadth of the community that did identify uh support for the project as well as opposition.

Um the screen I won't kind of touch on a lot of the pieces there from the opposition side because that uh will come up as part of the kind of grounds or basis for the appeal.

Um but then we also had from the support perspective, they're kind of looking at from the economic perspective, the redevelopment of an existing vacant uh industrial site and building.

Uh from the agency reviews, uh I won't kind of touch on all the wording here, but just to give you a sense, you know, with any administrative project that is a major modification, such as this, uh, we did distribute it to all of our agency representatives through the course of those four review cycles.

And as the review cycles progress, essentially what you have is you have an applicant or project team that resolves those issues through changes or clarification of information that is provided.

Um, through the cycle, we had our traffic engineering with the data center.

There's not a lot of uh persons on site, uh, there's not a lot of trip generation, so very early on the decision was made that there was no traffic study that was required for this site and that the adjacent public infrastructure was sufficient for the proposed use.

Now, as we get into stormwater and the engineering development review, um both of those groups did require supplemental studies that were provided for the project so that the both the applicant could clearly explain to city staff how the proposed project was in accordance with city code and design manuals and specifications that the city has adopted.

For the specifically the engineering development review division, I will note we do rely on a third-party independent consultant, Colorado Geologic Survey to review that report.

They did provide a response back indicating that there was adherence or compliance with the city's regulatory process.

Now, in terms of Colorado Springs utilities, they did again as a review agency participated in that process.

I will note at the conclusion of the fourth review cycle, there were still certain matters and items that had been noted of concern or question, I should say, from the agency reviewers.

However, through dialogue with that reviewer as well as the design team, it was determined that the vast majority of those items or issues were really related to a construction drawing type of design or detail that could be provided at a subsequent stage should this project be approved.

And with that kind of decision, there was an acknowledgement through the approval administrative approval where conditions of approval were applied to the project.

Staff evaluated the current state of landscaping on the property with respect to its adherence to the current UDC standard and with the applicants agreement or willingness, I should say, to install the 30-foot screen wall, which is one of the buffering techniques that's allowed under code.

The compliance or determination was made that from a landscape and screening perspective that the site was adequately screened and buffering the adjacent residential use.

Now, kind of touching on the review criteria, because as I said, this is a major modification.

Really, from a staff's perspective, there's four criteria that we have to follow in our decision-making process.

Now, bear in mind within that four, those five four criteria.

Specifically, I'll kind of note one C on the screen there, which is a determination of adverse impact.

That's a pretty broad regulatory criteria, which actually allows city staff and agency partners to kind of fold into that bucket.

If you if I kind of frame that the best way possible, folds their kind of review authority in that kind of determination of adverse impact to make sure that there's no known or identified issues with the site or its proposed development scope.

In terms of the reviewers, they also kind of rely, or see staff in its review, I should say, rely on the agency reviewers under criteria 1A, which is really looking at the compliance provisions to the applicable sections of city code.

But I'll kind of touch on each of these here now in a little bit greater detail.

I'm certainly not going to read it word for word to you all.

But through the review process, in terms of criteria one, where we're looking at uh adherence or compliance with the applicable UDC regulations in city code, there was a ultimately through the administrative decision, we were able to arrive at the conclusion that the applicant and the design for the site had accurately depicted information and provided sufficient information and detail to ensure that all of the applicable, whether they're development standards, use specific standards for the project, were met.

Staff evaluated the historical record as it relates to entitlements on the site and found no such conditions or stipulations that would prohibit or restrict the use and the proposed changes that the applicant had sought for the project.

And so the determination again was made that they had complied with that criteria.

Also, I'll note in here as I as I previously discussed is the data center use that the applicant has proposed for the site is one of those similar uses that's identified as light industry, which was a previously approved use for the property.

Now, in terms of the adverse impact, I'm not going to touch on this a lot because I've got some other slides that are going to hone that a little bit more.

But as it relates to compatibility with the city's comprehensive plan, so Plan COS, we did an evaluation of the various uh typologies within Plan COS, and we're able to identify or determine, I should say, based on the site's location, uh, the proposed use that the project with its slight uh modifications to the property, uh, the continuation of the light industrial use as a data center, was consistent and compatible with the visions and goals of Plan COS.

Specifically, when we think of the thragment economy, uh, the Garden of the Gods corridor has always been identified, uh, honestly, going back to the envisioned kind of build-out of the property back in the 1970s, uh, which was envisioning a very robust kind of business park industrial center.

Many properties have been developed that way.

There is an evolution or transitioning occurring within that corridor today, where we're seeing a lot more consumer-based uh commercial users being developed or redeveloped to the east end of the corridor near I-25, but large by and large, as you kind of move west through the corridor, you get into the larger lots, larger properties where they are industrially developed, or there's large office uh complexes.

Now, specifically on that adverse impact criteria, one item of great importance, I think, for both the community as well as staff through the review was uh evaluation of whether the proposed project uh was going to be able to comply with the city's noise ordinance.

Uh so through that advert or that administrative review, we did request an acoustical sound study to be prepared by the applicant's team by their own in-house or third-party uh vendor to them.

They did prepare that for us.

Uh staff reviewed that uh three times administratively, asking for clarifications, questions, uh just to kind of hone the analysis within that document.

And then ultimately the decision was made uh to uh I should say send the some of the analysis to a city hired uh independent acoustical engineer uh to look at the analysis um the the numbers, the input, the output uh that was provided, and ultimately, both in the report and through the third party uh or the independent consultant that the city hired, a determination was made that both in daily operations uh the site will not exceed uh and knowing I should say, knowing that this is a 24-7 365 facility, uh so they are b uh beholden to nighttime sound limitations as well as daytime sound limitations, which are uh adjusted per code, but ultimately that evaluation or analysis determined that they could develop this site based on the scope of infrastructure that was proposed.

Uh the noise mitigation barriers that they were proposing around both the generator and chillery yards, which have uh an acoustical dampening uh component to them.

Uh and then as an additional kind of mitigation, while not directly uh spoken to within the sound plan because it was a last-minute kind of uh or a later addition, I should say, by the applicant team, the 30-foot uh sound wall on the south side of the property.

Uh so uh I'm sure both on the applicant side and the appellant side, they're gonna speak to kind of how noise transmits and and how that kind of can impact uh individuals' perception of noise.

Uh, but ultimately through the the review of that noise study and the independent uh evaluation of the noise study uh that was requested for the project, a determination was made that this would not be an adverse impact.

Um I'll also note as kind of a honing of that acoustical evaluation, um, as um, and actually I got ahead of myself here on this slide, but what you can kind of see on the screen is some kind of noted quotes from the city's independent noise consultant, uh, which is really kind of speaking to their methodology for the analysis uh in terms of the inputs for the the analysis as well as the outputs and whether it does align with the city code.

Um, as an additional layer on this, the city uh staff did look at and had our independent consultant look at uh the project's uh noise study with respect to the state's noise code, uh, which largely aligns with the local uh ordinance in terms of its decibel limits uh and how you have exceptions in certain emergency situations and so forth.

Um, the important thing to note from these two slides is that you know the city did conduct that did request a study, it was independently reviewed, and it was determined that it did comply with city code requirements from a noise uh emissions perspective, uh, given the type of use in terms of land use as industrial and the adjacent receiving land use as residential.

Uh I will note at the bottom of the slide is the applicant, because there was concern from the public uh through the review process of how the applicant and and ultimately with development of the site would have to comply with those regulations and some concerns or questions about the city's enforcement capability to mitigate any issues should they arise is through the process, and this is in in the commission's packet, as a stipulation of the approved development plan, uh the applicant did enter into a development agreement uh with the city that sets forth some performance uh measures for how uh the site should be improved, which align with the approved development plan, as well as performance measures for the establishment of a sound monitoring plan uh for the project and the posting of an assurance uh in the form of a million dollar uh financial uh bond security, some type of financial instrument to ultimately hold the property accountable if it's deemed that they are non-compliant and non-responsive to the city's efforts to address uh potentially the noise concern.

Um I'll let the applicant team speak more specifically to the parameters of the of the sound plan.

Um, there were additional issues uh raised through the public process uh that really again fall under that adverse uh kind of uh impact analysis.

And what I will note is uh staff really through this process uh did have to kind of flex the guardrails of what code allows because uh for many of the items on your screen as it relates to kind of the environmental air quality, um heat island effect uh types of impacts, is there's not very clear regulatory parameters in code today.

There's not clear regulatory standards in which the city would have to uh require a property or development to adhere to.

Um looking at the environmental side uh as it relates to uh significantly uh impacted uh flora and fauna, uh the city today relies largely on its hillside overlay and streamside overlay uh designations for property, which have fairly restrictive uh parameters in in kind of guiding how development and land use can occur on private properties that have been identified to uh contain those those significant flora and fauna.

I will note this property does not contain any of those overlays.

Uh and as well through the review, uh staff also looked at the uh prior entitlement record to see if there were any additional determinations or considerations that were of bearing that we needed to look at.

The only one that was noted, uh which I was kind of highlighted in a prior slide was really the geologic considerations of the site, uh which, as I noted, we did have a geologic uh study done to determine whether the proposed development would be impacted by the known hazards uh on the property, uh largely subsurface in terms of the composition of the soils and and rock formations in the area.

Uh ultimately that determination was made that none of the proposed improvements would impact that that currently known hazard on the site.

Um, from an air quality perspective, um the city to a degree is is largely limited in what we can do.

Uh air quality and emissions within the state of Colorado is administered uh by the Department of Public Health and the Environment and specifically their air pollution uh control division.

Uh they set the standards and the requirements.

Locally, we do not have any regulatory structure to govern govern or limit those emissions.

Uh through the review process, the staff did make inquiries to the developer uh as to you know their adherence to those uh state level requirements and mandates.

Uh they have acknowledged that post-decision and post kind of uh resolving any potential appeals or litigation on the property, that prior to development they will be seeking those state level uh emissions permits and approvals.

Uh again, they don't really, from a local land use perspective, kind of filter into our decision making process per city code.

Uh now from a heat island effect, the other uh kind of uh major concern that was raised uh from the public.

Um staff did uh a fairly extensive evaluation of comparable communities uh as it relates to this issue, uh both up and down the front range as well as nationally to identify what jurisdictions have such uh types of regulations or standards that they impose on most or on some development per their local codes.

Uh we didn't really find much of anything uh as it relates to uh any type of regulatory structure or guidance.

Uh and then after further evaluation uh looking at kind of the science behind it uh and the research is really it's in an untested area.

We all understand and know that from a from a development perspective, all impervious surface does generate a certain degree of heat island and does affect the local um uh kind of temperature uh of a certain uh locale.

Uh however, in reviewing this application uh and on a site that was vast or the vast majority of which was impervious uh prior to submittal, well and today I should say is is impervious through structures and asphalt uh is staff determined uh that there was no reasonable mechanism in code and no reasonable basis looking at our comparable communities uh for setting with this project specifically because we have have yet to establish such a standard for any development within the city, uh any type of heat island control or restriction.

Um so ultimately we were it was determined that that was not uh potentially an adverse impact that we could weigh as part of our review criteria.

Um now I will note uh again from that that last slide, which uh identifies the uh adherence to plan COS and the typologies.

Uh I had previously kind of touched on this, but this kind of gives you graphically uh an illustration of identification for the Garden of the Gods corridor.

Um the the site is noted there as part of that kind of thriving economy and seeing kind of the the maintaining of an employment sector uh for this corridor, even knowing that there's adjacent land use uh compatibility considerations uh that from staff's perspective in reviewing what was proposed by the applicant, uh we determined that that they had identified reasonable uh information to show conformance with Plan COS.

Um now pivoting from that administrative decision, getting into the appeal.

Uh this is just a quick informational slide in terms of the the fine main five main appellant groups.

Um staff is limited uh because I know there was a lot of public concern uh raised about who could appeal and and why members of the public that say, for example, lived out on the eastern side of the city could not uh appeal this application.

So while we do accept public comment through the entire administrative process and and of course collected that comment for the hearing today, um ultimately the parameters are uh for uh an individual or entity to be identified as an affected party, they have to reside within or or have a property interest within a thousand feet of a property, uh, or they have to have participated, uh basically establishing preserved standing.

They have to participate in public comment or conversation in the community and have to reside within a three-mile radius of a property.

So the stars on the screen identify for the five appellant groups uh and individuals their kind of uh adherence to that requirement in terms of the measurement, and staff did an evaluation prior to accepting those appeals to determine whether they had participated in the process.

Um the appeal criteria uh is also kind of an important thing for for today's conversation because really you know the the concern or question that is levied against uh planning commission uh as you all consider the the parameters of the appellants' appeals uh is really in 2A B and C as it relates to uh the administrative decision and and staff's review of the administrative criteria for that decision.

Um, as in terms of the compliance statement there, that's really just our staff level determination of noting that the appellants have established themselves uh as an effective party and the legitimacy of them to appeal the projects.

Um big picture, which I'm not gonna go into these in great detail, because of course the appellants are going to speak to their their reasoning and rationale for their appeals, uh, but generally speaking, looking at the documentation to that was provided to city staff, you know, really what it kind of uh lands on from staff's perspective uh as it relates to the the decision making criteria is really in the the effective party uh kind of component, uh I'm sorry, not affected, uh adverse impact to the community.

So kind of touching on some of those topics or subjects that I just presented on uh a moment ago, uh as well as kind of the the procedural steps that staff undertook in its review uh and its determination of uh major versus minor and and whether the the decision making should have been elevated from the start as opposed to uh acting on it at as we uh determined through our review of code at the administrative level.

Um I will note in that that vein though, staff did have the option through UDC to refer this item.

Um, but as a result of our reviews uh through those four review cycles, we ultimately chose uh not to refer the application uh because based on the information we were receiving from the applicant team and the design team, uh we felt there was uh reasonable confidence on our side to to be able to make that decision decision administratively and be able to uh effectively determine whether the project adhered to the applicable criteria or not.

Um so with that, um we do have, and I can slide through them here, but we can also bring this back up later.

We did provide the commission with optional motions, uh, which kind of speak to a variety of manners in which the uh commission could potentially act on the the property.

Uh I will note for the members of the public this information is not provided as a means to uh reinforce that a predetermined decision has already been made walking in here.

This is uh an effort that the city does provide to all decision-making bodies, whether it's planning commission or city council to help facilitate final decision actions.

So as I kind of flip through here, this is these kind of various motions.

Uh, do note you know, whether they would deny an appeal, whether they would reverse uh, you know, reverse uh an administrative decision.

They may choose to uh approve some of the appeals, but not all of the appeals.

So there's a variety of options that are ultimately provided to the commissioners as they go through their deliberation, and as you'll note uh specifically on these, is there's some gaps in here of information where they have to effectively opine on how they intend to proceed.

Uh so with that, are there questions of the commission?

Uh I will also note as it relates to some of the topics, specifically utilities uh pieces.

We do have utility staff present to be able to answer any questions uh if there's any at this time.

Otherwise, we can bring up that, uh, bring up any information later uh through discussion.

Thank you, Dan.

Uh do commissioners have questions for Mr.

Sexton or for city staff at this time.

Okay.

All right.

Yeah.

Look at my time.

Your time's up.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

We will then um move to the appellant presentations.

And we'll give you folks.

Uh sir, we don't take questions from the audience.

No, the uh sorry, when I asked if there were any questions, it was to the planning commission members.

We will not be taking uh public comment until later this afternoon.

And you can sign up to speak if you wish to do so.

So at this point, we'll move to the appellate hearings.

I'll give you guys a few moments to get yourselves organized.

There are some chairs here onto the stage right, I guess this is my right anyway, uh, for you to um take a seat.

And again, this is for appellants who have provided their names and information um to present.

This is not for public comment.

We'll be taking that again this afternoon.

Oh, good morning.

Give us just one moment.

Oh day, okay.

Okay, we're ready.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, thank you.

I want to make sure that um we just have everyone in the right order and so forth.

So the appellant um group as a total has uh 76 minutes of speaking time.

I understand that you guys are organized.

We'll make sure that we have names um as per the list that was provided.

Uh are there any changes that we should know about before you begin?

No, I have six minutes and I ceded half of my time to integrity matters.

Okay, perfect.

Give me one second, ma'am.

Dan, good salon, are you keeping time?

Thank you.

So if you want to read through 61258.

Perfect.

Okay.

Um thank you very much.

If you could state your name for the record, you will have six minutes, and thank you for being here.

Sure.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Katie Cloth.

I'm a biologist, botanist, herbalist, and paralegal, and I've been a resident for Colorado Springs for over a year, well over a year.

But I'm gonna put on my little paralegal hat today.

And I'm just gonna start out so people know what I'm talking about because we have six minutes.

This application should be denied as it is overall incomplete and does not comply with the UDC code 7.5516 D1 that you referenced, nor the plan COS adopted by the city in January 2019, which is found on your own website, Colorado Springs.gov slash plan COS, nor does it comply with the stage three, highest stage of emergency drought declared by our governor, Jared Paulis, as of June 4th, 2026, and you made your decision on this application that was originally submitted March 12th, 2026.

So I just want to remind myself and others, what we're appealing today is everything that was submitted March 12th, nothing after.

I don't care about the emails that came later.

That's not the appeal that we're talking about.

So we're talking about everything that the Raiden Incorporated submitted March 12th.

And this decision was approved by the planning, this planning commission June 11th, which is six days after the stage three emergency drought was declared in our state.

So let me say the proposed Taurus AI data center submitted March 12th, 2026, which is the um the application number D E P N slash 26-0039 to modify the development plan for approximately it says 21.96 acres.

Yes, I took this picture.

This is right behind where they want to build it, by the way.

It's Douglas Creek, is immediately adjacent to this facility.

And basically, um, this is 1565 Hyotech Way was approved by y'all, like I said, January or June 11th, on page two that was submitted to us by the city planner Daniel Sexton in charge of this project yesterday, July 22nd, 2026, on page two from the legal team from the applicant, Brownstein Hyatt Farber, and Shrep.

I hope I'm saying that right, LLP.

It says that they do not that it was approved by y'all, the planning commission, they do not see that this applicant would create more adverse impacts on the surrounding properties than the development approval or permit proposed to be modified.

Quote.

So I asked the planning commissions, because you're gonna have to respond to this, um, to prove that exactly in detail, not just like, oh, we're it makes sense.

No, you need to prove in detail in a legal way how this does comply with the UDC code, and you also need to, if you cannot prove that Raden Incorporated in their Raden Incorporated in their original application, March 12th, nothing after, we're talking legal here, does actually not does actually comply with UDC and will not um create adverse effects on the surrounding environment.

Um you could possibly approve it, but I don't think you can prove that.

So this should be null and void.

In addition, nowhere, nowhere in the original proposal, submitted March 12, 2026, not July 22nd, 2026, the one that we're appealing, nowhere in there uh is there any written information or written indication of an agreement in the original proposal that what Raiden plants do with the wastewater or waste toxic wastewater byproducts such as glycol, which cannot simply be put through the sewage system.

I cannot simply be put through the sewage system.

Excuse there is no bond as I indicated.

I'm taught I I'm explaining, I'm explaining myself, thank you.

