See you soon for another episode of Restaurants C and Me.

Let's eat.

When disaster strikes, it could take the city up to 72 hours to get to you.

With that, it's important that you have all the necessary items to sustain yourself for 72 hours.

One of the most important takeaways you can do is to have a go bag ready at your house, which consists of multiple things that are tailored to you.

There's no wrong answer.

Add what you think is necessary for you during an emergency, and you're set to go.

In your go bag, you want to include an extra pair of clothes.

A trauma kit.

And remember, you're important documents.

Ready to eat meals.

Add an emergency blanket.

Add some extra water.

Add a battery or a hand crank radio.

And add a flashlight.

Add some cash in there as well.

Also consider adding toiletries and hygiene products.

And keep in mind the nuances.

Your pets, your medication.

And when your bag is all ready, zip it up and ensure it's placed in a well accessible location for you or anybody in your family.

Could grab it and immediately exit the house.

It's a perfect sonate day.

Feeling good.

Perfect Sonic Day.

Does your van diagram include supporting local businesses, reducing waste, and finding a new outfit?

If so, you need to check out our reuse business directory.

You'll find places to repair, rent, or buy used items, all while supporting local.

Keeping good circulating for as long as possible in our community is great for Denver's economy and the environment.

Choose to consume differently.

At dendragov.org slash reuse directory, welcome back to this weekly meeting of the community planning and housing committee with Denver City Council.

Your community planning and housing committee starts now.

Special.

There it is.

All right.

Jamie Torres, West Denver District 3.

I'm Anna Sorry, District 5.

And I think we have at least one council member on Zoom, so we'll give her a chance to introduce.

There she is.

Good afternoon, Diana and a Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver District 4.

Alrighty.

Pausing in case there are any more council members on Zoom.

Looks like not.

Alright, so first we have um a rezoning at 1057 South Gaylord Street.

Um and Abner is here to take us through that.

So as you're ready.

Thank you for having me.

Uh so my name is Abner Ram Totello.

I'm with Community Plan Development, and I'm here to present 1057 South Gaylord Street.

I'll try to keep this quick uh since it is a packed agenda.

So really quickly, the outline for this presentation is the request for the property, the location of context, existing conditions, then we'll talk about the process to date.

And then lastly, the re criteria that was used to um compare this.

Uh application.

So this property is uh 5,555 square feet.

It's currently a two-story mixed-use building.

It is located in Council District 6 in the Washington Park uh neighborhood.

There is a request for a waiver to permit the lodging accommodations, all others, all other uses.

The existing zoning is UMS2 and the entire block is UMS2.

The proposed zoning is UMS2 with waivers, so the base zone district would remain the same, and then the waiver is to permit uh a use that is currently not permitted in the standard zone district.

This is a visual representation of the previous slide showing the allowed building forms being the townhouse and the shopfront building form.

The proposed uh waiver is to permit the lodging accommodation all other uses.

So currently the only lodging accommodation that is permitted in the UMS2 zone district is a bed and breakfast, which has a requirement for the uh property to be manager occupied, whereas this uh a waiver would permit the uh lodging accommodation, all other uses, which does not require it to be manager occupied.

And that's what this definition is showing that the main difference is just that there is someone that lives on site, so a manager occupied unit versus a non-manager occupied uh lodging accommodation.

The land use, as I had mentioned earlier, is mixed use in a block that is primarily commercial and office.

Here is on the top an image of the actual property.

It's a two-story mixed-use building, and then to the south are some single story commercial and retail uses.

The process, the informational notice for this application uh was back in December.

They then uh notice for planning board on the 3rd of February.

Their original planning board hearing date was delayed, and then it was rescheduled for uh this past hearing on 318.

We're with committee today, and then planning to go to uh the full city council later this year.

Uh planning board uh voted unanimously to recommend this be considered by the full city council uh in a vote of eight to zero.

Public comments we have received two RO comments uh through the application, but have not received any outside of that.

Um one from the Washington Park East Neighborhood Association and another from the South Gaylord Street Business Improvement District, uh both in favor of the waiver to allow the lodging accommodation, all other uses and preserving the two-story height.

The review criteria starting with uh the consistency with adopted plans.

First up is comprehensive plan 2040.

So this request is consistent with the vision elements and comprehensive plan 2040.

Uh additional detail is provided in the staff report.

Uh moving on to Blueprint Denver.

Uh it is consistent with the future neighborhood context map, uh, showing it is mapped as urban, which is uh consistent with mixed-use buildings and uh pedestrian-friendly that are situated in a pedestrian-friendly manner near the street.

The future place guidance is a local corridor, so the heights are generally generally up to three stories.

This uh applicant is requesting two stories, so it is consistent there.

The future uh growth area strategies is all other areas of the city, which is meant to accommodate 20% of housing and 10% of employment growth.

Um that 10% does consider uh this application does fall within that 10%.

Additional strategies uh focus on the diversity of employment and retail that are that would be provided along this corridor.

And then lastly, the consistency of the waiver with blueprint uh is met because there is this need to make sure that the Denver zoning code remained flexible and accommodating to uh the modern needs.

This application does meet the public interest uh because it has done the outreach and uh is meeting the requested uh two-story height.

And then lastly, it is consistent with the neighborhood context, zone district purpose and intent statements.

So with that, uh CPD recommends approval based on all on finding all review criteria have been met.

Okay, thank you so much.

Um the queue is open for council members.

Um and council member Cashman, if you'd like to ask your questions first since it's in your district.

Go for it.

Uh yeah, no no particular questions, uh, Madam Chair.

Uh I I would just uh note that uh this uh uh application received in-depth uh scrutiny by the the Wash Park East Neighborhood Association, their zoning committee uh uh arrived at comfort with the agreement with the developer.

I one of the main things was preserving that that uh max of two-story height, which it currently is, and it's a um relatively small residential property, half dozen or so uh apartments.

I think it'll work well on the block.

Okay, thank you.

Um I have Councilmember Torres next on the queue.

Thanks.

That was my only question.

If the upper story are already residential, correct.

Yeah, that's where the Ben and Breakfast current currently is.

Okay.

Currently use is that's the current use.

Okay.

Would and it would be converted to uh apartments.

There, yeah, that's what they're looking to, whether hotel uh what is most appropriate for the site, just to make sure that they're maintaining the corridor by rate.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Great.

Um, I don't have any else in queue.

Anybody want to straightforward?

Um, with that, I will take a motion in a second.

Moved by Slayer, and second by all the address.

Anybody need a vote?

All right.

Um, and knowing the council Mario Campbell is on Zoom, so I'll watch for her.

Um, are we good to move this to the floor?

If you're on the committee as well.

Good.

She's going to be okay.

Great.

Awesome.

Thank you all.

Thank you so much, Abner.

Sorry, the work is so hard.

Quick and clean.

Um, we next have Joe Green from CPD with another rezoning at 1453 North Wabash.

Yeah, tell you.

All right.

Hello, everybody.

My name is Gil Green.

We're looking at a rezoning.

Uh 5101 to 5115 North Milwaukee.

Oh, I said the wrong address.

I retract my I just said.

We were on the street last week in there.

I said it in the chat here.

It says what regardless.

Here we are.

We are oriented.

Thanks, Joe.

Okay.

Great.

Um so as usual, walk through the requests, provide a little more information about the location, go through the process, and then get into the review criteria.

Um this is two parcels.

One of the parcels contains a single unit house, the other is a vacant lot that's used being used as a driveway for that house.

So combined, it's 12,000 square feet, but each individual parcel is about 6,000 square feet, just over.

Um the current zoning is ESUD, so it's a single unit district in the urban edge neighborhood context with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet.

They can build a house in the accessory dwelling unit currently.