Um there is no bond.

There was a bond that talked about the acoustic effects, nothing that talks about the wastewater effects.

There's nothing, there's no written information, there is no written promise, there is no written indication in the original application what they will do with this wastewater and their proposed 36 chillers, which says it could be up to 72 chillers in their computing facility, which we have found in Wyoming from Meta's 7100,000 square foot data center.

You can find it on Fortune.com, you can find it on Forbes.com, you can find it on Syracuse.com.

I could keep going, but I won't.

Um, that it released a rare bacterium that completely contaminated their city's water system because they tried to run the wastewater through the sewage.

Can't do it.

I'm a biologist, I went to school for 10 years.

You can't tell, you can't tell me that it's not going to do harm because you literally just admitted also in your own slides that you are.

There's basically in can in conjunction with heat islands, completely untested environmental effects.

Because at the time, yes.

At the time that um in 2020, when they talked about how this original site, 1565 High Tech Way, would be zoned for a microchip plant.

There was no like larger understanding of what data centers are and what they did.

And I would like you to explain how that fits into the UDC because I don't think you can, and that is on you to explain this.

We're gonna go back, we have it all written down.

Okay, okay, okay.

So also in January 19, in January 19, January 19th, January 2029, when you adopted plan COS.

This was with y'all, the planning commission stating that you will build a city to create a build a great city that matches their scenery.

When people think of matching their scenery, they think of Pike's Peak, they think of Garden of the Gods.

They don't think of a large compilation of computing facilities in a man-made box making large noises that also creates heat islands.

That is not why people come here.

272 million dollars, 272 million dollars is brought into the city by Garden of the Gods, not by uh an alleged data center.

People don't come here and they're like, let me see the data set.

Not happening.

And it's not in your own plan on your own website, Colorado Springs.gov slash plan COS.

That is your own wording.

That is your own plan, and you're not abiding by UGC, UDC code or your own plan.

So I would love to make an emotional appeal, but I honestly don't think you care, so we're gonna stick to the legal facts because we're winning.

Thank you, Ms.

Cross.

Please.

But it is up to you.

You need to answer these questions and a leader.

You need to this plan needs to be null and boost.

This class it does not follow these does not follow.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Ladies and gentlemen.

Again, the time to settle between speakers or clause during speakers only cuts into those speakers' time.

I will remind you of that.

I will I will ask for folks to be removed if you cannot maintain decorum, and I ask you to give respect to your own speakers.

Thank you.

Oh, thank you.

I'll start the clock myself.

My name is Nick Fallantine, and I am speaking asking the planning commission to appeal Project Taurus.

I go to Garden of the Gods every day, and I'm Springsborn, and that's how I learned of this very issue.

Driving on a weekly basis to Garden of the Gods, you could feel the presence of what's to come.

Not just the signs, but the awareness in the community.

We've heard loud and clear.

I'm not the only one taking today off out of my work schedule, taking time out of my life for research.

I'm not the only one who's awake of what is going on.

The noise pollution is very obviously an issue of data centers.

Every time you hear about a data center, those on the front lines are complaining.

They are in pain.

This is no issue that's fixed with an acoustic wall.

Data centers, you can't pull a depech mode.

You cannot enjoy the silence.

There is a consistent theme.

These residents have headaches, vertigo, nausea, ear pain, hypertension.

You're trying to raise your kids in that community.

Good luck.

You're gonna want to move out, and something may want to move in.

These complaints about data centers aren't even always about the level of the noise.

Who cares if it enters the city ordinance?

If this is so consistent for public health and well-being that the 24-7 noise is becoming dismantling for the well-being.

They are not able to enter the recovery sleep they need.

They even have constant ringing in their ears.

When they can't hear it, they feel it.

That's due to infra sound.

It's felt and not heard.

Infrasound begins below the audible acoustic spectrum, below 20 hertz.

And boy, does it hurt because infra sound has a different power in its structure?

Long wavelengths make it go beyond a mile, beyond many miles, hundreds of miles, without losing much energy at all.

In fact, you can see in the bottom right picture, an obstacle such as solid rock or even the hill at the proposed tourist data site will not stop infrasound.

It will pass and bend around through refraction diffraction.

It is not absorbed by air molecules.

This infra sound is powerful because it is even something that our bodies don't protect against.

Our cavities in our heart, our stomach, and our chest, they enhance and resonate this infrasound.

And it can cause illness and further symptoms that we saw in the earlier slide, where when you're constantly exposed to this resonating influence, even five hertz can resonate in your chest.

That is in the infrasound spectrum.

You'll be feeling the nausea.

You'll be feeling the vertigo.

If you move near a data site yourself, you would easily feel it.

The data is clear what is causing this.

The residents are saying, we don't know what happened.

We just feel different.

What happened was something new came into the land that wasn't planned for, that the community had yet to awaken up the consequence of.

I don't think this is a sound statement on sound because research was easily found to prove otherwise.

What is interesting is that this research I found was published in Noise and Health, June of 2021, well before today's date, five years ago.

And in this study, something else I think is very funny.

You'll hear the impacts of the study.

But even in their conclusion, they state numerous independent laboratory research from around the globe has been performed, resulting in similar findings supporting this conclusion.

This is not limited research.

This is easily linked to health impacts because this study they did in Germany.

Those undergoing heart surgery allowed tissue to be removed from their heart and put in vitro.

That way it could have electronic pulsations, creating a stimulation where it is a beating heart.

Two segments are created.

For two hours, one segment experiences no additional change.

For simply one hour, the other segment is given a hundred decibels on a zero-weighted scale of infrasound.

They even did 110 and 120.

Keep in mind, they started at 100 decibels on a zero-weighted scale.

That 100 decibels of infrasound at 16 Hertz is still going to fall inside the city's code.

It will be at 45 Hz on the current A-weighted scale.

And yet, in their research, they concluded that a hundred decibels on zero weighted of infrasound has negative effects on cardiac function.

Now we're understanding why hypertension is happening around data centers.

People aren't just feeling something, there is negative health consequence with a clear data linked to it.

And the danger already is that acoustic barrier will do no good.

We've already shown in the last slide.

Thank you.

Further, though, I want to recognize that this code, the UDC, the unified development code, is outdated.

It is using an A-weighted scale, which was made for barking dogs, loud block parties, and construction noise.

We have a modern world that was never foreseen, where the 365 24-7 chiller effect is infrared sound, not infrared sound, it is infrasound having a devastating effect.

So at a minimum, we need to reconsider the A-weighting.

A weighted scales purposefully cut out any infrasound.

Anything that we can't audibly hear is cut out, diminished, taken out.

Even a C-weighted scale would be meeting in the middle, where we would at least have some way of taking into account these lower frequencies that have a clear effect.

And when you speak of what law does this break, what is this effect?

Look back at the Noise Control Act of 1972.

One reason why the city even has a noise ordinance under 9.8.104.

It is declared it is the policy of the United States to promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.

This presentation, along with many others, you'll see the health and welfare clearly is jeopardized.

The noise is clearly pollution.

This is a problem.

Even 30 decibels on an A-weighted scale is the sound of silence.

So as you hear these applicants saying, this will only be at 40 decibels, 45.

Keep in mind our awareness of what those numbers mean is so skewed.

You will feel it when you hear it.

In conclusion, I'm asking the city commission to build trust with our community, not build noise.

You've received so much noise and emails and calls.

Let this not be your future.

Let this moment not be a stain in your past.

You can make a change that will better last.

Our community, the families, it'll be wiser for the future of our community.

You see those in our state.

Monument is heavily considering banning them, currently has a moratorium, as they even work on new zoning laws.

Why don't we do a moratorium and we work on changing our code?

There's time to build this bridge with the community.

Build trust.

And just continuing with a few more numbers, Jefferson County, another neighbor, 10-month moratorium.

Woodland Park, even closer, 18-month moratorium.

Boulder County, six-month moratorium.

We have our doors open, and there's a running theme of out-of-state companies coming in state and pulling out before people wake up and recognize the consequences.

Now's our time when people are awake where you don't have the pressure to be in the world arena yet.

Right now you're on a small stage.

Wait long enough, you'll be on a big stage with more eyes on you than you can count.

I respectfully ask you to decline Project Taurus.

One final note names are important.

Symbolism is important.

People don't name their child nothing.

They name them something for a reason.

Greek mythology shows Taurus is Zeus disguising himself to secretly kidnap Europa, a princess.

He this gets better.

This gets better, folks.

But wait, there's more.

We'll pull Billy Mays.

So when he kidnaps her to the island Crete, he wins her over with gifts.

Just as you were trying to be won over by radon, who's Zeus.

Zeus is lightning.

He is power.

You're trying to be won over by someone hiding who they are.

They will win you over with wonderful promises of tax revenue?

Is that all it is?

I was trying to come up with a better answer, and that's something I'm not trying to be rude here, but you understand that even if Zeus is able to win over a princess with gifts, their kids, two of the three, become rulers of the underworld.

So these kids, even if you get one kid who's giving you tax benefits, the two other kids are gonna be misery for the people and a stain on our community.

Let us say openly together, Project Taurus is not for us.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Valentine.

Uh next, integrity matters group, I believe.

And again, I appreciate the passion, but you're only cutting into your own time.

So please be respectful.

Thank you so much.

You are correct.

What?

Yeah, it's paused.

Yes.

We can pass them down.

Before we begin, or the record, I have just passed out Integrity Matters.

Can you use the microphone and state your name, please?

This is before we begin.

She's for the well, but I don't know if folks can hear what you're trying to say without the microphone.

Please restart the clock.

Before we begin, this is Integrity Matters objection to the waiver that the City of Colorado Springs signed for their attorney Brown Speen to also represent the applicant Raiden in these proceedings.

Were things pointed out by Brownstein.

Brownstein was the one who went after the appellants for whether or not they met.

Miss Gale, I think that this should be part of your presentation because this seems fairly informative and information.

So why don't we include that?

I don't think that this can be a precursor to your presentation.

This seems party to your discussion.

That's fine.

We can reset the clock.

That's fine.

We'll reset the clock, but I think that this should be part of your formal presentation.

Exactly.

Thank you.

Sir, I'm gonna ask you to be kind or to leave.

Okay, thank you.

So please set the clock with the case.

We will reset this clock and anybody that is speaking will need to introduce themselves into the microphone.

First and last name.

Thank you.

Trevor, do you have any other comments?

As to anything, I just I just want to make sure if you have anything else you wanted to add as we begin.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

Hello, my name is Catherine Kent.

Uh, I'll be introducing our appeal of the Project Taurus Development Plan, a major modification.

Uh, we're here today because a decision that changed the use of a 22-acre campus was made at a staff desk.

Uh, we're here to talk about what the code required and what the code does and what the record does not contain.

This presentation includes five consolidated appeals, 34 applicants with standing, appellants with standing, and seven independent grounds.

Our pro bono counsel, Kat Gale will get into more of that with you.

We wanted to express a huge thank you to everyone not being paid to be here today, and a thank you to the others who put in appeals and ceded their time to allow integrity matters to put forth a full and comprehensive argument.

More can measure it with the time the developer will be receiving.

Today you'll be hearing from me, Cat Gale, Deirdre Aidan Smith, and two experts, John O'Brien and John Forshi.

We're also joined today by Ron Grahambecker.

Say hi, Ron, who is spending his birthday here in support of the neighborhood.

We're hoping your birthday gift to him will be to send us back.

Ron's house was the first house on our block.

He moved there for the peace and quiet.

Ron is a 100% disabled housebound Army Special Forces veteran with a service dog.

The city planners have this information, but no one reached out to him about his accommodations and what needed to be done to protect him in these plans under the ADA.

All right, we're gonna see if I can get the slides to work, guys.

All right.

This is where I live.

You can see Chelsea Glen to the left up on the screen there.

This is my home, my neighborhood, and the place my husband and I envisioned raising our young children.

A football field to our north is the campus we are discussing in this appeal.

Here you can see that the loudest, hottest, and constantly running approved equipment on the site was placed on the side facing the houses.

When we moved into this community, this facility was meant to be a solar manufacturing plant.

When we moved and when many of my neighbors moved in, it was in Intel Chip Fab.

We understood and expected that it would be light industry.

The reason we find ourselves here today, well, specifically light industry, I'm gonna talk about that for a second.

Light industry refers to light industrial uses and complementary services that are clean, quiet, and visually unobtrusive.

Warehouse like buildings in industrial areas with limited public spacing activity is where the resemblance ends with data centers.

Many modern cities for the record treat data centers as a separate unique category.

Older or less specific or less specialized local laws place data centers under light industrial because they look quiet, while the opposite is true.

The reason we find ourselves here today is because while we also expected this would be light industry, we expected that the city of Colorado Springs would protect its people and enforce its own code.

I'll pass things over to Miss Gale to talk more about what this appeal is asking for today.

What we ask, we ask for a reversal or a remand, not that the commission redecides or approves de novo.

Every ground of our appeal rests on a documented record defect or missing finding.415C1.

What we do not ask is that it act in the first instance.

Slide.

A decision applying the wrong legal standard or resting on findings the record does not support would be an abuse of your discretion.

Section 7.5.415A7 has the entire planning department file becoming a part of the record.

That's the minutes, that's the maps, that's the emails, drawings, reports, and applications.

You are not bound to the June 11th decision.

That is precisely why we are here, because the June 11th decision was deficient on its face.

Slide.

Commands us to brief how the criteria for the relevant application have or have not been met.

And those are the criteria.

You cannot decide whether the decision was erroneous without examining the criteria it applied or failed to apply.

The city published a written criteria analysis on June 15th, four days after the decision.

If it cannot tell the appellate body the criteria are off limits.

Under 7.5.41582.

Affirmance of this decision requires every finding.

One ground alone defeats the approval.

Slide.

The code requires a development to protect public health, safety, and welfare.

The memo applied only Section 7.5.516D.

It never reached 7.5.409.

That is the criterion where this site's real hazards live.

30 to 60 diesel generators and fuel storage above the Douglas Creek Fountain Creek drainage.

72 chillers with their noise.

Your own comment claims no hazardous materials in use, while the approved plan shows the generators and fuel storage.

Slide.

This is the receiving property.

368 feet, one football field from these residences.

Figure 11 of our supplement sets out precisely which findings section 7.5.409 required and which are absent.

Slide.

A major modification acknowledged by the planner cannot be approved by staff.

A major modification may only be approved by the decision making body that approved the original using the same procedure.

B1 authorizes the manager to approve a minor modification only.

They've acknowledged it's major.

Filed on the major modification checklist.

June 15 memo says administratively approved as a major modification.

Twenty-five years of minor amendments inside the approved use.

That is the purpose of our entire UDC, which you have failed to remember today.

Okay, the slide.

Modification is measured against an operative baseline.

The instrument identified in that baseline is an amendment that appears nowhere in the record.

Slide.

Then we have another quasi judicial decided by city council.

Moving all the way up through August 8th, 1995, decided by the city council.

Then we come down to the baseline instrument where we have no document.

Remember the code requires a major modification to be made in the same way the original plan was established.

Here, it's a mystery.

Slide.

Um development plan.

Certainly not this amendment.

Slide.

An amendment is not an original, and its file contains no decision document.

It is undetermined.

Mr.

Sexton lacked the capacity, according to our own code to make a decision on a major modification.

Slide.

Thanks.

For access to the record, they stated that standing is determined by who made public comment.

The entitlement file was assembled while the public was supposed to be reviewing it.

The entire online file was posted a month before the first submittal.

The record of decision imposing three conditions one month before the decision found no prior conditions.

After the decision, during the appeal period, we discovered a number of documents with conditions that became part of our appeal.

There were conditions precedent, even in the administrative approvals.

Both Brownstein and the planner assert that there were no conditions.

That is incorrect.

Next slide.

Here let's hear it for the bees.

Very, very small temperature fluctuations can wipe out bees.

And the impact on other animals so far is anecdotal, but we need to put a moratorium on these until the science has been established.

What's the wall over ground that the city made unbuildable?

It's in a floodplain.

The owner shall not erect or construct any building or other structure binding heirs, successors, and assignees.

The corporate ridge plat labels that same quarter, no building storage.

The city's own April 2010 review letter required a no-build storage easement there.

Slide.

Hello, I'm Deirdre Aidan Smith.

I've been a resident of Chelsea O'Glen for 26 years.

And as Kate briefly mentioned, our community is home and is the home of many people that serve the city.

Teachers, police, fire.

My husband was employed by CSFD for 32 years before he retired.

I also have 20 plus years in commercial development, overseeing major construction construction projects in the city.

And I do want to thank the planning commission for their time.

I know your volunteers, and I am hoping that obviously your adherence to the city's UDC code and the facts we present will sway what has been made.

So the sheet before us, M201, this is what was actually approved by city planning.

It was in the last package that was submitted.

I had begun questioning in March when it was first posted what the mechanical was.

As I indicated, I do construction, so my history is based on data.

It's looking at what is the equipment, how will it affect a community, what feeds it.

So this is the sheet that was actually approved, and as you will note, it is over the amounts that the rest of the DP refers to.

It's 72 air cooled chillers and it's 60 generators, and it shows a load of a hundred megawatts.

So I do want to point that out.

The next page, please, slide.

After this was questioned, and I sent emails to both the city and I actually spoke to the developer about it.

I was informed there was some errors made.

So after the submittal or after the approval of June 11th, a corrected page was then sent.

So this is not stamped.

It was being given as a substitute for what was approved, and they have made uh taken out or saying that M201 is a mistake, and the substitute just states an office plan.

However, the thing I want to point out here is the disclaimers that were added on this page that the developer is wishing to swap to.

And it states that the second disclaimer states that it is to be included, but is not relevant to any other parts of the approved DP.

So that statement alone makes this page insufficient to any code because it is not supporting anything else that the city has already looked at.

So again, UDC, the code itself, chapter 7, does not recognize any error or mistake in a DP, and that if it is presented an error, typically the city planning will come back and ask that you resubmit, and they have to review that.

I state that from the many years of doing projects with the city.

We have had to resubmit drawings simply if we have two feet off on a patio that's encroaching into what would be a private or public, or if we have a change to a sign.

So this should not be a swap because that is not even ever approved anywhere in UDC in chapter seven.

Slide.

So again, we go back to the error.

So I have emails with both the developer and with the city on the fact stating that they can't, that these are errors.

Dan had stated to me that the record will not be revised as it would be interpreted as a subsequent plan modification.

And Jason had written an email to me because we had been in communication for months because he was working as a good neighbor with the community, stating that it was just an error by his design team, that really the city just needed to know what the office layout would be so that it could figure out parking.

That contradicts every other page of the DP because the first page of the DP submittal references parking and it's all based on building ratios.

It has nothing to do with the page that they're submitting as a swap.

So again, um the the city cannot have it both ways because both positions are stating that the page is incorrect and that there was a mistake because earlier parts of the DP reference a smaller load of equipment, but then again we go back to the fact that the equipment then is not being identified.

And the first part of um it is not typical in a DP that they have to state the equipment, but once that question is brought up, whether by the public or by the city, and it was brought up by Austin within the city planning department on the very first submittal that he needed to have details on the equipment because that is the only thing that determines both the impact of the community and obviously the noise and the energy requirements.

So this page is incorrect.

Slide.

This is so we're going to page 30.

No, actually, slide 30.

Sorry.

We have to jump ahead.

It's out of order in your presentation, and I apologize.

It's 30.

It's the city cannot have it both ways.

We've gone too far.

It looks like this.

Right there.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, so we go back to this.

The city cannot have it both ways because the or contradicting the facts is now actually a recorded covenant because they allowed the developer after the approval letter of June 11th.

The statement was released to the public that there would be further documents given by the developer that would be part of the approved plan.

Those statements were stated.

They did have documents released that they referenced to.

Dan spoke about it, the sound mitigation study, or what they're going to do to ensure that the public or the community is not affected, specifically our neighborhood, and then also the assurances that they put up.

So again, we're we're contradicting ourselves here because if M201 stands, which is what is stamped as approved, so it is now part of the DP, it is of record, it's stating that there's 72 chillers and 60 generators, and it's required a hundred megawatts at a minimum.

None of the sound studies that have been done by any party, independent or the three by the developer, are based on that number of equipment.

So the DP on that fact alone cannot go forward because the studies are not supporting what was presented.

On the other side, if the city is saying, Oh, I'm sorry, this is a mistake, and as the developers say, then they have to go back and they have to go through the process that they've required most of us in the city to do, which is that they have to then ask that the developer submits a new mechanical page reflecting the correct amount of equipment that is substantiated by their own noise studies, and that is capped at the 50 megawatts that he has repeatedly told the public that is all he will ever need.

So that was supposed to be the amount that will ever be needed at this site now and in the future.

And then the documents that he has presented that the city have tied assurances to have to be revised to be based on that.

You can't have it both ways.

And at that point, I'm going to go to something that came to us last night.

We've done numerous core requests, and there was one that was just released last night from CSU, and I don't unfortunately have it in your packet due to the timing.

CSU literally just gave it to us yesterday.

So I'm going to have to read it.

So I apologize for that.

So I am entering into the record a mechanical and electrical design package for Project Tours prepared by LE Design Group, project number 25188.

Calvertal Springs Utilities produced it to me under the Open Records Act.

There are seven sheets, M200, M201, E200, E202, E204, E300, and E301.

To explain that for everyone here, M is for mechanical.

It would list all the equipment.

E is for electrical.

It details what electrical needs are needed to support that equipment and what they're asking CSU for, which is why it was presented to CSU.

Every one of these pages carried the same keynote block.

72 chillers and 60 generators.

Two data halls, a mod one at 50 megawatts, and a mod two at 50 megawatts.

The date on those sheets is December the 15th, 2025.

It is the same date on the approved page that the city accepted, M201, which states this exact same detail.

These were prepared for the developer three months before the application was filed.

Again, one of those sheets, M201, is the sheet that the city stamped and approved.

I'm just going to shortly go through a timeline.

On June 29th, I asked the Rayden's president, which is Jason, by telephone.

We have a verbal conversation.

He tells me that I don't know how to read a mechanical design and that I must be misunderstanding the facts.

I said, Well, I've not built a data center, but I'd be happy to look at a different drawing.

And he states that he'll get me the new page tomorrow, and that that was just a mistake by his design team.

On July 1st, the city planning writes that the information was presented in error and only intended to reinforce the square footage allocated to office space.

And the same email, Dan states it will not be revised as it would be interpreted as a subsequent plan modification, which would impact each of the appeals, and that city planning has discussed possible solutions with the applicant, which will be presented at the appeal hearing.

So they're already addressing solutions, ignoring what is required by the UDC code.

On July 1st at 9 40 that night, the applicant or developer writes me and states, for reasons I still don't understand, one of Ray's contracted design firms provided that drawing.

He says it's a mistake.

On July 3rd, city planning, not to us, this is a core record, states that the same page represents a blunder, and that Raiden will prepare a replacement slide for tonight.

Those are core requests, those are emails that we received.

On July 12th, now it is non-applicable information from an early due diligence stage before material discussions with CSU.

Yet the package went to CSU in December.

So somehow those mistakes existed for three months or more, actually, five months before being cut.

So it's a mistake and it's a blunder.

It's non-applicable information according to the developer in the city.

So I had three different answers in 11 days in one page.

And that page is still in the approved plan today.

So I asked for the mechanical design March 17th or March 17th.

I asked the city.

I spoke to Austin.

I also asked the developer.

I was told the equipment would be ordered later, and that due to confidentiality, he could not detail the actual equipment specs.

The city says that correcting that sheet would be a new modification.

If that is true, then that sheet is material, and you are being asked to affirm a plan the city itself says it cannot fix without starting over.

This commission should not go forward on this.

Good morning.

Thank you all for being here this morning.

Thank you, Commissioners.

My name is John Forshi.

And I'm John O'Brien.

And together, John and myself will be speaking briefly about the slides that we're gonna see dealing specifically with sound uh and infra sound and the omissions from the report.

I would just like to uh make a note that John and I have submitted for the record a copy of the DL Adams and Associates sound study with commentary with comments uh included by Michael Hankard himself, who is the president and principal of Hankgrade Environmental.

And if you look through the comments, which are included interposed between the pages of this document, you'll see his own um not glowing assessment of this record.

Rather than go through all of his comments, of course, we've submitted his comments for the record, and I would just like to bring the attention to a comment from page 12, where finally the report by DL Adams and Associates includes a table of useful data.

And Michael Hankard himself finally acknowledges this is good detailed information.

If the rest of this report had similarly detailed information, I could independently audit this analysis, which is to say he was not able to independently audit the analysis based on the lack of data inputs, omissions, vagaries, and inconsistencies that he identifies throughout the rest of the document.

First off, Moy's compliance was judged against the wrong uh limits.

Uh an independent acquisition uh says oh, sorry, I'm looking at the wrong thing.

The compliance finding uses the wrong yardstick and then measured the wrong machine.

Compliance was measured against light industrial limits, not the state residential floor, a for-profit operator cannot exceed.

Also, the periodic five dBA reduction was omitted.

The residential night floor is 45 dBA.

Uh, we've talked a little, and I'm glad to have heard about the uh inconsistencies introduced using only an A-weighted decibel scale.

And that model ran 36 chillers at around 50 megawatts, never the approved 72 chillers at a full 100 megawatts.

Slide.

Um is anybody falling asleep yet?

Okay.

Um just to bring this all uh who likes corporate jargon?

Anyone?

No.

Uh great.

Let's circle back, right?

The point of this and point of us presenting is the fact that we have seven grounds to dismiss and stop this appeal.

So we have seven.

Myself and the other John here are covering uh G3 and G6.

If you can look back at the beginning of our presentation, compliance of sound, right?

The sound study was done incorrectly, right?

Um this perfect uh thing here is saying like you look at our presentation, you look at the sound study, it has many contradictions of the free cooling scenarios.

It has contradictions throughout it, and they all prove that the sound study can't be used to prove compliance.

So that's our main grounds, circling back, right?

Bringing it to this ground for dismissal.

Their own documents describe that the facility is running most of the time.

Uh and while the compliance case assumes it runs quiet.

The compliance rests on the reduced load free cooling scenario, and the applicant's own record describes 70-75% of continuous operation spiking to 100%.

Their June 21st email concedes the economy mode is only available about half the year.

Slide.

We have another completeness gap.

72 chillers appear on the approved plan and were never modeled at any load.

So these 34 chillers validated by the city's peer reviewer at 75% load.

The 72 chillers on the approved M2 M201 never modeled at any load.

This is a completeness gap, not a dispute of predictions.

However, a compliance finding for equipment never analyzed is not supported by competent evidence in the report in the compliance report.

Slide.

So again, sorry, circling back.

Um this entire thing rests on many criteria.

All of the criteria and assumptions have not been adequately adequately put into the report.

There are there is no assumption section in the report.

They don't clearly state what they used, how they used it.

They don't have the right elevations for our house right at the end of Chutney Court.

They use a main receiver point five houses downhill from us.

So if they want to claim line of sight, the whole line of sight and elevation part was not accounted for.

So it could easily reach our house or further up in kissing camels.

And this one in particular is a major one.

They try and use a variable in the calculations of gravel or something zero to reduce the reflections of all the noise coming off of the chillers.

And that's an incorrect assumption.

They need to use point uh one or at least 0.5 because it's paved, which is what M201 and all of the other mechanical and plans call out in the plans.

They call out a different variable that is used in this acoustic study.

So it's completely invalid.

And this entire thing is resting on at least this and all of the other data that we don't have.

We can't confirm any of it, and no one else can either, because it's completely incomplete.

To say it so short.

For ground three, again, propagation.

Um, as we've heard a little already this morning, barriers lose effectiveness beyond about 400 feet.

Low frequency slips through.

Night inversion carries sound over the wall.

And I don't think that we can overstate the damaging effects of long-term exposure to low frequency noise and infrasound.

Uh these long, long propagation sound waves go right through any barrier, uh, especially barriers close to the sound source.

They travel for miles and miles, and they literally have been shown to vibrate the organs in our bodies.

Not to mention the havoc that the low frequency noise and infrasound wreaks on the ecosystem.

As we've pointed out, we're close to the longhorn ram, the long horn sheep, um, birds, a beautiful environment, all of the inhabitants of which will be affected by the propagation of this 24-7, 365 days a year, infrasound, low frequency noise.

Um looking again at propagation, uh Dudex Ford Amphitheater, for example, uh field modering measured community sound at the as the sound the predictive studies did not capture.

The same predictive versus measured gap is the same at issue here with Project Taurus.

So almost a repeat of some of the noise and noise pollution that we hear with the Ford amphitheater.

Slide.

Um so this I this is directly from the sound study, this this chart.

Uh I drew the red squares uh very very professionally, I might add.

Um you can see uh all of the frequencies of lower than about 200 hertz, well above the limits.

If we ignore for just a minute the whole five decibel reduction and all the uh codes, everything below 200 hertz is above the city limits.

So if you want to listen to anything below 200 hertz 24-7, this data center is gonna do it by their own flawed biased report that cannot be proved or validated.

Um so we're gonna split this slide if you want to cover the DBA D V C.

Sure.

Um, as we've heard already a little bit, the the metric for measuring the sound output of the data center is totally skewed.

Using A-weighted decibel scale, uh approximates the thresholds of human hearing.

So anything above uh 20,000 hertz, anything below 20 hertz more or less will not be captured using the DBA scale.

Now we've pointed out that uh the C-weighted uh decibel scale is a non-filtered uh scale that captures all sound pressure fluctuations, even below 20 hertz and above 20,000 Hertz.

And there might be the argument that it's not the industry standard yet.

Why cannot Colorado Springs be a trailblazer in this regard and conduct DBC level measurements of the infrasound and noise that's being produced?

Um just as a quick note, DBA certainly discounts the low frequencies that dominate data center noise, unweighted.

Unweighted, the 63 hertz band is a sustained 88 decibels with no abatement.

And 88 decibels is louder than your refrigerator, it's louder than the washer dryer, it's a constant noise band that we're going to hear.

And on that note, um I'll try and hurry up as much as I can here.

Um the weights and averages, so on that previous slide, anything under 200 hertz, you saw well above.

And I know that the city limit, you need one number to go by.

And to get that number instead of just using the highest values, it uses an average of all of them.

So if you go back one slide, um if you get the 4,000 hertz and you average it with 63 hertz, you're gonna get an average in the middle, which is nice and low.

That seems like cherry picking to me.

There's got to be another way to get these values.

So even if you use their own study, which this is using.

It's finding a number that suits them.

So our low frequency, just moving on, uh, low frequency kinetic energy goes straight through a walls.

We've described that multiple times.

All these sound barriers uh are great.

They're a great uh start uh to trying to abate the sound, but the low frequencies go straight through it.

They shoot straight through it like a bullet through paper.

They're they're not gonna stop anything at those low frequencies.

Umid mounds of dirt, concrete might help uh lower frequencies, but the infrasound they won't do anything for.

So at a bare minimum, if we're gonna use the DBA scale, we need more uh uh a better way to get a number or use the maximum values, and we need better uh walls.

So it this this current analysis that is biased in my opinion uh and incomplete uh needs better analysis, better standards, and um the code needs to change to accommodate for absolute power, which is the DBC scale.

The weighted scale is just way, way too biased.

Um if you want to go to slide 30.

And we'll do 31 here.

We're done.

Okay.

Um that we've pointed out.

Temperature inversion.

Normally uh cooler air rises, we see snow on the snow peaks, not on the ground.

Temperature inversion is when that dynamic is flipped, and we have a layer of cold air against the ground, sandwiched between the ground and a layer of warmer air above it.

In these circumstances, and this isn't a this is a scenario that happens frequently at night, especially at our altitudes, uh cold air will have sound move slower but farther.

And because of that upward band of warmer air in this kind of inversion scenario, sound waves are pushed down into the colder air, so they propagate farther along the surface of the earth.

So, what that means in daily life is we could hear a highway under these circumstances that is miles and miles away, which we would not normally be able to hear if inversion was not at play.

Uh also the deepest sound of the chillers makes enters the model as zero, which we've discussed using this A-weighted decibel scale.

The chiller's 31.5 hertz rumble enters the model as zero.

The deepest low frequency bypasses the barrier uh completely at 63 at 63 hertz.

Slide.

And this is this is kind of just uh repeating what we've already said.

The lowest frequencies are skipping straight through the sound barrier, so we can move on.

I have one last comment to make on that issue of temperature inversion, something else not uh monitored or accounted for in the uh DL Adams Associate study is uh wind.

Uh sound and sound waves are pushed downwards downwind so that we hear more sounds and louder sounds farther away if we're downwind from the source, fewer sounds, less energy if we're upwind from those sounds.

So think of temperature inversion and wind factors, two huge factors in our environment and in our community here, not accounted for, not studied, not reported on at all in the existing compliance study.

And sorry, one last thing that is very important.

Um, the sound study is also contradictory because it calls out that the sound barriers need to be full to the ground.

And then the second sentence after that is says louvers need to be accounted for.

Louvres are openings in the sound wall that have much less, 20 decibels less sound abatement than the rest of the wall.

They don't even account for that.

The entire study is done using a free online tool that cannot account for louvers or doors or openings in it whatsoever.

There, I went to the site myself.

I tried to uh analyze it, even paid version.

You cannot add louvers or doors or openings to this thing.

And according to the fire department, you need doors to open and get to them.

Um so it the louvers are not accounted for, and there are a much, much less sound reduction for the transmission rating uh than the rest of the wall.

So another reason why the sound study is terrible, and uh a professional company needs to use professional software, not free online tools to evaluate the sound propagation.

Deirdre Aidan Smith, I'm back here for a few moments, and so we're gonna go back to the grounds, and so round four, compared comparative impact.

There's two points here that we want to make.

One is that um the whole point of that is that the June 11 record contains no comparative evaluation of the new fire, fuel storage, or hazardous materials or spill risk.

The prior use, uh, the former semiconductor fab and later the Bitcoin ran all their on-site electrical through a building, a substation, and utility feeds.

There was no outdoor um diesel or generator installation.

So, just as a quick reference again, I'll go back to the drawing that's also been in the packet.

So these buildings that um the city referred to as minor, they're actually quite large, they're between 12 and 20,000 square feet, and so those are being demolished.

And so these used to house the electrical, and then none of that was exposed that was part of the original BP, and that's in all of the documents through there.

And so these are being demolished, and you're going to go to exterior yards that have all the chillers.

They're sitting them in the setbacks, so we are violating many things that were in the BP for that business park, but in addition, they're being stored outside.

There's no comparative analysis of what that risk will be to the community or to the homes that are 368 feet away.

Um, so that is a failure in the code.

Um, the going back to that comparative impact analysis again, the um modification is removing the surface parking buffer that's been recorded on the property since its first um use, and they're then installing the chiller, and at one point they had the generator yards before it was moved.

So those are now on the south side.

The chillers are facing the homes.

That BP, the business park rezoning, cut the rear setback from the 50 feet it had been since the beginning documents to 25, and it eliminated the 30% lot coverage cap.

The city did not weigh any of this against the prior use.

So again, that comparative analysis is not there.

So this is what adjacent means.

It's 368 feet to the nearest home.

So that is where both sound, noise, heat, whatever you want to call it, it's going to go there.

And the slide I put up here is just an example.

If this is within the lot, so this is where the development, where the chillers and the other equipment will be when that building's gone, and that is how close the neighborhood really is.

So that is the backyard for someone.

So that is adjacent, and then the next slide.

The 45-foot wall, we're just talking about that.

That is actually now on the north side because then the generators were moved.

So that 45-foot wall is either hiding 30 generators or it's hiding 60.

That one's quite clear since the mechanical page is incorrect.

So the scale of that obviously is much higher than the housing in that neighborhood.

So the next slide, please.

Two to two days before the hearing, the city confirmed that the reviews didn't exist.

So the city has stated that in a core, the project is not far enough along to have any hazardous materials, fuel tank, generator, water supply, hydrant, or fire life safety reviews.

However, so none of those things have been reviewed, but yet we're approving it.

So I'm not quite sure how we got there.

And lastly, we go back to the ground five of the UDC, which is the equipment is size for 100 megawatts.

Again, it's never been specified.

I go back to my March request, which is all I needed to know is the data.

I just need to know the equipment.

We have contradictory information being presented, but what is approved is the 72 chillers, the 60 generators and 100 megawatts.

Thank you.

Section 7.2.401A divines the business park zone as operations that are quiet and clean, protect the occupants from unintended and adverse noise.

The properties that are there now are El Paso County's building, Colorado Technical University, and a food processing plant that makes a thickening agent for people like my mother who had ALS who cannot swallow without the thickening enhancement.

All of those are quiet industries.

None of them have an impact.

An example, they have just changed the UTC to include data centers in the light and industry definition.

Light industry is industry that is engaged in the manufacture or processing of finished products from previously prepared materials, commercial bakeries, dressed beef processing, bottling, apparel assembly, electronics manufacturing, and print shops.

And somehow, one of these things is not like the other.

Data centers got dropped just right in there.

When we're going for the data center that was first mentioned as data center and office space, they had 602 parking spaces allocated to the building.

That was on their own development plan number one.

On development plan number two, submitted on April 22nd, 2026, those parking places were reduced to 16.

Data center development plan number three, submitted May 27th, two weeks before the approval, 10.

When we spoke to Jason of Raden, he said there may be five employees.

So this is not bringing jobs to Colorado Springs.

He didn't do it.

Section 7.2.401C says former PIP parcels can be exempt from the land use plan requirement only when the manager determines the development is not of an unanticipated size or intensity.

We found with thousands of dollars of Quoras, no assessment of size or intensity, no determination whatsoever.

Again, a gap in the record.

It needs to be remanded and evaluated fully.

One more.

Okay, so the point we're making in a community context, what facilities this size do.

We have Great Oak, Virginia and Warranton, Virginia, Amazon, and these projects are half the size of ours.

But the strongest precedent is this site itself.

When we had 3G Ventures Bitcoin operation between 2018 and 2022, the city measurements were constantly 48 to 50.5 decibels at or over the residential night limit.