Uh the proposed zoning is a two-unit district in the urban neighborhood context, so it would allow them to build a duplex on a lot or a tandem house on a minimum lot of 5,500 square feet.

Um getting into the location, we're in council district nine, council member Watson's district.

We're in the Illyria Swansea neighborhood in the northern part.

The existing zoning is ESUD, like I said, it's completely surrounded by ESUD and the residential portion of this neighborhood.

But there's uh industrial zoning just to the west and just to the north of the property.

And then when we look at the existing land use, it's mostly single unit in the residential part of this neighborhood, though it shows one of the lots being vacant.

Uh you can see the top picture is the property, and kind of the left side is that vacant parcel, and the right side is the existing single unit house, and then just an example of some of the smaller scale single unit housing that we have in that neighborhood.

When we look at the process, the informational notices went out right after we received the application back in January.

The planning board is a notice went out in early March.

The paneling board public hearing was just a couple of weeks ago, and then we're here today.

Planning board unanimously recommended to voted to unanimously recommend approval.

Um there were no speakers for or against at the meeting.

The applicant did receive a letter of support from the Union United Community Action Network, but we haven't heard anything from the Allyria Swansea Neighborhood Association as of yet.

Um we have not heard any comments from neighbors or other stakeholders.

We have reached out to the Illyria Swansea Neighborhood Association.

I emailed the district nine, council eight Dwight, and he forwarded my email on just to try to make sure that they knew about the application.

Um getting into the review criteria.

We'll start with consistency with adopted plans.

Big picture in comp plan 2040.

It would offer a mix of housing types in this neighborhood.

That's mostly single unit residential, and it would promote infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place.

So we think it's consistent with comp plan 2040.

Looking at Blueprint Denver.

This is a mistake.

This should say urban.

Apologies.

I used the wrong slide deck.

Um, but it also talks about single and two unit residential uses.

It talks a little bit more about embedded multi-unit and mixed use uses that are kind of found in those areas.

Um but this should say urban, and that's what you'll see in the staff report.

Um it designates the property residential low.

So it's uh talks about single and two-unit uses.

It says duplexes can be thoughtfully integrated where they're compatible.

Um but then as I'm sure you all know.

We have very specific language in Blueprint Denver that talks about when we can apply and how to apply that residential low guidance.

It says that two units are not appropriate in all areas.

Um and if we don't see an existing pattern of zoning, then the request depends on adopted small area plan guidance or neighborhood input, and those need to show an intent to set a new pattern for the area.

So the first question is what is the existing zoning pattern?

We see it as ESUD.

All of the zoning in this area is ESUD, so we don't see a pattern of two unit zoning.

But the follow-up question is what does the neighborhood plan say?

Does it set a new intent up, set a new an intent for a new pattern in the area?

It very clearly designates this area as single family duplex, and it talks about a mixture of housing types and specifically mentions duplexes.

So we do fight into this application to be consistent with the blueprint Denver language about how to apply residential low guidance.

Looking a little bit closer at the Illyrious One's A neighborhood plan.

You can see the map where it designates this a single family duplex, which it's primarily residential, moderately dense, and again specifically mentions duplexes.

Which is why the applicant went for the UTUC instead of the ETU C district.

The neighborhood plan does also have policies and a lot of narrative around displacement and affordable housing.

Um so we want to note that we do think it would be more consistent if it included deed restricted housing, um, but we still think the application meets that plan's guidance.

And then getting into the rest of the criteria.

We do think that this application is in the public's interest because it implements plan guidance, specifically about allowing a mix of housing types in this area, and we do find it to be consistent with the neighborhood context, zone district purpose and intent statements found in the Denver zoning code.

So we recommend approval based on finding the review criteria have been met.

I'm available for questions.

The applicant's representative is here as well, Shaquille Carter, and he's available for questions as well.

Um and I will see if Council Member Watson, since it's his district, would like to be first in the queue.

Okay, thank you, committee chair.

Um thank you so much, Joe, for providing um uh the uh this uh presentation.

I know that the applicant met with uh my team back in November of 2025.

Would like to um is a representative, sir.

I just have some questions on kind of the outreach and what your community engagement process was.

Yes, uh, my name is Shaquille Carter, and I'm uh representing.

And Shaquille, you're um located here in Denver.

Yes, I'm in Denver.

All right.

Um talk to me about the engagement with um the community.

I saw through some of the staff report there were outreaches in both English and Spanish.

You reached out to a whole host of folks.

Walk us through what that outreach looks like.

So the applicant, they did bilingual letters and emails to every home within a 25 property.

And also did follow-ups and text.

Um, like overall, there was limited direct feedback for or against the rezoning.

We did receive um, I think you mentioned the letter from the community network.

Um the applicant also did supplemental outreach through Negadanver.com on their website, Instagram and LinkedIn.

Still resulted in minimal comments for or against.

And that was pretty much uh what we did.

For the type of um the housing you're provided, um most of the most the recent housing that's similarly zone is deed restricted here, so it has um uh many multi-year um restrictions on affordability.

Speak a little bit to kind of what you are um planning on building.

Um is it your expectation that there was some level of affordability in that?

Um talk us through that a little bit.

So we haven't gotten into the affordability aspect yet, or we have not obtained official building plans.

Really, what the applicant wanted to do with this process is to see how the community felt about this rezoning before additional funds were spent on that.

So we're still really in the um early process of those plans.

Any other questions at this point?

Okay, thanks, John.

Thank you, sir.

Feel free to get back in.

Um before I move next in the queue, I want to welcome Councilmember Lewis who's joined us online, and Council President Sandoval who's joined us in the room.

Um, and the next person for questions is Councilmember Torres.

Thank you so much.

Um I'm assuming, and this might also be for the uh applicants representative, um, that your intention in going down in lot size for the zoning is to split the lot.

Is that accurate?

So not split a lot.

So there are two parcels here.

One is owned, both parts are owned by the um owner of a single family home.

And the um applicant under contract to purchase is just the um vacant lot.

And it's in negotiations, it was decided to include that home in the um application also.

Okay.

So what's the need to reduce from C from D to C Joe has a question?

There's not a UTUD, so the only district we have is C.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Do you know if there's an intention to demo the existing single family home?

No, not that I've no, there's no intention to do that right now.

It's tenant occupied, and we don't really have the plan for what the owner wants to do with them now.

Is it owner occupied as well, or just that tenant occupied?

Got it.

Okay.

Um I would also like to welcome Council Merald's Oscar Chairs to the meeting.

Um I don't have anyone else in queue at this moment, so I will pause a little bit for that.

Um I do have a couple of questions, I think, for Joe.

Um Joe, if I'm tracking this correctly, we had one of these um single family to two unit rezonings a couple weeks ago that was in Park Hill.

Um, and I think the difference is just the language of the small area plan around how it describes what's appropriate for the future vision of the single family zone districts.

Is that right?

Like the Illerious wants you plan language, just being clear about duplexes.

Yeah, that's right.

For the Park Hill neighborhood plan, it has kind of more general language about units of housing types and diverse housing, and this one's just very specific.

Okay.

Um anybody else have any more questions?

Um, and if not, I will ask for a motion in a second.

Move.

Second advice lawyer.

Um for those who are on the committee, just keep my brain here.

Anybody need to get a voice vote?

All right, thumbs up to move to the floor.

Uming that Romero Campbell and Lewis are both online.

I'll just give a second in case either of them needs to burst in with anything here.

Um I'm having trouble doing thumbs up.

Great.

Thank you, Madam Pro Tem.

Okay.

Um, with that, we will see you all in full council.

Joe, thank you so much for this.

Thank you all.

Um, and we did a great job moving quickly to our next item.

Um, which is um, I will let the council sponsors get to the head of the table.