Same building, same neighbors, a government measurement.

Skip two.

This is going back to our number of generators, number of chillers, and the effectiveness of the studies that they proposed.

Slide 50, the three walls.

On grounds three and ground six, we have three walls.

The only document that recites the criteria describes only one, the 30-foot south perimeter over the quarter burden by the 1981.

No structure easement running to the city itself.

June 15th memorandum, the only document recites the criteria describes the 30-foot wall.

The dimensional standards of part 7.4.2 were never applied to any of these three walls.

The chiller large, chiller yard noise mitigation, the generator yard noise mitigation, and take noise seriously.

Anybody who lives on the west side knows what happens when demand exceeds supply.

Almost 6,000 homes were without power.

That is what it is.

24 7 to maintain the temperatures needed to preserve the chips.

Okay.

Um, could you take me to slide 53 where the heat goes?

We have 100 megawatts of heat that is being rejected into the air beside these homes.

The record contains not one calculation about heat.

This goes back to needing a moratorium until we understand heat islands, heat impacts on the community, on our environment, on our own businesses.

I was telling you about the food processing plant that is producing food for vulnerable population.

These people need a clean fuel supply.

Their generators are going to have to run higher, longer to run filtration systems because no longer can the air they pull from outside be used without extra scrubbers because we now have a diesel field next door.

Okay, so we have slide 58, please.

We have seven independent grounds.

Seven affirmances requires them to sustain every single finding.

Each ground alone defeats the approval.

Affirmments requires every finding the record supports none of these.

We went from seven grounds.

Within each grounds, we added counts.

When we added the supplement, we are now up to 115 reasons that this administrative approval fails.

We are volunteers.

We use due diligence.

We expect the same of the city.

Just as a reminder, you have a little shy of five minutes on the clock.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Being in charge of the clicker is tough, guys.

All right.

So what we're gonna talk about here is the fact that the industry does not dispute the premise of what we're talking about today.

The co-chair of the president of the United States Council on Advisors on Science and Technology said this month while talking about data centers.

You obviously don't want to put these things right next to a residential area.

I mean, I probably don't really need to say more than that, but I'm going to.

There have been, we've heard a lot of false dichotomies related to Project Taurus.

Um, one of the more distorted ones is that you somehow don't support the military if you don't support this data center.

Uh however, two things can be true at once.

It can be true that the president of the United States is prioritizing AI while at the same time, it can be true that this is not the right location for a data center.

Where Ron, my neighbor and I come from, humans are more important than hardware.

All right, I'm gonna go through this as fast as I can.

We won't get into this too much, but this is meant to be um illustrative, not one of our grounds, but the costs for project tourists in many ways fall on the community, and I'm not just talking utility rates.

I'm I'm tracking the large load rate, so please bear with me on this one, guys.

You can see on the slide that national data center demand is a primary reason for a 23 billion dollars in customer price increases lasting through the end of 2028.

While Colorado Springs is at least one of, I think like 36 utilities that have adopted large load tariffs, industry analysts cautioned this may not completely protect resident customers from data center-related costs.

The rate structure addresses direct infrastructure and cost shifting, but infrastructure costs can be hard to isolate.

Without regular studies and strict enforcement, it's missing the teeth that it needs to be truly effective and address indirect effects like tighter regional power supply and demand balances and things like that.

I'd go more, but I don't want to take up the time.

CSU acknowledges it's facing significant pressure with inquiries from projects requesting hundreds of megawatts of power with some of the prospective projects ranging somewhere between 500 and 600 megawatts.

And that's against a system that currently operates sort of, I believe, at best uh 1400 megawatts.

So we ask that the commission recommend a moratorium on data centers to city council.

Examples from Colorado Springs and across the country tell us who bears the costs of a hyperscale data center.

The ratepayers.

We're already on energy-wise and smart energy, and I know I'm not the only one in my neighborhood who had their thermostat go up to 80 over the weekend, right?

A deliberate pause is needed for the city to understand how a hyperscale data center will cost the people that they're meant to protect.

The impact on their wallets, their homes, their health, and their ability to live the lives they thought they were signing up for when they heard that Colorado Springs was one of the best places to live two years ago.

Um you want to take over, you want me to close up.

Yeah, all right.

I'm not the professional, but I'm gonna try.

Uh in close, we ask for a moratorium to be established.

The reality is that everyone on the grid will pay the cost, even with the large load tariff until the science is clearly studied.

And as you heard in the city planning opening, the regulations and the studies haven't caught up to this.

So we asked to reverse the June 11th approval and send it back for a full processing before this commission at a noticed hearing, and that all the size and intensity determination be on the record.

Anyone else?

Thank you.

That ends the integrity matters question.

Thank you.

Okay, uh, can we have some order in the room, please?

Um Are you part of the integrity matters group?

I excuse myself from integrity matters um as my constitutional right.

I'm allowed two minutes today to speak as a member of Kissing Camels.

You can do that during the letter here.

Yeah, you can do that during public comment later this afternoon.

This time is for the appellant group and only those that were associated with the appellant.

Uh did you file an appeal with the city, ma'am?

I have a letter here.

Can you tell me your name, please?

Excuse me.

Can you tell me your name?

Cynthia Hurwitz.

Okay.

Hold one moment, please.

Yeah.

I sorry, there's a little bit of confusion going on.

Uh, Trevor Gloss of the City Attorney's Office.

So um, as part of the appeal procedure, each appellant group is given certain amount of time.

Um, your appellant group was written or represented by integrity matters.

There were 34 people that signed on to that appeal.

I have a letter here state from Dana stating that since I chose to become my own appellant, I have a two-minute window to talk.

You do, and that is due to the you all.

You do, and that is due to the during the public comment period.

Because you removed yourself from the appeal, uh, you were no longer technically an appellant, a member of the public, and so you speak during the public comment period.

Uh we apologize for the confusion.

We're just trying to keep the meeting in the correct order.

Point of order, we did in fact have two minutes left when Kate sat down.

Oh, if you is already folks, please.

Please.

Thank you.

Because she has already waived her part of the appeal uh or her appearance.

Oh, excuse me, yeah.

Her involvement with the appeal, uh, she no longer has standing as an appellant to speak.

Um we don't really have the basis to go back and forth after you've waived that right.

Um just there is still time during public comment, so I mean, you'll you will have an opportunity to speak during public comment.

In fact, the code provides that if members of the appellant group don't choose to be represented by the attorney, which she has not, she withdrew from the appellant group because you said that if she were part of the appellant group, she would not be allowed to speak.

There have been lots of conflicting.

Ms.

Gale, we already went through this.

Uh the legal analysis is the same.

It's she has time during the public comment period to speak.

She's no longer in.

That's me.

That's him.

Mr.

Gloss, this this letter was written to you yesterday by Dana.

Yes.

I did not receive any rebuttal from you at that time.

We replied directly to Ms.

Dugan.

Um, I apologize if she did not forward the email to you or include you on it.

She said, and Mr.

Sexton, please add this to the record.

So according to what I'm receiving, I have every right to stand here right now and and speak for two minutes.

We have two minutes during public comment.

You can speak during public comment.

Pardon me.

You can speak during public comment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, see you, which means hello in Cherokee.

Ma'am Cherokee native.

Ma'am, yes.

Ma'am, your time is going to be during the public comment section, not now.

So we'll ask you to come back to the stage later this afternoon when we start public comment.

Melissa, can we make sure that she maybe is in um maybe we put her first?

Absolutely.

Okay, we'll have you be the first speaker when we start public comment.

That'll be a little after 1 p.m.

But folks can either be part of an appellant group or they can be part of public comment, and unfortunately, they can't speak in both roles.

So that's the distinction that we're making, and that was the what the email was intended to clarify.

So we will make sure that you have your two minutes this afternoon.

Thank you.

I appreciate very much.

This is just in this is being very consistent with what has been presented today.

It's where there are so many holes in the process.

We apologize.

Trying to organize a hearing this large also has been very difficult.

Thank you.

Uh, and we will reconvene in ten minutes.

Or we can add to the right.

Ladies and gentlemen, we're gonna try to come back to order.

It definitely looks like our crowd is a little sparse, so if you uh have a friend in the lobby, let them know.

We're gonna start soon.

Thank you.

I'm gonna call the planning commission meeting back to order after our break.

I think it's been seventeen minutes.

Thank you for your patience while we took that recession.

Uh before we begin again with the applicant presentation, I just want to go ahead and again review.

Please treat everyone with respect.

Do not interrupt speakers or shout from the audience.

Please refrain from applause, cheering, booing, or other demonstrations.

So every speaker has an equal opportunity to be heard.

Given that all the speakers have limited time to speak, we are anticipating this to be a long hearing.

Please just cease from loud demonstrations or cheering.

It only takes time away from the speakers.

And we want to make sure everyone has equal opportunity.

So with that, are there any other comments from staff?

Or do we just want to call up the applicant to begin your presentation?

You'll have seventy-six minutes to speak in equal accordance, and please state your name for the record as you begin.

Thank you for everyone who is making time to be here and to speak.

And I think this is a really important focus for us today.

So this is not a rezoning hearing.

And I know the planning commission here is a lot of rezoning hearings.

To say that again, the zone district is BP, and it is a use by right expressly named in the code.

And it has been since 2023 when the city updated its entire zone code.

It was not dropped in recently, it has been in your code expressly named since that time.

So the question before you today is whether city staff properly reviewed and approved administratively the major modification to the development plan.

And you, I think know what a development plan is, but for others, this is like a site plan.

This shows where the buildings are, where the parking is, where the landscaping is, and development plans change over time.

Um you have different users, different owners, and they have different needs.

And so the city regularly reviews development plans and either minor modifications or major modifications to those.

And in fact, for this plan, which um the original plan that we're looking at is from 2010, it has been amended or modified nine times since that because different uses have had different needs.

And so that is a pretty common process.

So on appeal, which is what is before you today, the planning manager evaluated criteria and approved that development plan modification.

So the appeal has those specific criteria that staff walked through, and I will touch on them again during our presentation.

But I want to be clear that the appellants bear the burden, and they have to establish that the manager of the city planning department's decision was contrary to the code, was in error, or was contrary to law.

And that's where you focus your analysis today.

And we believe that when you look at the administrative decision, the city approval letter, the staff report, the applicant submissions and the rounds of comments and questions that the applicant went through with city staff to modify and change the plan, especially in light of um community feedback.

We believe that that shows that that approval was quite thorough and proper and it should be upheld.

So with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Jason to talk a little bit more about Raden and the project.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you, the commission.

Thank you to everybody for came today.

Um we have a lot of slides, but we're not going to dwell on all the slides.

What we wanted to do is make sure that within the public record, a lot of content and a lot of information was made available.

We want to make sure that as we go through discussion points later today that there's material that we can reference and focus back to.

So I'm gonna skip through slides, I'll just make a mention of what it is.

But the real point and focus here is to reference exactly as Caitlin talked about, the nature and the basis of the appeal.

So let's begin with who we are, and we're gonna start with what Raden is and what Raden does.

Um Data Centers are literally storage facilities for computers.

If you've never been to a data center, and most people haven't, most people don't even know where a data center is, and they don't even know what it actually looks like.

It's just typically a big box.

It's got some equipment that's outside.

But invariably the computers that manage basically all of our lives, they're built off of the ability to get power and have a very environmentally sensitive location for them to live.

Computers just don't like a lot of heat.

They like to make sure that they get quality power and they have to be in a secure space.

What you're seeing on the screen is a single computer.

We actually refer to those as pizza boxes because it looks like a pizza box.

And the rack that you see to the right of it is what houses those pizza boxes.

So inside of a data center where the power and the cooling is conditioned, we install a number of these.

They're organized very tightly.

And the reason for that is that there's different layers to how technology works.

The computers have to have an orientation and a specificity.

So there's a tremendous amount of engineering that goes into one of these facilities.

We are not a real estate company.

We're also not an electrical and engineering company or mechanical engineering, we're all of the above.

When we look for buildings, and we're a little bit different than many other data center companies that operate facilities, design, build, and operate, is what we call an adaptive reuse business.

Meaning we like existing buildings.

We don't build monolithic gigawatt style campuses like these.

Somebody referenced earlier a meta facility in Wyoming.

We don't do anything that big.

Our focuses are on facilities that actually deliver services directly to the locale, to who's actually going to need the term is really last mile.

It's the interoperation, how your phone works, how your computers work, things like that.

The facilities have to have very specific use case.

So for Raden, what we look for are buildings that can support weight.

They've got certain dimensions that are required.

They've got space for the power and cooling, and they've also got existing infrastructure.

We've known about this site for a long time.

Um actually built a data center campus out of a former Intel factory in 2009.

So I came here in 2009, so we've been aware of this.

This building is unique, and we'll talk about why, but we wanted to illustrate that this is what's inside of your data center.

We'll give it a more explanatory view of what else is in there, but it's pretty innocuous, there's not much to it.

It's just a bunch of computers.

Speaking of that, when we say innocuous, it's still sophisticated.

This is a sample, this is a sample of what is required to actually make that computer function operate.

So you'll see in the center of this display that you have, that's where the computers live.

It's called the white space.

It's very analogous to the way that a chip fab operates, which is why chip fabs make great data centers, because the area in which the chips are produced has to be pristine.

It has to have a secure location, very specific power, has to be able to manage cooling precisely, and you can't have any contaminants anywhere.

So it's incredibly important that the integrity of the space is set up properly.

All the other features that you see here are some elements of what we're going to be installing, and you'll see this on some of the larger plans.

There's power and cooling equipment.

We don't have chillers that are on the roof.

We have a chiller yard that's been discussed, we'll show that.

Generators go outside, they're only for backup.

CSU has not had a major disruption to that region in 10 years, but we still have to have generators to make sure that we can actually keep everything running and operating properly.

So we want to just give you a cutaway that you can see.

The sheer amount of infrastructure.

This project is going to cost $785 million to turn that existing Moribram building into something that actually can be functional.

It's a lot of money.

And it goes into this type of equipment, very precisely installed and engineered.

Why also this site?

So it's not just merely that the building's a great building.

And when we say it's a great building, is that chip fabs are also meant to prevent one of the biggest challenges that computers don't like, which is vibration inside of the building.

So when you build a plant that makes chips, if there's vibration, then the chips don't function properly.

Computers are the same way.

So is electrical equipment, so is cooling equipment.

They don't like a lot of vibration.

So in the main part of that building that you see there where the arrow is perfect existing building, very thick walls, incredibly, incredibly constructed in a way that mitigates any of that vibration internally.

You also note the red circles that are there.

CSU spent a significant amount of money during the days of Rockwell, Intel, and subsequently to install that infrastructure.

It's generating no revenue today.

None.

No one's using anything.

CSU has to continue to maintain that.

As everyone probably knows here, they're a nonprofit.

That means that that burden of cost gets spread out.

When we go and we install and we start working, we start paying our bills.

That means all of that is then offset and subsidized to the tune of a minimum of $2.5 million a year.

That's not being generated today, and that's important.

The site hasn't been anything of use since 2010.

There was a Bitcoin facility that was there.

Bitcoin facilities and data centers aren't the same thing.

We'll talk about why they're completely different and why some of the affronts to the neighbors that were created by the Bitcoin facility, which we agree were an affront.

That has nothing to do with our operations, and we'll explain why.

So when we look at this, the final piece relative to, we hear this all the time, why this site.

The internet's already here.

All of the wires that make the internet work, they're already in proximity and they feed the rest of the city.

You can't just create the internet no matter what you want to do.

So by virtue of the fact that we have power in place, a great building, the campus has the resources by taking down these existing buildings that don't need to be there, and the internet's there, everything's set up.

Now we'll add one thing.

We typically look at at least a hundred buildings before we even begin due diligence on one.

So there's a lot of disqualification that occurs that before we even get to a stage before we start talking to a city.

We spent a lot of time.

We've been working on this for more than a year.

So this wasn't a casual attempt to just say, hey, we think this would be great.

One of the most significant pieces is it's zoned and entitled for data center.

So by virtue of that, this was something that should translate and fits within what the city wants and needs.

Inside, we talk about vibration, the computers go in the middle.

There are two sixty thousand square foot halls.

Critically, when we talk about the power infrastructure that's there, what we learned through our due diligence, which we didn't know until due diligence is that CSU has 50 megawatts, four computers, and that's it.

So mostly one of those halls on the left and a little bit on the right is going to be where the computers go.

We don't have any additional power, so we can't install anything else.

That's where they're going to be located.

You'll see that in the middle, you're way away from the perimeter walls.

And so the computers inside is that in a matter of fact, when you go into any data center, if you've been in one, you'll never hear noise outside the white space ever.

It has to be mitigated.

So the computers themselves don't make any noise.

Contrast that, which will show with when the Bitcoin farm was operating, which was by the way, on the back, it was in it wasn't in the main building, it was outside.

The computers in the Bitcoin farm, they make a tremendous amount of noise.

They scream.

And they're in like a warehouse type building.

This is inside of 24 inch thick walls with 12 foot thick ceilings.

So the noise is muted and mitigated.

And then those are important points.

So this just shows you illustratively.

Umtice the office that's underneath where north of Garden of the Gods Road.

There's not a lot of extra space that's here.

The people that work here are engineers and operations and security staff, they're walking around all the time.

We do have to have some office.

We'll come back to that because that was raised a little while earlier.

We'll talk about what's there.

But as you can see in the details under sound mitigation, there's a tremendous amount of infrastructure that went into this building that's already resident and in place.

We heard a lot about generators and chillers.

They go outside.

They have to go outside.

But as we go through the uh effectively the etymology of the way that we install these, it's not the way it's necessarily being portrayed, and it's not the same as a lot of other data center companies.

And I'll explain why there's purpose in that.

We wanted to show you where the noise comes from.

So we'll address this as we go, but these are the parts and pieces of a generator, which is a tier four backup generator, just so that we're clear.

They cannot run continuously, they have a limited number of hours, and it's regulated by the state of Colorado.

We can only buy specific generators.

That's all we're allowed to do.

Even if we wanted to buy something different, we can't.

This is important to me.

And this could end up being construed as any one of a number of things, but I want to make it abundantly clear that every single data center that I've ever developed, and I've developed many all over the country, all over the world in different environments you could ever imagine, is we begin with local.

It always starts with local.

We don't hire externally and bring other people in, we only hire local resources, contractors, and whatnot to actually deliver.

The staff that run these facilities, they're all local.

Why do I mention that is that those people have to live here?

So by virtue of that, the community is incredibly important.

The reason that we're gonna keep coming back to community is that we've spent a tremendous amount of time with the community to hear their concerns.

The code is the code, is the code.

We have to meet the code.

Technically, we don't have to do anything more than what the code is asking for.

But to be honest with you, it's important to us that we hear that.

So we've spent a lot of time directly with the community, me personally.

And I think that's important.

I own the company.

So I show up, I've sat in people's living rooms, I've had coffee, I've had lunch, I've had dinner, we've held online sessions, and we'll go through the list of what those are because we're at a point where we have to explain that.

When we look at the community responsibility, we heard about their noise, and we knew that there was going to be concerns about generators and chillers.

So if you'll look at this slide, it breaks down fairly simply.

Nothing that we buy is open air.

It's not a device that just sits outside.

We only buy equipment that is fully what's called attenuated.

So it has devices around it that quiet it down at the source.

We buy devices that are intentionally muted.

We then put all of those into yards that are attenuated, and we'll talk about the material development of a yard later.

And that the plan shows all of this.

Critically, you can go talk to any sound engineer, you can talk to any engineer of any kind in regard to how muting of sound occurs.

The yard itself is significant.

So as we continue, you'll see examples beginning here.

If you'll notice on the left, the original development plan that was submitted contemplated the generators on the back side of the building.

They are closer to the community.

The reason why they were there is because the electrical distribution that you saw in the red circles earlier is close to that proximity, so it actually makes it easier for engineering.

So we submitted this.

We were then engaged by some folks that spoke earlier from the community and said, Look, we want to talk to you.

We've got real concerns about this.

So over the span of about eight weeks, it was strongly recommended and suggested that we see if we can move the yard.

That wasn't easy.

We'd already submitted a plan.

So we had to come back to the city and say, look, we got to move it.

So now if you look on the right hand side, you'll see that that red block shows where there is instead of two plants, there's one plant.

And it's now on the most northern side of the building.

That took a month to re-engineer.

It was a major challenge to the way that the overall development was supposed to operate, but the community asked for it and we heard them.

What that means is that all those generators that are now enclosed in a 40-foot tall, 45-foot tall wall, are now on the other side of a 700,000 square foot, 90-foot tall building.

So the sound attenuation is literally impossible from where that sits.

And that's why we're in a state where those are not concerns.

We heard that.

If you go back to the left, you'll notice the blue is a chiller yard.

Chillers have to be outside, they breathe, they use air.

We heard about Louvers, we'll talk about how lures actually work.

The community said, look, it's still close to us.

He said, Yeah, we don't really have a lot of other places to go for one major reason.

Intel likes tunnels.

So when Intel builds chip fabs, there's tunnels all throughout this property.

All of the piping equipment that goes to that main building is in an underground tunnel.

And by virtue of putting the chillers in that location, we can avoid anybody's environmental concerns because none of the piping has any attachment whatsoever to the environment.

It doesn't touch dirt.

It's in a concrete encase tunnel.

So it goes in there.

But what we originally did was we had the chiller plant at a specific orientation.

We were able to actually shrink it and narrow it.

So on the right hand side, when we moved this, we were able to make it essentially more lower profile in terms of the way that the wall and the overall yard was structured.

That's important.

Again, it has a noise improvement.

The additional community response was can't you just build a wall?

And I said, sure, we can build a wall, what do you want?

And they said, well, you have an existing wall where the yellow is, it's on the right.

Notice it's not on the left because the existing wall on the left is about seven feet tall.

I don't know what it's there for, but there's a wall.

The wall on the right is a 30-foot tall wall.

It doesn't violate any easements whatsoever.

The city mandated that we made sure that it was going to be defined and structured.

And what the community asked for was they said we want visual blockage.

What's the tallest you can make it?

So 30 feet.

We said it, you know, do you guys have anything else that you want?

And what we received back from the community was they said, well, we want to be able to make sure it's the right color, the motif is right.

This is the engagement.

A lot of emails, a lot of discussion.

We said, fine.

So we went and added that to the plan and completely re-engineered that.

It does have a sound purpose.

Be honest with you, all the sound is already mitigated before that wall.

So these are just illustrative some of the things that we've done and we've engaged with to make sure that it's heard and clear that the community concerns can be met with real engineering.

This slide was used earlier, but in a different way.

So if you look on the top, and we'll make this quick, the block that's there that's in the dashes up top is where the generator yard originally was, and you can see proximity.

You can see we added the 30-foot wall, and then you can see where the stormwater culvert is, which is a concrete in case stormwater runoff, and then where the houses are.

Remember, we moved that all the way to the other side of the building that can't be seen on the left.

We then added below the chiller yard.

So there was an illustration earlier that showed that the chillers were actually above the tall, the height of the wall.

It's not the case.

There's 21 feet of separation from the top of the chiller to the top of the wall.

We'll go through the sound mitigation of that later.

When you look at the mitigation that the wall provides, you look at the orientation, all of these things were engineered specifically because the community asked for it.

They said we have concerns about the noise.

How do you actually show us you can do that better?

So we've given these cross sections to show where all of the dimensions are.

And you know, you can go through I apologize, there's a lot of granular information on there.

But this just gives you an essence of orientation and where everything's located.

This is just a synopsis.

We've gone through the details, everybody can see what the notes are and where they reference.

The purple, by the way, is the lot line.

One thing that was discussed repeatedly is about it's actually 60 generators and it's actually 72 chillers.

I don't have anywhere to put 60 generators.

The generators are in the top, each position shows 15 positions.

It's repeated in seven pages throughout their approved development plan.

Each one of those positions represents a double stack chiller.

So two times 15 is 30.

There isn't room for anymore.

The chillers that are in the yard that's there, there's 36 chillers.

I don't have any room for anymore.

I can't put any more if I wanted to.

If we even added one chiller, we have to change the entire development plan.

I have nowhere to put it.

So illustratively, this just shows you the consistency through all the documentation.

Sorry about that.

We talked about how you can go and take devices and make them quieter.

This is how you make a generator quiet.

If everybody isn't familiar, hospitals have generators operating right next to the hospital.

They don't make noise.

It's because they're attenuated.

Hospitals are pretty sensitive to noise.

They're all backup generators too.

If something goes wrong, it's the same philosophy.

So on the left-hand side, instead of just taking a big old engine and putting it in a yard and letting it run, what you do is you add components to it that are going to reduce that.

The state of Colorado asked us, it's not a mandate.

It said generators can make emissions.

How do you solve that?

Well, it's called a selective catalytic reduction unit, an SCR.

It actually has a byproduct function that no one thought about.

It's almost like a GLP one.

You're supposed to take it for diabetes and then you lose a lot of weight.

In this case, the SCR that you get on here does one thing primarily.

It reduces Knox emissions.

It actually reduces Knox emissions as low or lower than natural gas generators.

We were asked often why don't we use natural gas for our generators?

Because there isn't any.

We already did the study.

There's no natural gases study.

So the SCRs reduce that, but they also do something materially.

They massively reduce noise.

So you get a second byproduct.

So for every generator we buy, we spend another 60,000 to 300,000 to add one of those units.

We also put variable frequency drives on the fans by frequencing the sound.

So basically the way that those fans are operating and changing it, you reduce noise.

Constant noise is where there can be problems.

The adjustment to the way that the device performs is critical.

That's on the unit before it even shows up.

Then we go to a different manufacturer and in the middle, you put it in its side of its own condominium.

So each one of these generators, these units goes in a box.

The box is specifically designed to knock down noise.

If you're asking why we would do that just because someone asked us to, no, it's actually also purely selfish.

If you have a lot of noise at a generator as an engine, it doesn't operate very well.

So when we tamp down noise, it prolongs the life of them.

It's just a benefit to the overall performance of the environment.

And again, generators only run once a month for 15 minutes during testing.

And the only other time they ever do anything in life is if there's an outage from the utility.

So they're just theirs backup.

Final pieces, you can see it on the right, is we put all of that behind a wall in a yard.

In this case, it's a 45-foot tall wall.

We'll talk about wall generation as well and the way that that's designed.

These three steps are not equaled by a lot of other data centers, and we're well aware of that.

If you want to compare this project to many others, and some were noted in Northern Virginia and others that were very aware of, these are not the same thing by stretching the imagination.

It's this is important to us, this costs us more money.

We do it intentionally.

Chillers have the same thing.

We'll run through it quickly.

You buy a chiller, it's a basically its own cooling engine.

So what do you do?

You add parts and pieces to it to make it quieter.

Same concept as the generator.

Silencers, and then you go and add an enclosure.

It gets its own condominium.

You then finally go and you engineer a wall, but the terms here are important because they're in the development plan.

Silent plus barrier materials are industrial engineered.

They are meant so that industrial deployments can keep quiet under any circumstance.

That material is expensive, it goes on the inside of the wall, and the coefficient of the wall, meaning how thick it is, is also equally critical.

So we've got a really thick, really tall wall made of expensive materials that knocks down all the noise.

It's been talked about earlier that we didn't address DBC.

We've absolutely addressed DVC.

So you can see DBA, which is how your ear hears sound, and DBC, which is how low frequency or lower base-like sounds function.

It is true that chillers and generators will generate some of that lower noise.

It is equally true that when you look at silent plus barrier materials, they knock that down.

They reduce it.

That's why you use it.

Chillers have to breathe.

One of the major reasons why this project in Colorado Springs is the environment.

So the overall temperature on a regular basis, especially 50% of the year, especially at night and wintertime, allows us to turn off the compressors on the chillers.

That means we use less power, they function a lot more efficiently, and because we turned off a noise maker, then they're quieter.

Well, you have to get air to the chillers.

So the yards have louvers.

You'll notice it says Slim Shield.

Slim Shield SL12, the cut sheets are inside of the development plant.

We've hidden nothing.

We're transparent, everything is here and available.

The louvers are actually thicker than the wall.

So those materials are thicker than the wall materials.

The louvers actually knock down sound more than the wall itself.

These are all additional engineered things.

We're not required to do any of this.

We could have easily designed this just enough to make it so that it was 54 decibels DBA and everyone would be fine.

We don't think that was acceptable.

We wanted to make sure that we could be at or under the ambient noise.

Just so everyone's clear, we did a week-long sound study with nothing operating.

That site is at 42 decibels today.

You'll see that our operations are at 41 decibels.

This will help you see how it applies.

We talked about how these sound frequencies crawl.

Well, the wall knocks all of that down.

Illustrated on the right are the concerns, and you'll see about the Hertz levels that were also said that we didn't address.

We've absolutely addressed them.

They went into the sound model.

So we've identified how do you take chillers, particularly as the closest equipment that's illustrated in the development plan, and how do you mitigate any noise that comes out of there?

Well, you do this.

So first of all, the chillers aren't on the ground, they're on pedestals.

By the elevation there, then you're rejecting the sound that comes from those directly into the wall itself.

The louvers, which are the thickest part are at the bottom, so when sound tries to bend and crawl, it gets defeated at the bottom.

You then look at that.

We've got a wall that is 21 feet taller than the tallest part of the chiller.

That means that the sound can't crawl over the wall in any measure.

So we've added these layers to make sure that we could not, it's not defensive, it's meant to say the community said you need to prove to us.

So through all of my interactions, three town halls, eight online meetings, and over a hundred hours of direct interface, it's this that we've worked through.

This is the engineering.

People say you paid for that, of course we did.

You have to pay somebody to do that.

And so they're the ones that have put all of this technical specificity specificity into the development plan so that we have something that's defensible.

The Bitcoin farm needs to keep being brought up.

The first thing I ever heard when I came to even go walk this site was.

So by the way, there was a Bitcoin farm here, and I was like, Yeah, I can imagine.

Bitcoin farms don't look like data centers at all.

It's literally like comparing a tricycle to a Ferrari.

All of the Bitcoin computers, they don't look like what you saw earlier.

They look like safety deposit boxes with a big fan in the back, and they just operate literally for the end of time.

They operate until they break.

That was how you would mine Bitcoin.

They're loud, they scream, they make a high-pitching shrilling screen.

The building they were in is an outbuilding on the site behind the building closest to the property.

What was the defense?

The defense when the noise became so loud that certain folks in the community who I met with personally who said that they developed PTSD over this noise.

I know how loud that is.

A bunch of C LAN containers were purchased and stacked up on the back and had hay stuffed in them.

Let's just say that's not going to fix the problem.

You then look at the way that Bitcoin needs to be cooled.

These are big open air fans.

They're not chillers, they're not inside of enclosures.

It's wildly different.

So I just want to note a couple in the last couple of things in the last two bullets.

794,000 times is the difference in intensity of the two DBAs.

And the perceived loudness, the way you hear it, is 60 times louder.

So at 100 DBA, that's equivalent to a jackhammer running 24 7, 365.

At 41 DBA, it's like a quiet library.

Rather demonstrable difference.

We're at 41 DBA operating.

So just want to illustrate that there's a wild difference between the two scenarios.

Sorry, it keeps going fast.

Here's your C land container wall.

The wall covered one side and part of a second.

There were not four walls around it.

This steel material that C land containers are built off of refracts sound.

So they actually bend it and bounce it.

So what it actually did is it polluted the community more than it did contain anything.

You can test that with what you see on the right where the chiller yard that we're talking about actually grabs that noise and deadens it.

So that's how we're able to come up with numbers that are verifiable.

And illustratively, just to make mention, we redid our plan on the sound and noise attenuation side.

So our third party engineering firm, five different times, all based upon community input.

So this was not a lightweight effort on our part.

Five different times we had to go back to the wall and say, look, the community said DBC, the community said infrasounds.

Just to be clear, in 25 years of building data centers, until last year, we've never had to do a sound study.

No one cared.

It's never been an issue.

Well, now it's an issue, so now we've got to make sure that we're addressing that.

That's real.

Here's what it looks like.

And I apologize that for whatever reason on the presentation, the uh colors on the left didn't actually show, but it's pretty simple.

Green is quiet.

So the 35 to 45 is that quiet range, and you'll see where the community sits at the bottom.

You'll see where the chiller yard is, you see where the generator yard is, and what you can see is on the other side of the building from the generator yard, it's green.

That's going to be in its high 30s, low 40s.

We are operating at 41 decibels.

At night, we're at 34 decibels.

The study proves this out.

It's in the development plan.

There's nothing to hide here because the information is defensible, and the models support this.

So this is a pretty stark level of evidence as to where the actual sounds exist and why they're not going to be challenging for anybody that's there.

Again, our colors didn't come through, DBA as we mentioned, human air, city code, 38 at nighttime operating, 34 when we're economizing, meaning using outside air, 41 DBA daytime.

This is unalienable.

This is the way the models work in terms of the way that the computers need to function in this space.

And you have a snippet if you go read this later, which addresses infrasounds directly out of the sound report in the fifth version, which we asked for a completely separate additional study on the DBC side.

Water comes up a lot.

We don't need any.

7.8 million gallons in five years and 15.6 million in 10 years.

We've still only used 200,000 gallons.

We don't need any more.

It's not exposed to the air.

There's no means for it to evaporate.

It can't go anywhere, and if it did, it would diminish the cooling capacity of the site.

The best way we can compare a closed loop cooling system is to a radiator in your car.

You don't ever have to go in there and say, oh, well, you know, the radiator was just exposed to the air, and so everything got burned off, and that's how it cools the car.

That's not how it works.

This is the exact same thing on the left.

The water lives a very mundane life.

It just goes from hot to cold, hot to cold, hot to cold, hot to cold, and the chiller's job is to go and make sure that the hot turns into something colder.

One thing I want to illustrate, we heard about thermal.

This is really this, I find this interesting.

The computers that we mentioned at the beginning are built by NVIDIA.

These are the most cutting edge computers in the entire world.

These are Vera Rubin chips, these are brand new released.

Two years ago, you would have to deliver them 80 degree water at the hottest.

They needed really cool water to function properly.

Now those chips require 113 degree water.

So it means that when we're creating heat, we actually put it back into that water because that's how the computers want it.

So we're in a position where we're actually limiting the amount of thermal release from this site because that's how the technology works.

You can't make it up, you can go research this on NVIDIA's website if you so choose.

But that's why this system is so incredibly important.

Close loop to maintain that tight band.

These are the details on this.

We hear about blowdown often.

People tell us that closed loop systems they require blowdown.

Uh, that's not possible, just so that we're clear.

Blowdown is for systems that are actually evaporative in their nature.

So chill, so cooling towers, they have to have blowdown.

It's a means of cleaning the system.

That's not how this works.

So there's no there's no blowdown here.

We don't need any constant replacement water.

Sludge in particular, you will get particulates, it's filtered constantly.

We cannot have a diminishment of any of that substance that's inside of that loop.

So that's why the details are here and bulleted out.

I hate having to quote our resume, but I feel like this is important.

So these were all the inputs that came from the community directly.

We've got countless emails, countless text messages, a significant amount of engagement.

We aggregated all of that and we put it into the planning to the what the development plan as it was submitted.

All of this lists out what we actually performed.

And just so that it's clear in terms of transparency and representation, I'm the one who was here for that.

So I conducted all the town meetings, the town halls, I did the direct meetings.

We we wanted to hear, even if it was good or bad, it didn't matter.

We wanted to hear, and then we wanted to come back.

So there's a tremendous amount of back and forth, which is why that fourth development plan submittal showed a dramatic development itself from the first one, because the community drove that impact.

I had somebody tell me once, well, I'm sure the city just stamped this for you.

This will show you how much work went into this.

Our first engagement was on December 9th of 25.

We had already started doing what we call benchwork, but we never started formal diligence four months before that.

So we weren't even to engage the city until that period of time.

It took us until March 17th to submit.

The city came back three and a half weeks later and told us all that was wrong with our submission.

That's why they do that.

There were 81 comments.

Just so that we're clear, comments aren't something that you just rubber stamp.

There's a tremendous amount of detail, and we listed those out.

It took us another three weeks to go reconcile those via engineering and resubmit again.

They then came back with 40 more comments.

Those are all code-based, those are all compliance-based.

Those are all required for us to make sure that we're adhering to what we actually have to do to be able to get something approved.

There's no concessions.

So after May 8th, then we take another three weeks, and May 27th, we submit a third time.

We got the last couple of comments that were included in there on the 9th and 10th, and we met all the criteria.

This shows you the entire timeline.

There was a lot of rigor that went into this.

The community drove this.

This came up from the community, they said we want a responsibility contract.

One resident specifically told me while sitting on his back patio that after two years of Bitcoin mining, that he had no recourse.

No one could help him, no one could do anything.

He said, Jason, you need to have a contract.

This was then reiterated by the community multiple times.

The city asked us if we would ratify one.

So on July 16th, we signed a responsibility contract.

The contract lists out all the details.

It's a 10-year initial term.

It has a covenant, so it actually protects this from a land perspective, and we're required to put up a million dollar bond.

In the event that we don't actually remediate a problem that the community finds related to noise, they can call on our million dollar bond and we have to pay for it.

It'll never get to that, even if it was the thing, but it doesn't matter.

In the event that we're not doing the right thing, then it gets called in.

This is the first of its kind in the United States.

This was driven by the community.

We didn't come up with this.

I never would have thought of this in my life.

We were told that this is something that we actually had to have put in place.

I'm sorry, ma'am.

You're good.

Please keep your requirements quiet, please.

So this being implemented gives teeth.

The city controls this.

We had some community members say, well, we want to be the ones to control this.

We understand that legal insurance, it's challenging.

The city controls all of those resources that make this enforceable.

So the significance of this cannot be understated.

Again, there has not been a data center project in the United States that has gone to this left's efforts from a community and a civic perspective.

The obligation is just illustrated.

We put the million dollars out there for a reason.

We can't stop that bond from being called.

The Bitcoin mine scenario could never happen again.

Ever.

If there's obtrusive sound, it gets called out, it's game on.

One related component.

There must be sound monitoring for this to occur as part of that plan.