It's 260431, a proposed data center moratorium sponsored by council members cashman and Watson.

Is that different Joe instead?

I'll just come right there by Cash.

All right, and uh when you gents are settled, feel free to if you want um any staff at the table to introduce themselves or just take it away, whatever you want to do.

Well, thank you very much, uh Madam Chair.

Um colleagues, what we're looking at today is uh a bill, a simple bill to place a one-year moratorium on the development of additional data centers in the city and county of Denver.

And and and uh you can go to the first slide, please, uh Lise.

Uh let me start with what what the bill we let me back up.

Let me thank my partner, Councilman Watson, for his help in bringing this forward.

Also want to thank the mayor and his team for joining us and in this effort.

Um, I do want to start with what the bill we are bringing forward does not do.

Uh it does not address the challenges that data centers uh present.

What it does do is recognize the impacts that data center development can bring to a community and puts that one-year pause in place so we have time to look at it and look at if or how with adequate regulation, uh, we might accommodate new data center development in Denver.

It also says we will put together a broad-based working group to address the topic and recommend a path forward.

Um a few quick minutes of investigation reveals that the new breed of data centers uh that have arisen in recent years require extremely large amounts of energy to power the processing systems that direct the data and potentially massive volumes of water to cool them, as these data center processing giants uh need to run 24-735 when power outages occur, centers turn to a normous on-site generators to keep them going.

These can produce noise levels inappropriate for many locations.

The next slide, please.

Councilman, if you want to and I just wanted to add, uh thank you so much, uh Councilmember McCashman, your staff on thank uh Dwight and Bonnie on my team as well for the good work that they've done.

Um before we go to the next slide, just want to share uh overarching.

We've had data centers in Denver for decades.

What we have not had are our clear regulations as to how and where these should be built.

Um this is the first step.

This moratorium provides that opportunity for us to take a pause to breathe, to do the research necessary, and to have the experts and the community members and the folks who are deeply impacted by these data centers provide their feedback and their input.

And so I appreciate uh council input throughout this process.

This moratorium is one step.

The next step will be looking at a regulatory environment to ensure that we're putting forward common sense legislation on to focus on this.

And um we have um uh reviewed, uh and I should say um uh our our council aides have reviewed um um uh sister cities that have similar um types of uh moratoriums or steps that they've put as far as a pause.

Many other cities are coming forward with doing the same.

Um I won't read through them all.

It's in the documents um within Legistar, um, but we feel that we are in uh uh a sweet spot as far as where other um cities our size are at.

Yeah, and I would just add, uh, you know, uh I've had people say, you know, data centers are being built all across the country.

Why are we the ones making such a big fuss?

As you can see, there are some examples there to give you a more complete list.

Um Virginia, New York, Maryland, Georgia, Vermont, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Delaware are all promote proposing similar actions.

And as you know, our own Colorado legislature is weighing in on elements of this topic as we speak already, in addition uh uh to moratoria statewide, uh, local governments in DeKalb County, Georgia, uh, several counties in Indiana, St.

Charles, Missouri, and more than a dozen communities in Ohio, Virginia, and Arizona have already passed uh some sort of uh uh legislation regulating how data centers can fit into their environment.

You go to the next one.

Well, you already did way to go.

Quick.

Um as you can see, um of the things that the working group will look at uh is you know, as I mentioned, uh, the enormous amounts of uh uh uh power and water that are used.

So we'll speak with the utility companies, we'll continue outreach to the community, including uh, you know, as we've been looking at the working group, we're looking at members of the community, we're looking at experts in the field, we're looking at data centers themselves, will involve union representation uh at the table, and uh make sure that we're we're bringing in all points of view.

Um what I wanted to mention, what's really interesting if you look into the topic of data centers, as my partner was saying, um, data centers have been around a long time, but we're seeing a new breed.

The the core site facility currently under construction in Councilman Watson's district.

Um, the first of three proposed building, it's around, I think 180,000 square feet.

Um consume uh 18 megawatts of electricity.

Um the plan is potentially to build two additional buildings on the on the 12-acre site.

Um if they were to build out all three buildings, uh, you're at around 54 megawatts.

One megawatt equals a million watts, can power 600 to 750 uh average American homes at any given moment.

You can do the math 54 megs, comes out to about 30,000 to 40,000 homes.

And this is uh this is a co-location site, which means um core site uh does mainly co-location data centers where many different customers are having their data stored and and moved through the system.

Uh the larger uh AI data centers that are developing are entirely different.

And I pulled some examples.

Uh company QTS, an international data center developer is building a 65-acre, 160 megawatt complex southeast of E470 and gun club.

It'll need 104 external heating and air conditioning generators.

Um Internet giant Meta, we all know our friend Meta from uh uh spending time scrolling.

It's planning its largest data center to date in rural Louisiana.

They announced it in 2024 as a 10 billion dollar project over 20 uh 2,250 acres.

It's since ballooned to 3,650 acres at a cost of 27 billion dollars.

We'll use five gigawatts of power enough for 3.75 million homes and consume more than 23 million gallons of water a day, or 8.4 billion gallons per year, the daily use of 80 to 90 million people.

And they've begin begun looking at uh the possibility of uh what they can do employing renewable energy.

But by and large, we're they're still in very, very early stage.

And and I'll share uh briefly uh Councilmember Cashman.

Um our legislation or the regulatory environment that we are will be asking Council to engage in will take into consideration the co-located sites that we currently have here in Denver that are smaller, they're not the larger AI sites as described in Wyoming and Nebraska and other places.

Um, but it must have the agility to speak to that in case that type of development is considered um within um the confines of Denver and the state doesn't have that information.

So we will be looking at all of the above to ensure that we have from uh, as council members said, from union members to experts within um the environmental climate uh community to community members to make sure that what we put forward, and hopefully with your input, um that is um has the agility to speak to any of these developments, even though none of those are planned currently in the city and county of Denver.

Thank you.

Next slide, way to go.

Uh so yeah, um what we're talking about is uh, as I said, uh a one-year moratorium from the effective date.

Right now it looks like uh a May 18 council vote, uh, effective date of the 21st when it's signed, um, halts new construction and development, um, as with any moratorium, um it's it's scheduled it up to one year, or it could be extended if the the working group finds need.

Part of why I think this moratorium is so important, is how quickly uh the world of data centers is evolving, and uh how new information is coming to us uh on a regular basis.

Uh there was uh uh a major piece yesterday talking about with the larger data centers, and we obviously, you know, referring to the Meta Data Center in Louisiana, we don't have 3,000 acres.

We probably don't have 160 acres to build something like Aurora is doing.

However, um what they're finding is these massive data centers are changing the ground temperature, you know, uh anywhere from I think 3.6 to 11 degrees.

Um, what does that mean?

Uh how can this be um mitigated?

So to turn our heads away from this would be doing a disservice, and and I think the councilman's exactly right.

We just need to regulate, so to see if and how they fit in.

So I believe one more we've got one more.

Why don't you take this, sir?

So for who will participate, so the working group, as Councilmember McCashman shared, will consist of community members, industry stakeholders, utility companies, subject matter experts, um, uh individuals who live experiences, union representation, city departments, and of course, uh members of Denver City Council.

Um, what it will affect, um, any newer proposed data center, either new construction or redevelopment of an existing property that does not receive a zoning permits, site development plan or site development plan amendment, what it will not affect our current data center work that has already been uh permitted.

Yeah.

And where we go with with regulation, uh potential outcomes, you know, where do we, if we if we decide we want to have data centers as part of our landscape, where do we do we need setbacks from residential areas, uh, which most uh other locales uh are doing?

Um do we need guidance for cooling systems?

I don't think we can tolerate a single business using a hundred million gallons of water a day or a year when uh it's not necessary with with alternative technology.