Radens signed up to pay for the engineering, to pay for all of the devices, to monitor all of it, to publish all of the data to the city, and be responsive to every city request for any complaint.

So we're burdening the cost, no one else pays for this.

This is on us to manage, and if we're not compliant, then the city has control.

Mentioned earlier about our cost to ratepayers, there is no cost.

The only way that we can get power from CSU, which by the way is using equipment and infrastructure that was already installed and is generating no revenue, is by paying for anything that we need.

So if we need more equipment, like replacement transformers, we have to pay for them.

If maintenance needs to come out, we pay for that.

The city, the community, no one pays anything else.

So the idea that we're going to be a burden of ratepayers is unfortunately for those that are naysayers is not the case.

We're actually a benefit because we are a large load user.

What that means is that, and I'd ask anybody that's here if you've ever looked at your residential power bill.

Have you ever received a charge for not using enough power?

You've never received that.

We do.

If we don't use enough power, we're charged anyway.

So the 2.5 million dollars a year that we're generating just in revenue for the power that we use is required.

It's a guarantee.

So it's incredibly important when we think about usability and whether or not we're actually being good stewards of the power that's being delivered to us.

I'm gonna give everybody a break from me.

Caitlin's gonna step up and do legal.

All right, so again, uh, Madam Chair, Commissioner's Caitlin Quander, land use council.

Um, and with with me, we will be concluding.

So not too long to go.

Um, I do want to cover from a legal angle kind of the two sets of criteria that we look at here.

So we'll start with the first set of criteria, and this is um you saw this in Mr.

Sexton's presentation, but this is what the city planning department and the manager looked at for their criteria when they were reviewing and determined that they could approve the major modification of the development plan.

So the first of those is that it may only be approved by the same decision-making body using the same procedures as the original permit.

That original development plan from 2010 was approved administratively by city staff, uh stamped with AR, which means administrative review, not amendment or something else that was suggested earlier.

It means administrative review, and that was done in 2010, and so it was again this was approved administratively similarly.

The second criteria is that it complies with provisions of the UDC and all applicable city regulations.

As I touched on at the beginning, this data center is defined as light industry in your code, and it is expressly permitted and named as a use by right in the BP zone district.

So that means that it is consistent with the UDC.

And here at this property, being developed over 30 years ago as an industrial building and chip manufacturer, similar uses and even more intensive uses as we heard from Bitcoin have occupied the property for the past 30 years.

Notably, this modification does not change the use of the property.

It has actually been named and designated since 2010 as a data center that is in those city documents.

Um it was used that way previously.

So what we're really focused on here is the site plan itself, that development plan, and the changes for the this user that they've requested.

And the last aspect is um the data center complies with the UDC's use specific site standards.

So, for example, providing one parking space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, um, the buffer two standards that are required in the code, all of those details were worked through with staff and determined to comply with the code.

The third criteria, modification is consistent with any conditions in the approval or permit proposed to be modified.

Um, so the original development plan from 2010 imposed no conditions, and so that's um what we reflected against here.

They were for past users, so those are not relevant to the consideration.

There are conditions on this approval.

Some relate to kind of follow-up aspects as the development goes on with the utility.

And one of those conditions, which was met was the signing of the development agreement to ensure that there was that long-term commitment once it is constructed inside the building, that sound is monitored, complaints can come in, the city will go out and check, and they need to be fixed if there are issues.

So again, we compared against the original development plan.

The UDC categorically concludes that light industry uses such as data centers have no major external environmental effects.

The modification does, however, and it's specifically in response to community feedback, include the additional mitigation measures that Jason walked through to mitigate those concerns or real impacts related to noise, air quality, environment, energy, and water.

And the fifth criteria the modification is consistent with the Colorado Springs comprehensive plan and any other plans adopted by the city council.

So the data center is consistent with the BP Zone District's light industrial intent.

It says that expressly in the UDC.

And the adaptive reuse of an existing industrial building, because that's what we have here, an existing building that was built for chips originally and has not been used over the last few years, is echoed throughout your comprehensive plan.

We want to see these buildings repurposed and reused, and we don't want to see them empty.

The data center is consistent with plan COS's vision for the Garden of the Gods corridor.

This was intended and developed as an industrial corridor.

And data centers are in fact specifically named in Plan COS as examples of desirable development in that area on page 71.

So the city planning manager reviewed these criteria, worked through the plans, and you saw the timeline that Jason presented, and approved that major modification of the development plan.

So what we have here, now we move to the second criteria.

Oh sorry, I missed that one, but you heard it from me.

These are the criteria that we're looking at today for the notice from the appeal.

The appeals were filed, and they claim and they have to prove that the decision by your planning manager was contrary to the language of the UDC, was in error, or was contrary to law.

And that is the review before you today.

The appellants have asserted that those did in fact occur.

We believe that the staff report, the applicant materials, the staff approval, the decision, and the various supplemental materials that have been included in the record before you demonstrate that that decision was proper, diligent, and consistent with city code.

So with that, we do request that you uphold the planning manager's decision, and we look forward to hearing the public comment later today and to be back up to answer any of your questions.

All right, thank you.

You all still have 32 minutes remaining in your time if you wish to use that, and you may certainly uh forfeit that, but you do have 32 minutes remaining.

Thank you.

We have our time at the end still, so we'll just use that for any questions and let everybody get to lunch a little earlier.

Okay, sounds great.

Thank you.

Um there any questions from the commission for our applicant or the appellant group at this time.

Yes.

Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hold on.

Well, we did well, if we had any more questions, um, I'm sorry, Chair.

Uh, as a point of order, you're saying to take qu you're moving to take questions prior to public comment.

I'm just saying in our normal procedures, I often will ask if there are any questions before we move to public comment.

And in this case, we're going to move to lunch and then to public comment.

But if there were any burning questions before we take what's probably going to be a 45-minute break, um, I just wanted to open that up to the dais.

But we certainly say that again.

Do the appellants rebut both um both appellant and applicant will have rebuttal time after public comment.

That'll be later this afternoon, probably moving into the evening time frame.

So, I mean, I would suggest that we move to our lunch and then we hold questions.

That's our normal uh protocol, but we certainly can take questions at this time.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Then we will uh go to break for lunch for about forty-five minutes, returning around one fifteen.

And then at that point in time, we'll take public comment.

And that public comment again will be in first in favor of the appeal, opposed to the project.

That'll be um three hours.

And following that'll be in favor of the project, opposed to the appeal for three hours.

So what we're doing is right now.

Okay.

We are about to get started again.

We're just getting um technology set up to enable public comment.

So th thank you all so much.

And thank you all again for being here.

I feel like every time we take a break, though, we lose folks.

So thank you for those of you that have stayed and that are here.

And again, thank you for taking time out of your days and your lives and your priorities to be here and to speak on behalf or to participate in this public forum.

We really do appreciate the civic engagement.

Once we get started, let me read through the public comment rules for you one more time, just so we have that clarified.

Okay.

Public comment will be in person only.

So you need to sign up with city staff at the tables in the lobby.

If you haven't done so already, you can still go do so.

Um public comment will begin with those in favor of the appeal, followed though by those against the appeal.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

A visible timer will be used, and that visible timer is located on the desk here.

So you'll be able to see the visible timer.

Time may not be yielded or transferred to another speaker.

So again, each individual will be given two minutes.

So given the speaking limitation and time frame, no presentations will be allowed during public comment.

So again, just your commentary from the microphone.

And each side, so again, those in favor of the appeal and those opposed to the appeal will have a maximum of three hours of public comment.

And that is in no way meant to limit the ability for you to make comment on this item.

I know lots of folks have sent things in before.

It's just in order to respect everyone's time and not keep us here until midnight or tomorrow morning or something of that nature.

So hopefully you will have a chance to speak in the allotted time.

We have given out numbers to individuals.

Is that correct, Steph?

So folks have numbers, so please keep an eye on your number and watch for indication.

We'll call who's speaking and then who's next so that you can cue up behind the microphones.

There's one on um kind of each side stage left and right near the kind of ADA seating there.

Uh please remember to begin by stating your name for the record.

And if you could do so slowly and legibly or audibly, so that we can capture that for the record and that we know what your name is.

That would be great.

Comments should be directed to the planning commission and should relate to the matter under consideration only.

To ensure fairness, we ask that everyone follow the same rules and the same time limits.

And again, as I've said before, please treat others as you would want to be treated by allowing each speaker their full opportunity to be heard without interruption.

I really enjoyed the finger snaps and the uh ASL applause.

That is a wonderful way to show enthusiasm while still keeping decorum so that folks can speak.

Please direct your remarks to the commission as a whole.

Remain respectful and stay focused on the matter under consideration.

After completing your remarks, you may return to your seat or you may leave the room if you wish.

Speakers are encouraged to share new information or perspectives on the matter under consideration, and refrain if possible from restating information that has already been raised.

I'm sure we're gonna hear a lot of the same comments, but it's great to hear different perspectives or different information, not just repet repetition throughout.

Um again, uh expectation to treat one another respectfully, do not interrupt, do not shout from your seats, do not use profanity or any personal attacks in your comments.

Um and again, applause, cheering, booing, or other demonstrations.

I ask to be minimized just as because it disrupts the flow of the hearing and can impact the number of people that are able to speak.

Again, we've tried to give ample time, but we realize there are a lot of individuals that want to talk today.

Uh please do remain seated unless you're moving to the microphone, a restroom, or an exit, and do not block exits, exit ways, walkways, or accessible routes.

Um and thank you again for being here and taking the time out of your day to do this.

Um and thank you for your understanding of how long this is going to take.

I anticipate uh we may take a break part way through, um, but if possible, we'll try to save that until the end of the three-hour period.

But we're all human, so thank you uh for understanding if we do need to take a break.

Um, and with that, I'm gonna ask staff to go over how we're getting folks up to the microphones or who's up first, who's on second, what's on third.

Let's go.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair Hensler.

The first speaker we have in support of the appeal is Cynthia Hurwitz.

Cynthia, if you could make your way to either microphone, introduce yourself, and when you've done that, you'll have two minutes to speak.

And Cynthia, thank you for your patience and your understanding with the protocol today.

We did uh want to go ahead and put you at the beginning of the line for public speaking.

And I will go ahead and announce.

Sorry, that was loud.

Um, the next speaker on deck is ticket number two, Matt Martin.

So please be prepared to speak next.

Thank you.

OCO, that means hello and chair a key.

Thank you, panel, for allowing me to speak first on this.

I really appreciate that.

Um I'm here with my service dog Sterling.

So I state your name, ma'am.

Cynthia C Y N T H I A, Herwitz, H U R W I T Z.

And I have been coming to Colorado Springs since 1962, when I was four years old.

At that time, we were at Manitou Springs, and my father said, take a good look.

There's gonna be the day when Coca-Cola is more expensive than water.

Well, that day's come and gone.

We are seeing that happen.

Um I spent 23 years in Houston as a kinesiology professor.

And due to the environment in Houston, which contains a lot of oil refineries, 139 varieties of mosquitoes, pesticide trucks driving up and down the streets every night, making loud noises, and squick spraying pesticides for all of these mosquitoes.

I became deathly ill and had to move away.

I went to Jewish National Hospital.

They identified this specific ecosystem as the only place in the United States that I could live.

So I am a resident of Kissing Camels neighborhood.

You don't get to live in kissing camels by not working hard.

You don't get to live in kissing camels.

I've been going there since I was four years old when there were like three houses.

They it's a wonderful place.

They released houses on decades rather than building cookie cutter houses all at once.

Um this is an amazing community.

This is a sacred ground.

We have the Ute Garden of the Gods over here.

There's no place like it in the world.

And to allow something like an AI data center to infiltrate the sacred grounds, not only based on my heritage, but based on every American who lives here and all of the international people that come here and the bad side of the Kerwitz.

Unfortunately, your two minutes has expired.

Wow.

Can you I know it goes fast?

I was a college professor.

I would have three hour classes.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think you will have Matt Martin next.

Ticket number two, and following will be ticket number three, Kevin Bower Sox.

Please introduce yourself, and you'll have two minutes to speak.

All right, hi.

My name is Matt Martin.

Um I work across the street at the Key Site facility, so I spend a lot of my life in proximity to where this is gonna be.

Um I think for me, some of the most disturbing parts of this is been some of the lack of transparency and concerns about just the power consumption here.

Um, there's the uh the CSU report where it says if 1615 can support 100 megawatts of gross power on July 1, we'll use it.

And you know, we'll go up to potentially 420.

So, like there's clearly the plan here, but then the long-term plan, which if we're worried about the heat and the noise at 50 megawatts of consumption, and if that's where all the noise analysis has been done, if that's where all the environment, the heat island impact has been done.

It doesn't seem relevant if there's plans to just keep going beyond that.

Um I also take issue with the statement.

Uh so I work as a chip designer.

That's my job.

The statement that an AI denisator data center is fundamentally different from a Bitcoin mine is disingenuous at best.

Best.

In each case, you're trying to pack a lot of custom silicon into a small space to extract as much compute out of it as possible.

The end goal might be different.

You know, it's Bitcoin money for one versus contract money and AI services for somebody.

Um but the the physics are the same.

You're bringing a bunch of power in.

That power gets converted to heat, as just this is the physics of silicon computing.

And that heat's got to go somewhere.

And that heat has to go somewhere through a process that makes noise.

And so I'm I don't want to have to work next to that every day.

I've been at Key Site for 19 years.

I hope to be there another 20.

And this may make it really hard.

Thank you.

Next we have Kavan Kevin Bowersocks, ticket number three.

On deck will have ticket four.

Kyle McGuffey.

Thank you, Mr.

Kevin Bowersox, you're a spelling.

Okay.

Raiden is a venture capital back company.

Companies like Raiden and venture capital groups in general.

Can you get a little closer to the microphone?

Well, I got really close to the back.

I'm gonna get the microphone closer to the case.

He restarted his time.

Yeah, just you could get a little closer.

It's hard to hear you up here.

Okay.

Uh companies like Raiden and the cap venture capital groups in general or the modern equivalent of the British East India Company.

They move into areas not with the goal of improving life or adding value for the people in that area, but with the single-minded goal of extracting wealth and resources.

Why did they come halfway across the continent here to do this?

Because their model is to offload their externalities.

Externalities are the hidden costs that are paid by people other than the company.

Things like pollution, decreased property values, etc.

They did these projects in our own neighborhoods, they would pay those themselves.

Vikings didn't plunder their own villages.

Venture capital is not about long-term investments.

They are not interested in building for the future.

They want profits and they want them fast.

This very fact makes them unreliable and untrustworthy.

They can mislead, they can make false promises, and they can flat out lie because they will not be around once they make their profit.

If they pay a fine or two, it's just the cost of doing business, even a million dollar fine.

Their ultimate goal of grab and go means that they can build unsustainable systems.

They can be reckless stewards of response of resources like water and quality of life.

And it doesn't matter them because their exit plan all along has been to unload the company to someone else and move on to the next mark.

They have no incentive whatsoever not to leave the local area worse off than it was before.

We live in a golden age of broken promises from hyperloops to reflecting ponds.

We don't have to keep falling for it.

Next we have Kyle McGuffey, ticket number four, and on deck, ticket five, Lindsay Eng.

Good morning, Commissioners.

My name is Kyle McGuffey.

I'm 14 years old, and I'm asking you to grant this appeal.

Raiden told the public Project Taurus needs 50 megawatts.

Its own document says the site could reach 300 megawatts of critical power or 420 megawatts gross.

That is not a small difference.

That is completely different project scale.

Jason Green, Raiden president and co-founder, later called the document, quote, educational.

But if it identifies the proper property and discusses its capacity, timing, and growth, calling it educational after the approval does not erase what it says.

Why did the city approve the project when the record contradicted itself from the start?

Raiden also claimed utilities has already purchased and contracted the power.

Utilities told me directly that it had not.

Both statements cannot be true.

Yet the project was approved anyway.

Addressing them all would take far more than my entire speaking time.

Colorado Springs is nearly tripling the its license plate reader cameras and moving from flock to axe on license plate reader cameras.

This facility has been promoted for Nibidia GPT GPU computing, secure computing, and military operations.

Could surveillance data be stored or processed here?

Did any expected government, military, or police use influence this rush to or to rush this approval?

If the city does not know, that shows how reckless this approval was.

I would also like to publicly address something.

Jason Green wrote that I was not 14, that I was an adult acting as a proxy, and suggested that I catfished him.

He had my email.

He could have asked me directly.

If he had even scrolled further down the same Facebook page he relied on, he would have found out uh I had a video of me speaking at City Council.

A company or thank you to the few city Colorado, or I apologize.

Thank you to the few city employees who genuinely helped me.

Integrity Matters, Citizens Against Data Centers, and everyone who supported public participation.

Do not reward contradictions with approval.

Grant this appeal and thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Next we have Lindsay Aang.

On deck will have Kyle Bershard, ticket number six.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Lindsay Ong, and I'm up here fighting for a future for my daughter and for the future of our communities.

I'm here to talk about my concern of what exactly the data center will be used for, because the appellants have done a good job of highlighting the inconsistencies and invalidities of the tests done to approve this application.

I have been to every neighborhood meeting about this project, and I just want to say the way these meetings have been handled has been so unprofessional.

Going to both meetings, there was somehow still no substantial data on environmental impact, and we still we oh sorry.

We instead found out that the solution is to build a wall.

I'm not sure why people love building walls, but that's not the answer for immigrants, and it's not the answer for the wildlife and the heat islands either.

You say the wall is for sound and wildlife, and while it might be the solution for one, it's definitely not the solution for the other.

Your wall will not keep our community from heating up due to your data center or keep the effects of your project from hurting the wildlife that lives right next to it.

In a year where we are in record-breaking drought and fighting record-breaking wildfires, you want to come into our neighborhood and take up our resources from our communities.

In a year where ICE activity and brutality is happening almost every day, you want to bring this necessary project that is going to be used for military operations and national security as you call it.

The city of Colorado Springs has over 200 flock cameras, and unfortunately they are wanting to triple that and yet go to another private security company.

While the data center might not be specific with these companies, this project will not only be actively contributing to war and serve civilian surveillance, it will be actively contributing to destroying our environment and furthering the climate and resource crisis we are in.

And I'm sorry, but I don't want any more of my money and my resources going to greedy billionaires who lie, take advantage of communities, and profit off of war.

And just because it's in code doesn't make it right.

Thank you.

Next is Kyle Burchard, ticket number six on deck is Matthew Walker, ticket seven.

Can you reprint that first name again?

Kyle Burchard.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Matthew Walker.

And before you start, sir, one moment.

Uh and then who's on deck after that.

That'll be Julie Thompson.

Okay.

Before you begin, it's um it's sometimes hard to hear uh you all as speakers.

So I would I would ask that you get as close to the microphone without um making the whatever sounds, and speak maybe a little more slowly and articulately.

It's just sometimes hard for us to hear.

Uh, and I do want to we do want to hear what you're saying, and I'm not trying to take more of your time.

There's nothing nefarious, it's just really hard for us to hear when folks are speaking very, very quickly and far away from the microphone, and we do want to capture your comments.

So uh so this is for your interest, I promise.

If you could just uh be articulate and uh clear in your speech and be close to the microphone.

Thank you.

For the record, my name is Matthew Walker.

Many of the reasons to oppose data centers have already been touched on here.

Um, but there's a few that I'd like to add.

Firstly, the location between Garden of the Gods and Ute Valley Park.

That poses a lot of environmental issues for the wildlife.

The infrasounds alone will not be contained in the way that they say it does.

Um, you know, putting a generator or a cooler in a box and then in another box and surrounding it with walls is not gonna stop low infra sound from going through.

That's why they're long frequency, they go through things, they can go through mountains.

These sound dampeners aren't gonna make a difference.

On the point of it's just two thousand two hundred thousand gallons of water once, that's misleading at best and a straight up lie at worst.

The best closed loop systems that we have today still run at a five percent monthly loss, meaning about 10,000 gallons a month or 120,000 gallons a year.

Um, we've already addressed the water concern, but we also haven't addressed water handling.

Um, the closed loop system requires glycal antifreeze and nitrate inhibitors, which are detrimental to our um drainage systems.

When they come into contact with copper or zinc, they create oxidation, which could c pose further issues for our sewer systems.

Um top of that.

I I don't believe any of the studies proposed by Raiden can be trusted.

They're the ones funding it.

Why should we listen to the studies that they proposed?

As far as electricity is concerned, Raiden claims that they won't raise any of our electric rates, but haven't they already?

Raiden says that in December of 2025, they began their process for installing this data center, and in January of 2026, we experienced higher utility rates and peak hours.

Is that not a result of the data center?

We don't need the AI data center.

As much as we claim that it's for a tool, nobody's really using AI.

It's just for mass surveillance.

Thank you, sir.

Sir, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Julie Thompson.

And on deck, we'll have Jesse Prophet.

I'm Julie Thompson.

Uh I find it ironic to hold this vote in an arts building, a place that is so full of love and life to approve a project that is so anti-life.

I find it ironic that you insist upon decorum while approving projects that will destroy all of us.

I find it ironic that most of you will not live out to see the long-term effects of your decisions today.

I come not as part of an organization or a group.

I come as an individual.

A resident of Colorado for five years and a resident of the springs for what will be three years next month.

The effects of this decision will be felt by all who are here.

The effects of this on this climate are irreversible.

The effects on our wildlife are drastic.

We are giving you an opportunity to right the wrongs you have done by approving this data center in the first place.

We are giving you an opportunity to be on the right side of history.

We are giving you an opportunity to show you that show this community how much you love and appreciate it, or how little you care.

I'm ashamed that this has even come close to come this close to passing.

I'm ashamed that not more action has been done.

I'm ashamed that you haven't spoken sooner, or that I haven't spoken sooner.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

You should stop and think about the long-term effects of your actions.

You should stop and think of what this all means to us.

You you do you think God looked upon Colorado Springs at Garden of the Gods and decided this would be the ideal space for a data center?

Do you think the millions impacted by climate catastrophe, both here and abroad, think this is a good choice to make?

Do you does this sit well with you?

Does seeing what happens when we let corporations destroy our world and kill our people sit well with you?

Do you think for even a second that this will be remembered fondly, that your actions here carry weight that you can't fathom?

By approving this project, you are putting profits over people.

You are putting profits over our city, you are putting profits over nature, you are putting profits over yourselves.

Thank you.

Next we have Julie Prophet, and on deck we have Bug Peterson.

Me and Jesse are the next two, and we're swapping places.

Um, my name is Bug Peterson.

I'm with the Freedom Road Socialist Organization.

When reviewing projects claiming to benefit our city, it's good to ask who specifically will benefit.

I think we can see answers in the way that this appeal and approval and appeal process have been structured to leave out the average working person.

An all-day event from 9 a.m.

on a Thursday excludes most people in Colorado Springs by design.

That doesn't instill confidence that the average working person will be included in any potential benefits of this data center either.

Former mayor John Southers acknowledged an earlier presentation, spoke to the way that the data center itself won't create jobs, but might result in more employers creating jobs here in the nebulous future.

Considering that one of the promised benefits of AI is to automate and reduce tech sector jobs.

I don't think that's a bet we can rely on.

Raiden has been highly inconsistent in its statements about resource use.

Can we trust a company demonstrating so little transparency?

Higher energy use in data centers drives up electricity prices overall.

People are already struggling with increasing utility bills.

The city shouldn't back projects that are likely to make our bills higher with no benefit for most people, especially when they're also likely to harm our fragile climate.

The extreme low snowfall this past winter has led into an unprecedented wildfire season in Colorado that's cost hundreds of families their homes and several firefighters their lives.

I have a wildland firefighter family member who's been working 16-hour shifts in extreme heat and high risk conditions to protect our communities from these life-threatening impacts of climate destruction.

We should utilize our essential and increasingly precarious natural resources in ways that serve all of us.

Our safety, our survival, our capacity to thrive, not ways that further line the pockets of billionaires.

The benefits of this project will only be for monopoly capitalists while workers are left with higher bills and a less stable future.

We oppose building this data center.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jesse Prophet.

And on deck we'll have Anthony Flugel.

Hello, my name is Jesse Prophet, and I am also with the Freem Road Socialist Organization.

My comrades spoke on who will win if this data center is approved.

I want to speak on who will lose when the AI bubble pops.

See, there's a direct parallel for this.

During the dot-com bubble, capitalists gathered billions in investments for internet-based companies, all on hype.

Some cities even bought in, like Seattle and San Francisco, who rushed these companies in on the promise of future jobs.

But when the future came and the bubble burst, who foot the bill?

Was it the capitalists who led us on this whole misadventure?

No, it was the working class.

Same as it is every time.

Millions of people lost their jobs and lost their savings, all while dealing with higher rents that skyrocketed because of the bubble.

Meanwhile, the capitalists at the top, they made out like bandits.

Like Quest founder and oil talk tycoon Philip Anschwitz, who made billions cashing out right before the pop.

Or Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison buying up all the failed businesses and infrastructure after the pop.

They came out better while millions of workers came out worse.

The closer the city is to the AI bubble, the more workers are going to feel it when it pops.

By approving this data center, you are betting the future of Colorado Springs workers in a rigged game.

And one final note the contempt for people's anger in here is wild.

You say the people need to respect this process while people are mad about all the ways the process hasn't respected them.

Don't you think that's odd?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Anthony Flugeel, and on deck we have Caleb Miller.

Hi, my name is Anthony Flugel.

Uh good afternoon, board members and fellow residents.

I stand before you today to address the glaring flaws and dangerous oversights surrounding the proposed Raiden debt data center.

The developers want us to swallow the this project based on polished promises, but real world, real world facts from across the country tell a very different story.

First, let's talk about public trust.

The city and the developer share the same exact legal representation through a comp through a conflict waiver.

In what world is that fair to citizens?

Having the referee and the visiting team share the same lawyer smells with collusion, plain and simple.

It short circuits independent oversight and leaves total leaves the local taxpayers completely unprotected.

Second, let's look at the noise studies Raiden keeps hiding behind.

They measure standard decibels but completely ignore the low frequency noise and infrasound.

Like in Chandler, Arizona and Prince William County, Virginia.

Residents living near operational data centers suffer from continuous low frequency hums because of low frequency waves that travel straight through stone, concrete, drywall, and insulation.

These people are reporting chronic insomnia, nausea, vertigo, elevated stress hormones, and anxiety, just to start it off.

Third, let's talk about the power grid strain.

Raiden claims that it's really low numbers, that it will contribute 2.5 million dollars annually in utility payments.

Let's translate that.

$2.5 million a year in commercial power equals 25 to 30 megawatts of continuous 24-7 electricity.

That's under what they're telling us they're gonna use anyways.

So we know these numbers aren't right.

That's the same amount of power used by nearly 25,000 everyday homes.

In regions with heavy data center concentration, surge demand has polished monthly residential electricity bills up dramatically.

Thank you, sir.

We appreciate your time.

Next is Caleb Miller, and on deck is Constance Elmore.

Thank you.

My name is Caleb Miller.

I have lived in Colorado Springs for my entire life.

I was asked to speak slowly and clearly, so I will.

Colorado Springs is a community.

It is not a corporation.

The room that we're sitting in right now is a perfect microcosm of what America is like.

There's several hundred citizens sitting in a room begging a volunteer board.

Please don't rape our city.

And the response that we get from people who don't care, people who are just doing their jobs, people who are just trying to make a profit is oh, we're gonna follow the rules.

That's the same thing that they said during the civil rights movement.

What are we talking about?

The question that this could harm wildlife immediately is like, okay, no, let's look at it.

That's one thing.

The question, oh, this could harm unborn children.

Oh, stop.

Let's look at it.

The question that this could be adding things to our neighborhoods that we didn't ask for, okay, let's look at it.

But instead, no.

A volunteer citizen board is assisting a corporation in raping our community.

And we in America, all of us in this room don't have to buy into this joke anymore.

We don't have to buy into the joke that the corporations have power and they can do what they want.

We don't have to buy into the joke just because it's allowed by code.

Mr.

Daniel Sexton said it himself.

We didn't actually do all the studies.

We don't actually know all the things.

We're just approving it because a community.

When you go to make decisions as a volunteer body on behalf of the city, I beg of you, keep in mind that you are a public servant and that you serve a community.

I don't give a dumpy what these corporations want from you.

No data centers.

Thank you, sir.

Constance Elmore.

And on deck, we'll have Gerald Dempsey.

If you didn't hear the first name, it's Constance Elmore.

If Constance is not here, then we can move on to Gerald Dempsey.

Good afternoon.

Sorry.

Hey, good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Gerald Dempsey.

My wife and I live on Chesham Circle in Chelsea Glenn, and our home is just over a thousand feet from the proposed site.

I am here today to urge you to uphold the citizen appeals that you've heard and reverse the administrative approval of Project Taurus.

Under the UDC Section 5, as I'm sure you're aware, administrative modification can only be approved if it's harmonious with the surrounding area.

This status center is fundamentally incompatible and disharmonious with a residential border.

It's evidenced by what you've heard of the 24-7 operation, the number of chiller generators, unknown low frequency impacts, and et cetera.

It fails the UDC's harmony standards.

In addition, Radan's Raiden's promotional materials and presentation that you heard today promises quiet operations under 45 decibels.

Commissioners, as you've heard, the UDC exists, or as you know, I'm sorry, exists to safeguard private property from nuces like noise, incompatible uses with enhancing neighborhood quality and safety, not just accommodating developers.

If a facility requires the total sacrifice of a neighborhood's peace and quiet to operate it, it's by definition disharmonious.

I urge you to protect our community, uphold these appeals, find that Project Taurus violates the UDC, and reject this administrative approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Patricia Duke.

That's ticket number 15.

Patricia Duke, and on deck we'll have Kane Carlton, ticket 16.

Hello, I am Patricia Duke.

First, um, I would like to apologize to the residents, especially of Chelsea Glen.

I lived here while apparently your lives were becoming a living hell, and you were begging the government that I helped elect to stop it while they didn't.

In a democracy, when you fail, when the people above you fail, we all fail.

And I'm sorry.

It breaks my heart to know that that happened on my watch on our watch.

That said, we are gonna drought.

And uh we have enough of an energy crisis for peak prices, something like that.

So it begs the question: what resource exactly drew Raiden here.

Because there's buildings other places.

There's good weather other pla I love it here.

I do.

There's good weather other places.

Your cowardice is the resource that drew Raiden here.

Our cowardice is the resource that drew Raiden here.

It is up to us all, including you, volunteer civilians, to tell them and everyone else watching that that resource has dried up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Kane Carlton, and followed by Quentin Baudry, ticket number 17.

Thank you.

Hi, my name's Kane.

I'm gonna be living right up the hill from this proposed facility.

And I think the various technical reasons for why this facility should not go forward at all have already been thoroughly discussed.

So I'd like to quickly talk about something a bit more intangible, and that is trust.

And the fact that Raiden has proven themselves to be a dishonest entity throughout this entire process.

An example 50 megawatts is the limit on what they said their power requirement was going to be.

Stated that number in relation to phase one of the project.

You don't say phase one unless there's a follow-on phase, and you don't say it in relation to a number unless the number is the thing that's changed.

Additionally, some of my fellow constituents spoke with Jason Green.

He said one of the benefits for this project was that they were coming in to fill a hole or uh unsubscribed power usage that the CS utilities were holding.

Those same constituents talked to CS Utilities, and they denied that any such contract existed.

So it better be him that's lying and not the city.

And I would like to remind the City Planning Commission.

You can't go into business with people you don't trust.

And at every turn, this Raiden has proven to be dishonest.

They don't deserve to be in our city.

They don't deserve our power, they don't deserve our water, they don't deserve our business.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Next we have Quentin Boudry, and uh after that we'll have Linda Opelette.

I apologize if I'm mispronouncing your names.

So it's been said once, and I'll say it again.

My name is Quentin Baudry, and I'm a citizen who is concerned with the current handling of the city's affairs by our trusted officials.

I'm a native-born citizen of Colorado, and I am proud to stand up and say no to the TARS data center or any data center being rushed through without proper consideration and protections in place for the great people of Colorado Springs.

Some of the main concerns I would like to speak on pertain to the TARS Data Center's request for an estimated 200,000 gallons of our water and loose language they use regarding the scale of this project.

As Raiden states on their website, a closed loop cooling system for a hundred megawatt data center uses about 200,000 gallons of water on day one, and then zero gallons of water are needed for daily cooling operations.

Their statement minimizes the concern that our water is not a resource we can gamble away on a rich man's pipe dream.

We are already in a drought, and once that water is taken, it is pumped with glycol and other contaminants to run through a closed loop system.

The risk of any type of leaks from this facility into our watersheds outweighs any benefit.

Furthermore, Raden's statement says the quiet part out loud.

They are planning to scale this data center past what was initially supposed to be a 50 megawatt data center, and is clear from their language that what they're asking for up front does not match what they plan to drain from us later.

This not only draws concerns towards depleting our vital resources, but also the language that alludes to a future where Radens' profit margins prioritize scale and consumption over responsibility and our well-being.

Just as we have seen and heard, this is not the only data center being proposed across the nation.

My hope is we follow a similar path as the city of Gibraltar, Michigan, who passed a moratorium on another one of Raiden's data centers.

And we choose to protect the future of Colorado Springs and say no to this data center as well.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next we have Linda Oplett, and on deck we'll have John Schuch, and that's ticket number 19.

Hi, my name is Linda Opelt, and I'm a 38-year resident of Colorado Springs.

We love it here.

Um first of all, I want to say that I believe I represent at least hundreds, if not thousands of people who didn't have the luxury to take DTO today to be here because they have to work to support their family and to pay all the bills.

So I'm grateful that I could be here to speak in their behalf.

And I believe that the majority of those people are against this data center, and at the very least, I don't see why a moratorium to study more of these multiple questions that were brought up this morning, um, which I wasn't even aware of until this morning, and then hearing the presentation by Mr.

Green.

I have even more questions because it seems like we are gonna be a guinea pig for this system that they say is completely closed loop and will not generate the noise or any of the adverse effects.

Prove it.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next is John Schooch, and on deck will be Allie Smith.

Thank you very much.

And it's John Shock, like an electric shock, but I know everybody struggles with that name.

But for the record, I'm a retired Navy officer and worked as a senior terrorism analyst for the Department of Defense, not the Department of War, for 38 years.

Towards the end of my career, I taught young analysts critical thinking as a certified DOD critical thinking and structure.

We also depend on the ecosystems.

What I am seeing now is a careless disregard, not just here in this particular case, but across the country and in many other industrialized nations, where we have lost sight of the fact that we are heading for our own demise if we don't slow the climate crisis.

The drought that we've spoken about is not a Colorado emergency.

It is a global emergency.

My friends in Australia will tell you the same thing.

Our farmers will tell you the same thing.

Any increase in the use of fossil fuels to generate more power, particularly with something that is truly not essential to our survival, is criminal.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Next we have Allie Smith with Joshua Dotson on deck.

Hi, I'm Allie.

Raiden gets profits, and we get five jobs along with air, water, and noise pollution, and a potential 16-degree increase in temperatures.

This is a changing industry, and we need a moratorium and time to update the codes and requirements.

This is not a safe place for a data center.

We also need some sort of system that doesn't allow for NDAs and waivers and all of that for certain clients.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Joshua Dodson, and then we'll have Aubrey Fennenwald next.

Is Joshua in the audience?

Okay, we can move on to Aubrey.

And then after Aubrey will be Candice Callend Hoppe.

Hi, I'm Aubrey Fenwald.

My birthday is next week.

I turn 50.

I was born downtown in Penrose St.

Francis Hospital.

I am there for a 50-year Colorado Springs native and residence.

And I'm official appellant listed with integrity manners.

Thank you for your wonderful presentation this morning.

Regarding Jason Green's statement that only 200,000 gallons ever would need to be used.

I'm quoting from Slash Gears recent article on Nvidia itself, closed loose system, that says slash care is a weekly newsletter for engineers.

This is their expertise.

Data centers with cooling towers use roughly 2.6 million gallons of water per megawatt per year.

So while Nvidia's design that claims almost no water shouldn't be taken, shouldn't be taken at face, shouldn't be taken at face value, it also shouldn't be ignored.

But it's only part of the equation.

As a data center's on-site water usage doesn't paint the whole picture.

AI's water problems extend beyond the data center to the power plant.

U.S.-based fossil fuel power plants consume an estimated 2.0 gallons of water per day, according to U.S.

Geological Survey.

The International Energy IEA estimates that coal and natural gas power plants will supply 40% of the increased electricity demand from data centers through 2030.

That means there's a lot of water being used down the street from data centers.

Thank you so much.

And happy birthday next week.

Thank you.

Next is Candace Callend Hopp, followed by John Forcy.

Well, I did I am Candice Gallanap, and I live as the crow flies a thousand feet from the data center.

I also live directly behind the CSU electrical substation.

I could throw a softball and hit it even as young as I am.

So I've heard so many conflicting statements this morning, and a lot of data that is news to me.

And I just don't really get the picture of what we've been given here.

That for 16 years the data center has been in the classification code.

We didn't have data centers 16 years ago.

So what is she talking about?

So that you know, slips like that make me wonder about the whole picture they're presenting.

The city employees are employed by us.

You brave volunteers, and I will say you're brave, are operating out of a concern for the community.

And we are that community, and we are telling you we don't want this, we don't need this.

And by the way, on the wildlife side, Cityone walked down the path along Douglas Creek and seen a mountain lion with her two cubs.

Or a bear with her cubs.

So it's dangerous territory down there.

So we have a lot of wildlife that moves back and forth there.

And they follow Douglas Creek.

I'm sorry.

I'm over my time.

Thank you very much for speaking today.

And I would like to apologize.

I misread a name for the next person, so the next name is actually going to be Zurit Horowitz, followed by Carrie Buckham.

Hi, I just have a few things.

Let me get to.

All right.

So basically, I'm sorry, ma'am.

Could you please introduce my name Zuri Horwick?

Thank you.

So it does not create more adverse impacts on the surrounding properties than the development approval or permit proposed to be modified.