Same with energy use and looking at renewables and the number of uh codes that could potentially be affected uh zoning building energy, the green code and uh obviously Denver uh revised municipal code in our in our early discussions looking at uh formulating the working group.

Um uh CASER has been at the table, CPD has been at the table and a bunch of other folks in our timeline.

We are here today at committee.

Um if we move forward, it'll go to mayor council, um, will file for first reading um on April 20th, and then second reading and public hearing on May 18th.

And with that, we open up for questions.

And we've got lots of folks um in the queue.

So um starting with council president, and after that will be council member.

Thank you.

Thank you both for this work.

Um is the bill it talks about on section two applicants for a site development plan, and then they have approved sites, and it references the Denver zoning code, section 12.3.3.12.

And in the Denver zoning code for section 12.3.3.12, it talks about withdrawal for pending applications.

Um my question is is how many pending applications are do we have right now that would have to in the zoning code um it talks about withdrawal pending applications except for otherwise explicitly provided the only the applicant and owner of record can be withdraw the application?

Zero.

So we have zero.

We we we uh made sure the first thing was to take a look uh at what uh zoning has uh already on their table.

Okay, and uh there are no uh applications uh at present.

Okay, thank you for that.

And then it says the moratorium shall expire the earlier of one year from the effective date of this ordinance, and I can't find the effective date.

It's not in the ordinance.

The effective date is when it's signed.

Okay, is that needed to be set?

Is that need to be John?

You want to address that, sir?

Dr.

Griffin W Legislative Council, it doesn't need to be set in there as long as it's it will be effective upon the signature.

Yeah, okay.

Um and then so if the effective date we have to have a public hearing, correct?

What when would the effective date be?

Do we have the public?

Okay, public hearing is is currently uh May 18th.

Okay, so then that Friday, I think he signs the bill on Thursday or Friday.

Okay.

Um and then are you so because it's only March and we have to have this posted within, are you all going to set up the working group now before the effective date?

Or can you give me a little bit more understanding on the working group?

Does that make sense?

Because if we wait to have the effective date, that seems like the first week of March where we could use utilize already April.

Yeah, yeah.

What are your thoughts on those?

I was gonna say, yeah, we we've already began um fully engaging to create that working group, so we have the kind of the architecture of who should be networking group, and we're just still in the uh final approval review process.

I would guess certainly uh before the end of this week, yeah.

We will be at the point of you know, we're having a list of who'll be on the working group and verifying with those people that they're available to serve.

Yeah, okay, awesome.

Um last question for you all, and I have a question for CPD.

Um, are you all who's facilitating it?

So oftentimes when you like have these working groups, the council members want to participate, and it's hard to facilitate and participate.

I've learned since being here.

Yeah.

Are you gonna have an outside facilitator?

We that is the plan.

Um the director Babcock of CASA brought that up uh at our first meeting, and uh I agree that it it's it's the way to go.

So uh we begun uh that discussion as to who I need a facilitator who might serve.

Awesome.

Absolutely.

Okay.

And then for CPD, I have a couple questions for whoever wants to take it for CPD.

So currently in our zoning code, um we do not have a zone district, if I'm not mistaken.

We don't have a zone district for um like a specific zone district for data centers.

There's no real definition of data center.

Um is that what you all so I'll give a different example?

Um I think it was council district four.

We had no real definition of storage units, like private storage units, and then they were popping up.

I'm never forget.

I was on a uh tour, and it was Councilman Blackfit's door more district four, it's like this whole slogan that we all passed around.

Um, and then we had to run an amendment, remember, to the zoning code to address where storage units could go.

Is that what you'll be doing in this process is like actually defining data centers so we could track where they're going and putting the permit in place?

Great question.

Chris Weissner, community planning and development.

Thanks for having us here.

Um I think we would be looking to guidance coming out of this work group in terms of what the correct path forward needs to be for this.

It absolutely could include uh some enumerated development of a use category for this particular use.

Um but again, I think we want to hear sort of what the process drives toward uh and then be able to work from there in terms of the regulatory environment of what uh what the right solution is to embed in one or multiple of our codes, whatever the the right answer is.

Okay.

So currently, right now, what what use are they what like the one in Elyria?

What what use is that?

Like if you have to get a use permit, right?

They had to get a use permit.

What use did they go under?

Do you know?

I'd have to double check that one, but our our history shows that this uh the data center use as we've known it in the past, could be accommodated in multiple primary uses based on the descriptions and definitions of those uses.

And so I think this would look to drive toward uh a single clear answer that would provide those future regulatory tools, guidelines, safety valves, what have you uh for future development.

Can you find out what use it went under the one in do you do you know Angela's raised her hand?

I know it's an industrial use, I don't know the exact that's the district.

That's the use that's the district district.

I wonder if exact use the because you have to get a use permit.

I want to know the use permit.

Hi, Angela Cassius Mayor's office.

Um the information that we have is it's a um industrial storage trader storage, general use category.

Wholesale trader storage general use category.

Okay, so that's the if that's the district, right?

But then they have to use is that's the use permit.

Would be as well?

In for the corsight storage facility, that is the primary use.

And that would be what their use permit is under.

Okay.

Okay.

But we have others that are under a primary use office um and other situations or scenarios.

Again, due to the the definition description of our uses, it it fits probably not great in multiple different primary use categories.

Yeah, I remember when marijuana got legal and we had to I was in Councilman Montero's office and we had to figure out the use and where is it going?

And one of the things, unintended consequences is it pushed it into all communities of colors that but right next to industrial.

So they were the ones who had that smell, and then we had to go through the smell, and I won't even I won't waste the committee's time for that, but okay.

Um if anyone is interested in joining, do they just contact your all's office?

I've had a couple people reach out to me.

Um they they can contact myself, they can contact uh uh Angela Casias has been leading the uh the charge from the mayor's uh office.

And uh okay, awesome, awesome.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And thanks, Victoria.

All right.

Um council president, was that are you done?

Yes, thank you.

Well, thank you.

Um Councilman Ralvidos is next, and then Councilmember Twice.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your questions, Council President.

I had similar ones.

Um but how are we going to pay for these studies?

And are they gonna be independent studies of water usage, ground temperature, infra sound?

How are we gonna pay for the studies?

I think um 99% of the information that we're gonna be looking for is already out there in general, as far as like I said, uh many other states and cities have looked at the impacts.

We will uh want to work with our local providers, be it Denver Water, XL Energy, anyone else that the committee deems is affected for their local perspective to add into the general formulas.

If there's additional costs for any of the departments, let's say like CASRA or something, they will go through a regular process.

We're not assuming that that's going to be necessary based on their current work and that that they're doing looking at impacts on water use and energy.

But if there is, um, we'll have to go through, they'll have to go through whatever the regular process if there's an additional cost from that.

Yeah, I'm curious how you're going to study all of the issues that are tied to these facilities that are so new and some of the issues we may not even know yet.

Um and the costs, I mean, we if they do a study in California, that's nothing like the ground and the water and the resources we have here.

And so relying on what data is already out there and not being specific to our city and to our state in point in time is concerning to me.

So I'm curious exactly what studies you're expecting to do and what studies you're going to be relying on.

Um how did you come up with one year being long enough to do this work?

It's it's not I don't know that it's long enough, but it's it's a start.

Uh we thought uh we spoke with uh uh CPD and looked at uh um you know let's let's start with a year.

If it turns out that uh it's not long enough, we can always we can always extend it.

And as far as the information that we need, councilwoman, um we have existing data centers in Denver.

I mean, the numbers that I've gotten on water use uh and power uh water use has come directly from CoreSight, and uh you know, we've talked with Excel on power use.

So we don't need a lot of of exact numbers.

Um what we need to do is to uh uh require um the industry to do the best that it can do uh to see if uh where they say they can get down to is something that as a city we we can welcome.

Uh you know, we all know we're we're in stage one drought right now, so can we just kind of shrug our shoulders when someone says a a hundred million gallons of water a year?

So there are those things.

The other uh issues such as zoning um uh that's maybe the the simplest part of this.

You know, we need to get definitions, we need to uh determine setbacks, but as far as the things that get most people's attention, which are water, electricity, and noise, um, those I don't believe we need detailed studies, anything that would uh require real significant dollar uh output.

Okay, well, when we talk about the current core site site being a stone throw from a medical center, I think that's a really big concern that has been brought, and that this isn't gonna do anything for that.

And so, what are we gonna do about if we do study these, and it turns out that it does harm within a certain distance, the infra sound or the movement or the humming, um, how are we going to use that information to protect where the current site is?

Yeah, I mean, what is the permits that have already been issued have been issued, and and Corsite will continue building this this first building.

However, as I said, the their plan, their ultimate plan is depending on how many clients say, hey, we want in two, they may build a second building or a third building.

And what the working group uh being formed comes up with could affect that.

Um there are already noise regulations that they need to pay attention to.

Um, and if unforeseen challenges come up, they'll they'll have to be addressed in some manner.

But the b yeah, the building that's there is permitted, and um like I say, we're late to the dance, you know, while um you can point fingers at data centers.

You can also unfortunately point fingers at Denver City government, we're late to the dance.

We we did not do enough uh advanced regulation to uh you know um I I think the current location might have been better suited.

Um but like I say uh we we need to do better in the future, and that's what we're doing here.

And the only quick thing, council member I would share is that um the reason we have such a expansive um working group is to make sure that the thoughts that you just shared, the concerns that you're shared are incorporated into our process for creating regulatory environment.

And so this is the first step, and this is for future development.

Um it's not a there's not a look back opportunity within our current code that uh if there is a permitted site, but going forward, anything that um these experts, folks who are in the field looking at sound and noise and impacts to um individual health and water use, all of that, they're gonna be involved in that process.

You will be able to provide input and direction, so will your staff and others as we move the regulatory environment through.

So future impacts of future developments.

Um we welcome um everyone's interview to that.

Okay, so what I'm hearing is if we find out that this current site is harmful to the neighbors, there's nothing that we're going to do about that.

It it depends on what what that harm is, and if they're violating regulations, if they're violating noise, um that will be addressed.

Um without question.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you, committee chair.

Thank you.

Um luckily we have a lot of time today, so I think folks we do have everyone in queue, and we may still have time if people need to get back in, which is great.

Um, Councilmember Torres is next, followed by Councilmember Lewis online.

Thank you.

Um so we did a moratorium before for mobile home parks.

Um, and that's um there's a couple similarities that come to mind um when it comes to how this is being applied.

One was that mobile home parks were in lots of different zone districts, right?

Um CPD took the lead largely on us knowing we need to get to an answer on are we creating a new zone district?

Are we fitting it into in some way those existing zone districts, which were like TU zone districts, industrial zone district, um, et cetera, in different parts of the city.

Um so CPD was um like our our quarterback on that piece, and I really give them a lot of credit for doing that.

They also did it over two sets of council district or council elections, council classes, and um I that's something to keep in mind too if this goes longer than a year and four months.

Um there might be other council members um that get brought into the myths.

Um just looking at and uh this is just like a super fast scan, it's totally fascinating and would be interesting to see where do we have them, what zoning are they using, what use are they using, because you can have one in IB zoning, which is the one on 4900 Race Street.

You can also have one in downtown theater district zoning, which is the one on uh 15th Street.

Um so it becomes really difficult to think about like is there zone district language flexible enough that it flexes both a downtown context and an industrial context so that they don't end up all in our industrial corridor.

Um like we would fear um those of us along the Platte River.

So something really interesting, I think, to think about.

But I only found four locations that kind of popped up with Denver addresses.

Um so it would be interesting to really get like a full breadth of that.

Yeah.

Um the other thing is that um around the timeline, I think you're right to pick a year.

We picked a year and a half, I think, on the first round of the mobile home moratorium, because you can't pick too long of a period of time for legal reasons because you're um you're stepping into somebody's um development authority on their own property, um, and you have to be able to justify we need X amount of time and not more um uh we're not overextending right that regulation.

So um we brought mobile home moratorium back again for a reauthorization of that moratorium.

So um if your work is still getting done, you still totally have justification to keep doing that.

So I appreciate what you're doing.

I realize it's gonna take quite a bit of work.

Um it does feel like a lot of this is a CPD um conversation.

Yes, I think there are other policies related.

Um, but the um zoning and the use seems like that's the pivotal point because otherwise, how do we know it's a data center if it's just coming in as an office building or storage use, right?

Like how would we know?

So I'm just that's what I'm really interested in in what kind of flags it as a data center versus any other use on the property.

Yeah, I I think you're exactly right.

I mean, that's the first thing we need to do, but uh I don't want to under uh estimate the challenges around the power and water correct element and the noise.

Correct.

And do we have anything comparable that utilizes that much energy?

Um I don't think Liz Babcock is in the audience, I don't know how much pardon me.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Well, I believe in a quick chat with Liz, she indicated that the core site facility would be like the third largest power user behind um Purina and the airport.

And yeah, hi, this is Emily Gideon with uh Office of Climate Action Sustainability and Resiliency.

That does sound right to me.

We should verify that with XL.

Um, but we do have large power you power users as you noted.

Um I uh Councilman Torres, your estimate was correct on some of the data centers around town are based on our energized Denver uh data.

We see that there are about five sites across the city that are exclusively used as data centers, and then about 46 other sites around the city that are a partial data center use.

So it might be an office building, or for example, some of the TV news stations have data processing within them, so it's multiple use on one location.

Do you know for those 40 some, which is a big number, is that on site use just for that ownership?

Like if it is a new station, only that new station is using that, or are they like loaning their capacity out?

Would we know that?

I don't have the answer to that question, but what I can do is send over the data set that we pulled from from our what we collect through energized Denver benchmarking.

And if there's further questions we have, we can dig into that with our staff.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Emily, if you can bring down to co-located sites, um just clarifying which ones are if it's the five that are only co-located, um, that are leveraged solely as data centers.

That'll be great for all council members as well.

Great.

We'll send around that information.

Okay, and thank you both for um diving in.

It's super important, I think, for everybody.

Thank you, Councilmember.

All right, we have Councilmember Lewis who's online.

If she's still able to be here, I think she uh might have had to hop off at some point.

So at some point, so hopefully we've got her.

Still here, and I'll be quick because I do have to hop off in just a bit.

Um I want to I wanted to uh one, I appreciate this conversation, but I wanted to talk a bit about um the data center that's currently being proposed and how this might interface with such.

Uh it's my understanding that the permits for the core site were pulled on the 11th of March, and this is coming now, obviously on the 31st and December of 31st, 31st of March, but wouldn't be implemented until the 21st.

And so I'm curious as to how you all arrived at May 21st as um a date um to enact this, and what was your thinking around the pulling of the permits um for core site on May 11th and the potential um yeah, I'll stop there.

I'm just I'm just curious as to how you all are thinking about that.

Well, I think we'll we'll have um we had some direction as far as the start date from I don't know if it was from the city attorneys or from um Castro as to when that start date was for the 21st.

And so if there is anyone available that can speak to that, um and then for CPD, any of the the permitting um for core site if folks, if there's anyone that can speak to when the original um permits went through for core site, and then what's was the items that came through um recently, what those are.

Yeah, my understanding.

Yeah, we've got the original and more about the May of March 11th, the final permits.