And that's just not the case.

All we've gotten from you guys are pinky swears.

Pinky swears on water use, pinky swears over coolant disposal and management, pinky swears over heat island effects, pinky swears over ecological effects, and Piki swears over power use.

I want to point out that when it comes to power use, they might be an electric large load customer, but they're also, and the city council was very specific, put this in to writing that they are still able to make an agreement and execute economic development special contracts with customers, which means that electric load large load contract may not carry over and will end up holding the all of the like costs for infrastructure or higher rates.

So let's just not say that, oh, we fixed it.

We haven't.

So let's just say that.

I also want to say Uber, this is a bubble.

So we are potentially, and we've heard um Colorado Springs utilities say that we're gonna try to increase our electrical load by 50% over the next 10 years.

We are betting on businesses that are in a bubble.

Currently, Uber ran through nearly a year's worth of their budget for Claude in four months.

Other companies are throttling their AI usage because it has is so expensive when used as a token.

So this is not a get rich quick scheme.

Don't do the monorail here in Colorado Springs.

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

Next we have Carrie Buckham, followed by Wilson Hitchings.

Hi, I'm Carrie Ann Buckman, and I'm a resident of the Colorado Springs' West Side neighborhood.

I'm here to voice my opposition to Project Taurus and the process under which it was approved.

I am deeply concerned with the lack of due diligence by which Project Taurus was approved.

It was just 15 days after Raiden finally specified how many megawatts their data center would use, as well as how many chillers and generators would be in their AI data center, that the city approved their project.

In this plan, where they made these specifications, they revealed their intentions to use 100 megawatts, 72 chillers, and 60 generators.

Through this hearing, I have learned that this may be erroneous, but if that's the case, then the city must redo their approval process in its entirety.

If the megawatt usage chillers and generators are indeed the correct amounts, then as mentioned by the appellants, the supporting documents and impact studies were not completed with the correct parameters in mind.

In addition, this plan submittal with these specifications was submitted only 13 days after the community meeting where Raiden promised the community they'd only use 50 megawatts.

Plans like these take more than 13 days to come to fruition.

So if it will be 100 megawatts, 60 generators, and 72 chillers, then Raiden was intentionally lying to the public about their plans at the community meetings they hosted.

This project needs further independent analysis that is confirmed to fit the real specifications of the project to ensure that this won't harm our community.

We must fully make sure to investigate the water and electricity use, noise pollution, heat island effect, e-waste impact, health effects, impact on Garden of the Gods, and more.

The fact that Raiden has either blatantly lied to the community or the fact that the city allowed a plan with a huge mistake to continue through the approval process, whichever one it is, is unacceptable.

And the fact that I'm not sure which one it is is also unacceptable.

Without an approval of one of these appeals today, it shows that the city is not doing their due diligence to keep the citizens of Colorado Springs' best interest in mind.

Please pick your own people over short-sighted profit.

I thank you all for your time.

Thank you.

Next we have Wilson Hitchings, followed by Lori Jones.

Wilson, if you're not in the audience, then we'll move on to Lori Jones, followed by Angela Murdoch.

As a reminder, please state your name and you'll have two minutes to speak.

My name's Lori Jones.

I'm a resident of Colorado Springs for four years.

The city seems to be treating this as the singular cure for our budget deficit.

Despite academics disagreeing.

Also then triggered an intense societal fear, and residents result revolted against the very industry that built the town five years later.

So telling me that some jobs and some tax revenue are worth heat islands, contaminated wastewater, the introduction of biocides, the creation of new PFOS in our environment.

The impacts on wildlife and air quality, and by the way, the ecosystem is not limited to artificial overlays.

How about the inevitable impact on our $3 billion tourism industry?

And by the way, I don't think Raiden is here anymore, but comparing AI data center usage to living people's water usage is weird.

The point is AI infrastructure is expanding faster than the policies designed to regulate it.

City best practices won't even be published until June of next year.

There are too many unknowns.

Impose a moratorium on AI data center projects until the science is established and codified.

And please stop insulting us.

Thank you very much.

Next we have Angela Murdoch, followed by Anna Cruz.

Hello, my name is Angela.

I'm here as a concerned citizen.

I do live within a three-mile radius of the proposed project.

Three years ago, I converted our front lawn to Buffalo Grass and Blue Groma through Colorado Springs utilities to do my part in conserving water usage when the inevitable water restrictions came down in our drone-stricken area.

At this point, I am asking why I even bother when our leaders are willing to sell out my family's resources, my community's resources, our water, our energy, our power grid.

As was stated earlier, there are no clear regulatory standards yet.

They say that area was zoned for industrial use in the 70s.

My home was built in the 70s.

I have had to do so many updates and modifications to fit my lifestyle today.

Maybe the regulatory standards need updated.

I am here secondly as a concerned mother.

What planet are our kids inheriting?

What planet are our grandkids inheriting?

The decisions we make today will have a ripple effect through the next seven generations.

At this point, we're hurling toward climate class.

There won't be a seventh generation.

I'm sorry.

The impacts on the environment have not been studied.

I love to back up my facts with studies.

They're not there.

I believe a moratorium like our neighbors in Monument and Woodland Park is very needed at this point until the data is there.

Not a data center.

The data is there.

I'm not even sure what else to say.

It's kind of all I have, but I just want us all to ask ourselves what our descendants will say where we stood today and in the future.

Thank you very much.

Next we have Anna Cruz, followed by James Chapman.

If Anna is not in the audience, James, go ahead and come on up.

Followed by Ian Toifaya, sorry.

Ian, if you go want to go ahead and introduce yourself, you can go ahead and speak.

Thank you.

Sure.

Hi, can everyone hear me?

My name is Ian Thomas Tefoya, and I'm here on behalf of Green Latinos uh national and state-based environmental justice nonprofit.

I also chaired the Colorado Environmental Justice Action Task Force where I work directly with industry, government, and impacted community members to try to stop these kind of industrial residential conflicts from continuing to happen.

It's unfortunate that this industrial zoning, or you just went through a zoning code update not too long ago, and you guys missed the opportunity while Lakewood, Adams County, and Denver, even through this moratorium are beginning to have conversations about how, even though something may be listed as industrial now with use by right, it is still adjacent to people, and it has a massive impact on others.

I want to take a minute and I I want to talk about the impacts.

I heard a few speakers ago talk about water.

So I'm a national leader on the Status Center conversation, and we don't know a lot about what's being disclosed about what's going in the water.

So in a race to use less water in uh the West and the Southwest, we're now turning to chemicals.

You heard about PFAS and Forever Chemicals, hydrofluorocarbons that actually put the hole in the ozone, um, or ethylene glycol.

And guess what?

These chemicals are made in industrial areas in Houston and other places that also have people living on the fence line.

So it's a supply chain of suffering that gets pushed down in our race to use less water.

And without knowing exactly what's going to be in these chemicals, an absent state policy, which I worked on to disclose this transparency, you're repeating the mistakes of the past, like with fracking.

Do you know if your wastewater utility can remove these and to what efficacy and what that cost will be?

Because you simply must go down the road to fountain where they had to spend millions and get grants in order to clean up the PFAS that is coming from military waste that is a legacy waste.

And so we're here today in support of our members in Colorado Springs and to be a resource for you all.

And I'll close by saying when I heard a state uh uh an employee say there are people yes and no, tell us exactly how many because I used to work for the Denver City Council and Land Board, and we would say those facts, not just say there's some yes and some no.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next we have Dr.

Tracy Musgrove, followed by Leah Pateta.

If there's an usher in the audience that can assist with the microphone, does that work?

Thank you.

It's not made for short people.

I am loud enough to go without the microphone.

That'll work.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners and fellow residents.

My name is Dr.

Tracy Musgrow.

My uh doctorate is an environmental toxicology.

And I'm sorry, I'm still heartbroken by what the other woman said about the generations.

Um I'm speaking today because I'm deeply concerned about the uh severe air quality risk that this data center will likely inflict on our community.

I lived in Lubbock, Texas for two years, and within two years, never having had asthma, I developed asthma because of the high particulate matter in the atmospheres.

So while the developer promotes this project as a clean zero water facility, um this is not a minor footprint, and it is not innocuous.

It is still a hundred, excuse me, a hundred megawatt industrial instinction requiring 72 chillers and 60 emergency backup generators.

By trading water for an enormous continuous electricity draw, they are forcing Colorado Springs utilities to burn more fossil fuels, shifting a massive particulate burden onto our regional air basin.

Even with modern tier four engines, routine testing of up to the 60 industrial generators will highly inject, will inject highly concentrated spikes of toxic soot directly into the Garden of the Gause residential corridor.

This infrastructure will hit our families with three distinct, three distinct sizes of particulate matter.

The first is the PM10, which is the coarse desk.

And for the size you think about as human hair.

Okay, about five to seven of these PM tins will fit on the width of a human hair.

Um, from the retrofit construction in the diesel ass, which aggressively inflame the eyes, nose, and throat in addition to the upper respiratory tract.

Secondly, the PM 2.5s, which would fit 20 to 30 on the same width of hair.

Uh they are 30 times thinner, basically, than a human hair.

And this from is from diesel exhaust.

They pass, they bypass our own respiratory defense and go straight into deep into the lungs, triggering acute asthma attacks, bronchitis, and long-term cardiovascular disease.

Ma'am, thank you.

Your two minutes are up.

I know it goes incredibly.

Thank you so much.

Next we have Layla Bateta, ticket number 35, followed by Matt Styes, ticket 36.

Hi, my name's Leela, and I am a concerned teacher and resident.

I implore the planning commission to listen to the words of not just me, but your concerned residents.

From the start, communication and planning from Raden has been rushed and inconsistent.

The first meeting claimed phase one would be 50 megawatts and 200,000 gallons of water day one and no more.

The phase rhetoric was then dropped at the second meeting.

When I confronted Daniel Sexton about it, he told me that they now only planned one building at 50 megawatts, so they wouldn't have to repeat the public notice process with each phase.

Later documents show conflicting info from double the 50 megawatts to over 420 megawatts.

This entire process between Jason Green of Raiden, city planning, and CSU has overall lacked basic transparency.

Furthermore, I would like for you guys to address how exactly you plan to handle this very blatant conflict of interest with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shrek as they lobby not only city council here in Colorado Springs, but also they represent Raiden.

Former Mayor Southers has allegedly told Raiden and Jason that they would receive a waiver, allegedly, uh, and that this would be approved no matter what.

Any city that evalues integrity and honesty will be willing to address these concerns on public record in the open.

If this facility is allowed to be non-transparent here and now, what else will they do to the city and citizens?

What will we inevitably inevitably be allowing other companies to get away with?

Data centers present unprecedented challenges and risks that require updated codes our citizens simply just does not have at the moment.

We should slow down and ensure city code actually reflects the quality of our city and what the people deserve.

Any company worth its salt will be okay slowing down and making sure studies are accurate and adequate.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next we have Matt Styes, followed by ticket 37, Lindsay Stevenson.

Hello, my name is Matt Styes.

I'm a U.S.

Army veteran and who deployed to Iraq in 2007.

I am also a UCCS alum.

I was a generator mechanic in the Army, and I was required to wear hearing protection when generators were operational, but protection from the low frequencies produced by such equipment was not provided.

We are witnessing a rapid push by the military-industrial complex to support an AI infrastructure for the exaggerated and false narratives that the increased need for such infrastructure is a national security priority.

As stakeholders in this community, we do not think that federal interest should supersede local concerns, public objections, and meaningful oversight.

The current administration is waging a war of choice on Iran without congressional authorization and against the will of the majority of American citizens.

Excuse me, American citizens.

We do not want our precious resources wasted on war killing, displacing innocent civilians, destruction of people's homelands.

Instead, we want our local government to listen to the public as we want our representation representation from local, state, and federal government to be good stewards of our resources that we may thrive now and well into the future.

This appeal is specifically specifically about two choices.

Do we choose sustaining life, freedom to thrive, a long-term vision of the future for generations to come, and proper maintenance of our national resources, or do we choose short-term gains, unnecessary wars of choice and mass surveillance that lead to fear, loss of liberty, harm, death, and destruction.

We know that infrastructure for wars and conflicts abroad always come home to be used against us domestically.

I oppose this data center.

Colorado Springs opposes this status center.

Thank you, sir.

Next we have Lindsay Stevenson, followed by Jeremiah Schaefer, ticket 38.

Hi, good afternoon.

I'm Lindsay Stevenson.

Um Colorado Native.

First, I just want to say I'm not anti-AI.

I use it on a daily basis.

And as a leader at one of the largest employers in this country, I expect my teams to use it on a daily basis as well.

So I'm not anti-AI, I'm not even anti-data center, but I am anti-no regulation.

And as your own presentation pointed out here today, we are seriously lacking.

AI has the promise and potential to be humanity's greatest achievement.

But right now, at this moment in this country, it is our greatest threat.

We are allowing billionaires to create a mass surveillance state where all of our data is harvested, exploited, and sold to the highest bidder.

We're allowing them to build something that by their own admission they don't know if they can control.

Something that has the power to replace the entire American workforce if we aren't careful.

And until we have regulations in place, we should not continue approving companies like Raiden and their secret client to move into our communities.

I don't know if you guys know this, but globally, the United States already has almost half of all data centers.

We have about 5500.

Another 1,500 are in the pipeline right now.

25 billion dollars a month is being invested in AI infrastructure.

And when we look at just the top five countries for data center hosting, every single one but us has regulation.

So companies like Raiden doesn't go knocking on doors in communities in France whose number five for data centers because they have protections for their environment, their workforce, and their communities.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Next we have Jeremiah Schaefer, followed by Kay Davis.

I don't see Jeremiah in the audience.

Is there a Kay Davis?

Beautiful.

Thank you, Kay.

And followed by Kay will be Linda Burton.

Hello, everybody.

My name is Kay Davis.

I'm a 32-year resident in Chelsea Glenn.

I live in one of the uh demo houses that they were building.

They only built two like that in the neighborhood.

But unfortunately, I'm getting older.

The steps in my house are getting to me, and every almost every house in that neighborhood is built like that.

And I'm looking forward to the time when I can live on one single level and not have to go upstairs, those awful 19 stairs that are in that house.

It's important to me that we oppose this data center because I'm gonna soon be selling my house.

Who is gonna want to buy that house?

Nobody.

And right now the neighborhood's starting to turn over.

It's changing.

When I first moved there, it was it was kind of uh we had kids in high school, and then pretty soon it was people getting to retirement, and now we have younger families moving in there, little two-year-olds next door to me.

And I also have a whole bunch of neighbors who are renters.

A lot of people have turned the houses into runoff, and the other are Airbnbs.

And pretty soon that's gonna be the only people who will want to live there.

Are the renters and the Airbnbs?

And so I'm asking you to oppose this data center.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next we have Linda Burton, followed by Joshua Flores.

Not seeing Linda, so if Joshua Flores is ready.

And then followed by uh Joshua will be Robin Werner.

Uh my name is actually Hostway Flores, and I'm a resident of Colorado Springs.

Speaking here today as a concerned member of this community.

I'm here because too many people feel like the major decisions that will shape the future of the city are being made around them instead of with them.

A project of the scale should not move forward without full transparency, meaningful public input, and a clear accountability to the people that actually live here.

I oppose this data center proposal because it raises serious concerns about water use, electrical grid strain, and environmental impact.

Also, I have serious doubts whether this project truly serves the long-term interests of Colorado Springs.

Colorado is already facing tremendous environmental pressure.

We are living through drought, water stress, and increasingly devastating wildfires that have destroyed homes, harmed our wildlife, and left lasting scars across our state.

At a time like this, it would be deeply irresponsible to move forward with a project that would place even more strain on already limited natural resources.

Corporate profit cannot come before the protection of our water, our public lands, and the safety of our communities.

There is also the issue of energy reliability and affordability.

Whether it is the middle of winter or the peak of summer, working families in Colorado Springs deserve peace of mind that we'll be able to heat and cool their homes without worrying about rising costs, strain on our grid, or if their needs are being pushed aside for corporate expansion and profit.

And that is really what this comes down to.

Who is the city being asked to serve?

The people who live, work, and raise families here and depend on these resources every single day, or corporations looking to profit from them.

I want to be clear.

This is not about being against innovation or development.

It is about demanding that growth be responsible, transparent, and accountable to this community.

If a project cannot meet that standard, then it should not move forward as proposed.

Colorado Springs belongs to the people who call it home.

We deserve development that protects our future, not ones that put it at risk.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next we have Robin, followed by Catherine Zukas.

That's ticket 43.

Hi, I'm Robin Warren and uh teacher.

And I um just building on what the previous speaker just talked about.

It's one thing if all those sacrifices to our water supply, to energy, to our climate, to our quality of life, is for an important reason for our community.

But instead, when economic development is given as the reason to move forward with this, we have to ask economic development for whom?

And um it seems to be economic development for some high-level CEOs of companies and billionaires, and the rest of us may suffer.

Elon Musk says the AI supersonic tsunami will eliminate desk jobs at a very rapid pace.

An anthropic CEO Dario, sorry, Amoday, warns AI may cause unusually painful disruption to jobs.

In fact, um the CNBC report says that 55,000 jobs lost last year were due to AI.

So when we're talking about AI data centers, we have to ask: is this for a valuable reason?

Is this important for humanity?

Or is this to eliminate our jobs and incomes in order to replace ourselves with AI computers and also to provide mass surveillance of the American public?

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next we have Catherine Zukas, followed by John Tegan.

That's ticket number 43 and number 44.

We'll move on to John Tegan, ticket 44, followed by Noah, ticket 45.

So I'm John Tigan, John Take Tigon.

I grew up here in Colorado Springs and I've called it home for over 40 years.

This is my city, and I care what it looks like in the next 50 to 100 years for my kids, grandkids, and all of yours.

I'm not against technology businesses and data centers.

I'm against making generational decisions without knowing the true cost, benefits, and risk of Colorado Springs.

The city says the project was approved because it meets requirements for the area.

It's kind of a joke.

It took 40 four review cycles.

The city's own report says the noise would exceed city limits without mitigation.

The same acoustic firm that reviewed the Ford Amphitheater also reviewed this project.

What's on paper isn't the same as real life.

Ask the families near the Ford Amphitheater whether meeting the city requirements protected the peace inside their homes.

Empty building is not the same reason to approve the wrong project in the wrong location.

Why was this site chosen near the established neighborhoods instead of industrial areas further away, including land near the airport?

I do not care what is fastest, cheapest, or easiest for the developer.

I care what is best for Colorado Springs.

Today I heard a permanent job estimate now ranging from five to a hundred.

What is the actual verified number?

What does Calor Springs actually receive for committing this much power, land, and infrastructure?

What fuels, batteries, refrigerate, coolants, oils, and hazardous materials will actually be stored on site.

What solid waste, electronic waste, electrical waste, contaminated equipment, emergency cleanup waste will actually be up to facility.

What will it produce?

Where will it go?

Who will track it, verify what where it's handled properly, and remain responsible if the operation leaves, the property is sold.

What will happen during a fire, fuel spill, battery failure, toxic release, contaminant runoff.

Are our firefighters actually properly equipped and trained?