Yeah, Councilman, uh CPD told uh us that uh the work had already been permitted weeks ago.

I am not aware of March 11th permits.

Um I is there anyone from CPD can be able to do that.

So the March 11th for the core site that was submitted for final permits to the city to complete the construction of the existing DE3 building at 4900 race street, and so those were the final permits required to complete the approved site development plan, and we're the final phase of the construction permits approved by the city for 2025.

Browning from building will address that.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Eric Browning, building official with community planning and involvement.

So the um permit for the building and a significant portion of the first floor and a portion of the second floor were issued on March 12th of this year for building one uh of the core site project.

That's all that we have from a uh building construction perspective in terms of permits issued at this time.

There have been uh two other submittals to complete the uh interior portions of the second and third floor um that are going through our permitting process currently.

Those have not yet been reviewed or approved, uh, but those are in process currently with with Planner View.

Thank you.

John Griffin, can you address the permitting issue?

My understanding was uh that uh Corey Site uh had the uh uh ability legally to continue building the building that's under construction.

Uh Jonathan Griffin, deputy legislative council, actually would need to follow back up with the CPD attorneys about the legal requirements around that.

I was taking direction from them.

So we'll get you uh an answer from the city attorney.

But that was my understanding.

Thank you for bringing that up, Councilman.

Yeah, John, if you can put that in a memo, I'd be very interested in it because it sounds like the March 12th um date actually um had a pretty could have a significant impact on whether or not we included that in this moratorium um in terms of the development, particularly for the GS community, as opposed to just kind of accepting that it is what it is for that project, but is there anything that we could have done um to be able to hold on some of the harm that is potentially um the the some of the potential harm uh more specifically?

I I know we asked some questions about the um the work group, but I just wanted to make sure that I understood what that work group um looks like in terms of the selection process because it was kind of vague uh in terms of that.

And so I'm if you all could kind of walk me through how you all are envisioning the work group aspect of it, and to councilwoman Albidra's point how the work group is going to consider the financial implications of such.

So oftentimes when we are running budget amendments, one of the things that we have to consider is staff time, and so that's not cost neutral.

And I think the way that you all have presented it as though it's cost neutral, and so I'd be curious to hear from Casr about the amount of staff time that this actually might require in terms of those studies.

Well, councilwoman, we don't know right yet what the uh schedule of meetings is going to be or how long it's going to take.

All I can tell you is all the agencies involved, uh including city council, the mayor's office, um, uh CPD, uh, and the other city agencies are union partners, um, outside uh agencies have all expressed a willingness to do that work, but I don't have uh a figure for you because I don't know how long it's going to take.

But I but I think we're I think I think it's any cost I don't disagree, but I am curious as to what the cost is.

Like that's our um responsibility as council members is just kind of understand what it is that we're going into.

And so I would be curious if HASAR could give it uh a ballpark of what they estimate that this time staff time will be for such a project as such.

And it's just a general um courtesy, I think that council members expect in terms of uh when we are proposing things that there's some kind of cost analysis um that we've done in order to be able to understand um the direction that we're handing we're headed in.

Right.

I'm sorry about that.

I thought we were asking a question of CPD, so I was waiting for that, but I could have been wrong about what was happening there.

Got it.

Okay, so council member lewis is all finished.

I I actually was I was asking yes, yeah.

No, I I'm just sorry, go ahead.

Yeah, Emily's here, and Emily can just say in general, and then possibly there's a any way that we could provide some level of a high-level um cost structure for um engagement and similar working groups.

We can, but also what the kind of what the workload is looking like to you guys, I think was part of the question too.

Right.

Um I will again, this is Emily Gideon with Casser.

Um we will be sort of running through what that would look like over the course of the task force process if there's additional studies needed.

We haven't done that full analysis yet.

Um, but we can certainly look into that and report back to you all.

And we do um consistently one of the things that CASER does is we have uh policy staff that work on different dockets and intervene at the state public utilities commission.

So we have capacity in that space, and that's um well, I I wouldn't say necessarily a bunch of free capacity in that space, but we do engage in those sort of statewide settings where um a lot of energy policy that's determined um like uh in terms of those policy spaces, that's where we're showing up.

So uh I guess short answer to your question is we will do an analysis of kind of what the workload would look like over time.

And this does touch on lots of different agencies.

Um, you know, we know CPD, uh DDPHE, and we're working uh collectively with those our our partners at those sister agencies as well.

So we'll take a look.

Thank you.

And I'll just conclude with um an appreciation for you all being willing to look at that.

And I know uh when we worked with CASA uh previously on the social on the social housing study, um, that you all work with consultants, and so there was a cost associated with that budget amendment.

And so I just curious as to the direction that you all are going in.

So appreciate the time.

I appreciate the uh research, and I hope that um this results in better outcomes for communities, particularly communities of color, low-income communities that happen to have these types of um things shoved into their communities without any um dialogue or discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Um, I have Councilmember Sawyer up next, followed by Councilmember Gonzalez Coach.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks, you guys.

Um, I'm full support of this.

Really appreciate it and thrilled that CPD is finally now agreeing to moratoriums on things, because when we asked about a moratorium on our gas stations, uh it turned into a whole situation, and we got told no.

So I'm thrilled that CPD is finally in a space where a moratorium for something like this makes sense and they are willing to move it forward.

So really appreciate that.

Um around who is seated on the um working group.

Are Denver Water and Excel both going to be at the table for that as well as our union partners, et cetera.

It's it is anticipated, yes.

Okay, great, because I just don't see how we could do this without them.

So yeah, I think that's fantastic.

I just wanted to confirm because it I don't think it was on the slide, or if it was, I missed it, which is very possible, but I wanted to just make sure.

Yes.

Um great.

Second question is around what we are gonna do about the things we can't do anything about.

Right.

So part of the biggest challenge when it comes to more when it comes to data centers is the PUC.

You see it, public utilities commission is a state regulatory commission that sets energy policy that has absolutely nothing to do with the city and county of Denver, and we have absolutely no power over the decision making there.

I know CASR has a really great relationship with them and um attends pretty regularly, but if the largest issue that we have the two largest issues that we have are water and electricity, um and the PUC manages the electricity part, what and we don't have much say over what that looks like.

How are we gonna um be able to create a regulatory environment that makes sense when we have no control over a very large piece of that regulatory environment?

What I would tell you, councilwoman is as best we can.

And in that I'll remind you what we're doing today is simply to pass a moratorium.

The working group that gets crafted will be crafted with with experts with with deep knowledge of that landscape.

So whatever we can do will get done as best we can to protect the residents of Denver.

I really appreciate that.

There are challenges, you're exactly right pointing that out.

Yeah, no, I really appreciate that, and I appreciate that you're doing this.

Um follow-up question, I think for CPD, and Eric, this is probably for you, because my question is um what part of this is actually gonna be regulated or should be regulated in zoning, right?

Setbacks and obviously we need a definition of what a data center is in a zoning code, but it seems like the real issues with data centers are mostly going to be things that are gonna need to be managed in the building code.

If you look at it from like a global perspective, but we're not there yet, so I don't know what I don't know.

Um can you tell me like are you guys thinking that way too?

Or are you gonna be have a seat on this working group too, not just the zoning services side, but the planning services side?

Development services side or whatever the difference between you guys is.

Thank you.

Uh again, Eric Browning, uh Building Official with Community Planning and Development.

Um so yes, uh we'll certainly uh be participating in the conversations, and um your uh I think understanding is spot on with respect to the non-zoning related elements associated with uh these types of buildings and development.

Um there are regulations that already exist with respect to data centers specifically.

Um point in fact, the uh Course 8 project um is designed in compliance with the energy code that was adopted by Denver at the time, which does include a reference to Ashley 90.4, which is four data centers.

Um so there is language that exists currently, that language continues to mature, and it does live in our building and energy codes outside of the zoning.

And so that'll just be part of the discussion and the conversation as we move forward.

Okay, I really appreciate that.

Um can you refresh my memory as to whether, other than just approving the version of the building code that we're using at this moment, council has any piece in the building code side of things?

Well, the agency will bring council a proposal with respect to adopting you know future versions uh of our codes with specific language um uh covering many different areas.

We've just kicked off an energy code update process.

That's why I'm asking that'll last through this year.

Um as a matter of fact, it's open and ongoing currently, um, and we'll look to engage many stakeholders throughout this year and into 2027 as we look to update uh what'll ultimately end up being a 2027 uh Denver Energy Code.

Okay, I really appreciate that.

Um I think the you can sit down.

I'm just gonna make one quick comment.

Thank you.

Um I think this is great.

I'm full in support of it.

I um I am a little bit concerned based on the presentation of the um peer cities that you looked at, because the vast majority of peer cities that you listed there have a ban.

And I don't, or like a full moratorium or a ban that there are only maybe two on there that have actual like regulations that are in place.

And I find that to be very concerning because data centers, I mean, we're using a data center right now to stream this committee live to have council members join remotely.

Data centers are really important part of the way we function in our universe, and they're that's not going anywhere anytime soon.

And so um I just want to make sure that as we head into this process, we are clear that this is about thoughtfully integrating data centers into reasonable uh locations and um and business spaces within our city and not about banning data centers in Denver.

Yeah, what I would say um, councilwoman, is if you look in the appendix, the vast majority are moratoriums in before legislatures currently.

Okay, okay.

And uh I agree with you to to the extent that if we find we are unable to craft policy that makes puts reasonable guardrails on our limited resources, then we've got some serious decisions to make.

Um the reality is the massive AI data centers that are being built will probably not be built in Denver just because we don't have the land.

Yeah, they can't be.

But we also uh live on the same planet in in this in the same country, and I think it's our responsibility to do what we can to set the proper example of doing what you can do to, yeah.

I mean, it's like you say, yeah, data centers they've been around forever since these things were invented, right?

But it is a new breed with new impacts.

So we've got to do everything we can do.

Um I really appreciate that, and I don't disagree with you at all.

I just think that um we need to make sure that as these conversations are happening, this is a space where there's like we acknowledge the balance here because we are literally using a data center right now.

Right.

We're all using repeat more than one for all the things that we're doing at this table right now.

And um I think that it concerns me some of the rhetoric that I have heard um, because that is a space where um where we need to make sure that we are negotiating and uh researching and bargaining and having these conversations in good faith.

And that's where I think my concern is.

And I'll be very quick, Councilmember Sawyer, and I appreciate the your statement on balance.

And I think that's where I see for the discussions that Councilmember Cashman and I have had and the engagement um with all of the parties, including an administration as far as Bill and his work working group, is that that balance is um is going to be required within this process.

And we're not coming in with a clear bias on one side or the other or multiple sides of issues, but um when we look at a regulatory environment, we need to ensure we can enforce the things that we're we're that we're looking at, and then also that we're having voices from folks across the spectrum of these issues.

So I am absolutely um with you, and for folks who are listening to be clear that we're looking at this as a moratorium to seek a solution to something that we must um, I think as a city take some action on.

Awesome, really appreciate it.

Thank you guys so much.

Thanks.

Thank you.

All right, Councilmember Gonzalez Good Tara is followed by Madam Pro Tem.

Um and we're getting a little tighter on time, so everyone's had a lot of time to ask questions.

I'm not implying anyone needs to cut it short, but just keep an eyes on a little.

Um before you uh closing, if you could save a couple of minutes, I want to offer uh uh Miss Casillas an opportunity to comment if she wants to some point.

That's right, but we have 15 minutes left and three four members in Q.

So council or Gonzalez, good chairs.

Thank you, uh Madam Chair, and thank you both for taking this on.

And Councilman Watson, I appreciate you know the fact that you're wanting to have a broad perspective and have you know multiple players at the table.

I do have some questions, however, about the in the language, and I know in other types of ordinances where we have been very intentional and specific about who are the players at the table, who are the folks that have a seat at the table.

Um this is pretty kind of broad and a little bit vague.

And so um I am curious who is defined as industry um stakeholders, who who are who are those toys.

What I would mean mean as far as industry stakeholders would be data centers themselves, have representatives of the data centers.

Um I think you consider, could consider our union friends uh industry representatives.

Um they certainly want to preserve jobs where wherever wherever possible.

Okay.

Um yeah, I think I'm just looking at the language here again, just trying to make sure who is captured in those.

I think you know, one of the thoughts that I had was is it helpful to be a little more prescriptive of not the exact person that was sit, but the groups that are actually represented, because I feel like this is a little open-ended.

Um I will share that I do have some concerns of having you know, data centers, like actual folks who stand to profit from um, you know, having data centers up, perhaps be part of that working group.

And for example, with the surveillance task force, we don't have any vendors that sit on that task force.

Um, you know, I can see that being a conflict in some ways.

And so just food for thought, um, just a concern that I need to make sure that I brought forward.

Sure.

Um I think that's sorry, Angela has to respond.

Hi, Angela Cassius Mayor's office.

Um just to be clear, so we've kind of gone the way that we set up the task force currently is to kind of go away from that um bringing in like an actual data center and bringing in representatives of data centers in that way.

So it's a little bit higher up.

So we right now we have IT industry representatives and um subject matter experts, which are more like kind of trade organizations rather than actual data centers.

So just to be clear there.

So the way our task force, the way we have kind of agreed to have it set up to offer some balance here is we have some three council members, three subject matter experts, which Denver Water, Excel Energy, and um I think there's a state uh representative on that kind of fall under the the subject matter expert.

We have three union representatives, three IT industry representatives, we have three advocacy represent representatives and three community members, along with three staff.

So that's the way we're kind of threading this needle to balance.

Now that doesn't mean that there that's the only people who are going to have to be able to weigh in at this point.

So this is a task force that's helping to develop the policy.

That is a separate process from the community outreach that we'll be also engaging in.

That's really helpful to have a clearer picture of like who would be around the table so that everybody's on the same footing.

Um I don't know what's possible in the language to include, you know, not the specific entities, but the representation, I guess, and what they represent.

Just food for thought.

We've we've had uh I had a request from uh the union representatives that they would like that clarified.

So we'll be looking at that in the next few days, not just uh union representation representation, but any other clarification that might be helpful.

That's great.

And I really appreciate that, you know, kind of shifting to those experts in the field, not necessarily you know, folks from the possible developers themselves.

So I appreciate that.

Um thank you, Angela.

Uh my other question is so I know that there you said mentioned like there's a state person that might that somebody from the state or a state entity that might be um incorporated on the group.

Um there was an environmental justice report that was issued, and I'm just curious how that interplay um between the state and the environmental justice office um that's tasked with you know evaluating um you know different types of um developments such as this that go into certain types of communities.

Um so there is a report that was issued, it's pretty lengthy.

Um there are a lot of um criteria, requirements, identifies this um, you know, for the purposes of talking about corsight, but even looking for towards the future and where these could potentially go.

Um there's a lot of information, I think that would be helpful for us to be able to review in that report, and that could help hopefully guide this um working group.

Um and so I'm just curious like what that interplay will be with the environmental justice office at the state through the um State Department of Public Health and Environment.

I'm not sure if if CASER has any interaction with them or if DDPG, who who has that connection.

Yeah, I was gonna say we had from DDPHE, they recommended someone from the state because the uh um the regulatory impacts for our air um is uh managed at the state, not by them.

And I don't know if we have the the name of the organization and how they're gonna coordinate.

Yeah, it's um definitely uh the state DDPH C DPHE.

Ogle Tree, someone yeah.

So yes, we do have a representative from that organization on the task force.

I was gonna add council member, if you have um uh any type of studies, research that you believe that would inform the work of the working group, and that's for any member of city council.

Please provide that to both of our offices to make sure that we have an informed process.

Um, but the um the state um uh department of health um um leader, and I I I'm not gonna call the person's name out, but um part of their role was to ensure that they're informed by any of studies, any of the impacts that the state is reviewing as far as data centers and impacts the communities.

Okay, thank you.

And I would just remind what we're talking about today is a one-year moratorium.

And uh the um makeup and operations of the uh working group task force, whatever it ends up being called, um, are still being hammered out in final form.

But uh appreciate you bringing up that other uh interplay between the state and and the city.

Yeah, I'll go ahead and stop there because I know there's other folks um that have questions, but thank you, Madame Chair.

Thank you so much.

Um Councilmember Campbell online.

Uh thank you.

Um, and I just want to thank the council members for bringing this forward um and for the presentation today.

Uh a lot of my questions have been asked in answer.

Uh in specifically, I just want to put a finer point a little bit on so the facilitation and then the community outreach are two separate kind of facilitation processes that we're gonna have.

Um as I heard.

But I am interested, or maybe it's more of a request from the group or from the task force, is to have a way that we can have regular communication back.

So I don't know if it's a bi-monthly or quarterly update, but I would just request that you know, as the task force moves forward, that that information comes back to um council on a regular basis.

Absolutely, Council President Pro Tem, we'll make sure that occurs.

Great.

And then we'll kind of define a cadence and we'll see how that works.

Um you and Council President first, and then we'll bring it back, see what makes sense, which committee, and we do that in form too.

Okay.

I appreciate that.

And then a moratorium, it was mentioned earlier that there are you know these larger um data centers for or more, I think there's more, but um and then there's like 40 plus um smaller data centers that are businesses, um probably for like a single entity.

Will there be a moratorium on those as well?

So I'm just thinking of like if you have if it's a hospital, hospital opens, does that mean that their data center um is also having a moratorium or can we just get some more definition around what you anticipate that to be?

And we can do that, Council President Pro Tem.

What uh councilmember Cashman shared in the beginning, there are zero um zoning requests for any additional data centers, no matter what size and what type.

Um and we made sure we did a full review.

And so if there's any impacts beyond the five um cool um located sites and going into kind of the single shared data center piece, we'll we'll provide that information back to city council.

Okay.

Um and would I think that would be helpful.

Um what I'm concerned about is like if we have an industry or if we have an industry partner that is trying to start um and their the way that they're storing their data for um for their organization would somehow be impacted and then they would not be able to continue.

And I don't know if currently they have to classify it as a data center.

Because if we're talking about what it looks like or what the zoning is, it may not even be captured at that size.

So just a concern.

Maybe Madam Pro Tim, I I think uh uh just about uh every business hospital uh uh whatever you want to grab is going to have some sort of data processing on their site.

I think we're probably looking, and I I do need to leave this to the attorneys, but I think we're looking at a business whose primary use is the storing and manipulation of data.

Correct.

Great.

Um those are my questions.

All my other questions have been um have been answered.

Uh I just appreciate you guys bringing this forward and I would support it moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

You want to pro tem.

Um I have myself and cue, and then we have some people that will get back in if we do have time.

Um so I've asked the producer if we can stay five to ten minutes late for a vote.

If you're on the committee and that's an issue for you, please pay me on teams problem for you.

Um quickly as I can then.

Um first of all, the this bill does lay out the creation of this working group.

Um and what's in here right now, I am just really uncomfortable with how vague this is.

It says there will be a working group.

It doesn't actually lay out what Angela just told us about who's gonna be on it, um, and it doesn't lay out who's convening it or or even um how these people are appointed.

It just says it has the voice of the formation of a working group.

Um, and I'm not deeply comfortable as a council member voting through the creation of a working group that's basically being sort of negotiated off to the side.

I don't feel great about that.

So I would strongly suggest um I would strongly prefer to see on the floor the makeup of this working group so that we can actually hash that out.

Um, because what I just heard rattled off, and I don't know that I totally caught it or caught all the categories, did not sound balanced to me.

Um what this ordinance says is that we're trying to prioritize um people that will be impacted.

Um and the makeup of the work group that I just heard, I don't think does that.

Um, and I and I just heard it, so I could be wrong.

But that's a huge concern that I have.

Um if we are selling this to community as um a process where people will be able to give input, we cannot have an inside baseball working group, um, understanding that we need people there with expertise, um, but that cannot be the only thing.

It has got to have legitimate community voice on it.

It will not be inside baseball.

Yes.

Okay, but what I just heard was three IT industry, three um government agencies that um often seem kind of captured, honestly, uh to varying degrees, Denver Water probably least of all.

Um, three, I forget what the other categories were, and three people from community.

And that's just not balanced.

Yeah, it's still being negotiated, yeah.

Right.

But I'm saying I it feels like if we're gonna create it in this ordinance, then we need to create it in this ordinance.

I mean the detail makeup um committee chair um of who's on the committee, and um the overwhelming number of folks um are not um industry folks, and so we look forward to you having a a view of what that looks like and um to know that.

I I don't want to hold it up before it gets to the floor because it's we need it in place before any more permits get pulled, but I don't want to vote on it without that level of detail.

What I would say, madam chair, is first of all, I would not have read that list today because it's still being negotiated.

Right.

Negotiated by whom?

Makeup of the group.

Uh Councilman Watson and I and everybody that's been at the table are are discussing it and um are trying to put together uh a balanced uh uh group to get uh regulation to determine if and how data centers might continue.

Okay.

What I would say is to not move a moratorium forward.

I'm not suggesting that.

No, I understand, but to not if if we didn't even have a working group mentioned, to not pass the moratorium leaves the door wide open.

I agree with you a hundred percent on what you're looking for and will work as hard as I can to get that.

Great.

Okay.

Um then my other question here um is that I am actually a little bit counter to Councilmember Sawyer, and I understand what she's saying because I take very seriously the fact that um there's a lot of um economics tied up in these things and there are a lot of jobs tied up in these things.

We all know that.

Um but at the same time, water's finite.

It will go away.

And so I don't think we can meaningfully embark on this process where we say we're going to be data driven, we're gonna, you know, see see what the landscape is, because we don't know yet.

We're gonna ask our staff to put in a bunch of work and do studies and all this without even being willing to think that perhaps these are just not a use that we should have in Denver.

So I'm surprised not to have seen that as a possible outcome on the slide.

You know, the principles of um sort of like good environmental analysis are that you have to consider all alternatives equally at the outset, right?

Um and so I really hope that we're planning to do that and that this is it's not a foregone conclusion that um that we will continue to allow them in some form because I just don't think we should be taking that off the table.

The moratorium bill says if and how intentionally because you're exactly right.

Um if and this is my point of view, if somehow data centers can be accommodated without draining our resource and and being negative impacts on our community, as with any other business, bring it on.

If those conditions can't be met, then we have that hard decision to make.

But that's for the working group to decide.

Okay.

Um I will be a yes on this, but I um don't feel great about jumping voting on a working group that doesn't have anything in it as to who's appointing it, what the positions are, because that's so important to this process.

So that's that's what I want to get out there.

Um with that, um, I don't want to keep us over.

Um, so can I get a motion in a second?

Um second move by a velvet second advice way, or anybody need a voice vote.

Thumbs up.

Great.

Thank you for your work on this.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Sounds like a bill is an interesting character and a very complex story across time and space and lots of different concepts that are um a little bit controversial and sometimes really cool and really fascinating.

And all of those things.