Project_Taurus_Validated_Talking_Point_Inventory_v1.2_simplified_links.xlsx

Project Taurus — Validated Speaker Talking-Point Inventory

Primary Source File

CC APPL-26-0003 Supplement (6) - Council Notice PACKAGE REVISED

Primary Appeal PDF

https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=C8C34AEB-6A56-4A87-A15E-98C8AAD12F6A&ID=15843239&M=F

Official City Docket

https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?GUID=853D9C19-EC34-4B05-9143-0ED4D10307E4&ID=8206955&Options=&Search=

Lane ID

Ground

Priority (later)

Council Notice Page(s)

UDC / Authority

UDC / Code Direct Link(s)

Talking Point

Framing

Later Filing Impact

Later IM Source / Section

Later IM Direct PDF

Impact / Correction Note

Opening

Plain-English Middle

Question to Council

Closing

Full Ready-to-Read Script

G1-01

pp. 9-10

UDC § 7.5.516.B.2

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

A Major Modification was approved administratively without first identifying the original approving body and procedure

Integrity Matters legal argument based on City decision record

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §II.B and Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds more entitlement history but does not narrow this point.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters points out that the City itself classified Project Taurus as a Major Modification. Section 7.5.516.B.2 says a Major Modification may only be approved by the body that approved the original permit or approval, using the same procedure. The appeal says the City approved Taurus administratively without first identifying that original approval, body, or procedure.

Where in the record is the determination identifying the original approval, who approved it, and the procedure that was used?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters points out that the City itself classified Project Taurus as a Major Modification. Section 7.5.516.B.2 says a Major Modification may only be approved by the body that approved the original permit or approval, using the same procedure. The appeal says the City approved Taurus administratively without first identifying that original approval, body, or procedure.

My question to Council is: Where in the record is the determination identifying the original approval, who approved it, and the procedure that was used?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G1-02

p. 10

UDC §§ 7.5.516.B.1-B.2

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

Integrity Matters argues the UDC provides no third pathway for a Major Modification

Integrity Matters legal interpretation

Unaffected

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal contrasts two paths in the Code: the Manager may approve a Minor Modification, while a Major Modification must follow the body-and-procedure rule in § 7.5.516.B.2. Integrity Matters notes that the City’s memorandum simply says staff decided Planning Commission referral was unnecessary and cites no separate Code provision authorizing that route.

What Code provision authorized staff to approve this Major Modification administratively?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal contrasts two paths in the Code: the Manager may approve a Minor Modification, while a Major Modification must follow the body-and-procedure rule in § 7.5.516.B.2. Integrity Matters notes that the City’s memorandum simply says staff decided Planning Commission referral was unnecessary and cites no separate Code provision authorizing that route.

My question to Council is: What Code provision authorized staff to approve this Major Modification administratively?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G1-03

p. 12

UDC §§ 7.5.516.B.2, 7.5.516.C.1

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The City treated Taurus as Major from the beginning, but the authority question was never reached

Integrity Matters argument supported by project chronology

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §II and Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds additional authority/history evidence.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters cites the February 4 pre-application meeting, the applicant’s later request to be treated as Minor, and the City’s decision not to reclassify the project. The final memorandum still calls the approval a Major Modification. The appeal argues that once the City kept that classification, § 7.5.516.B.2 required an authority analysis that never occurred.

After the City decided this was Major, where did it perform the § 7.5.516.B.2 authority analysis?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters cites the February 4 pre-application meeting, the applicant’s later request to be treated as Minor, and the City’s decision not to reclassify the project. The final memorandum still calls the approval a Major Modification. The appeal argues that once the City kept that classification, § 7.5.516.B.2 required an authority analysis that never occurred.

My question to Council is: After the City decided this was Major, where did it perform the § 7.5.516.B.2 authority analysis?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G1-04

pp. 12-15

UDC § 7.5.516.B.2

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The file identified as the 'original' is itself labeled a Major Amendment

Integrity Matters legal argument using City intake form

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §§II.B-II.H

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing expands the competing-original-approval record.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters argues that an 'original permit or approval' cannot simply be assumed to be a later amendment. The City’s own 2000 intake form for AR DPA 00-00177 is marked 'MAJOR AMENDMENT TO APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.'

If the 2000 instrument is an amendment, what is the original approval that it amended?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters argues that an 'original permit or approval' cannot simply be assumed to be a later amendment. The City’s own 2000 intake form for AR DPA 00-00177 is marked 'MAJOR AMENDMENT TO APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.'

My question to Council is: If the 2000 instrument is an amendment, what is the original approval that it amended?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G1-05

p. 15

UDC § 7.5.516.B.2

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The 2000 intake form names an earlier development plan, and the 'AR' prefix only describes the 2000 review track

Integrity Matters interpretation of City intake form

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §§II.B-II.H

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

No later correction to this point.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The appeal points to the 2000 intake form, which separately identifies the plan being amended as DS DP 85-178-A3(96) and marks the 2000 application itself for administrative review. Integrity Matters argues that the 'AR' prefix therefore tells Council how the amendment was routed, not who approved the earlier plan it amended.

Why should the administrative review code on a 2000 amendment establish the approving body and procedure for the earlier original approval?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The appeal points to the 2000 intake form, which separately identifies the plan being amended as DS DP 85-178-A3(96) and marks the 2000 application itself for administrative review. Integrity Matters argues that the 'AR' prefix therefore tells Council how the amendment was routed, not who approved the earlier plan it amended.

My question to Council is: Why should the administrative review code on a 2000 amendment establish the approving body and procedure for the earlier original approval?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G1-06

pp. 15-16

UDC § 7.5.516.B.2

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The earlier plan named by the 2000 amendment was not produced

Integrity Matters record-production argument

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §§II.B, IV.B

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds additional request history.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters says the City database did not return DS DP 85-178-A3(96), the development plan named on the 2000 intake form, and repeated records requests did not produce it or a clear statement that it does not exist.

How can Council determine the original approving body and procedure when the plan the 2000 amendment says it amended has not been produced?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters says the City database did not return DS DP 85-178-A3(96), the development plan named on the 2000 intake form, and repeated records requests did not produce it or a clear statement that it does not exist.

My question to Council is: How can Council determine the original approving body and procedure when the plan the 2000 amendment says it amended has not been produced?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G1-07

pp. 16-17

UDC § 7.5.516.B.2

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

A request for AR DP 00-00177 was answered with AR DPA 00-00177 instead

Integrity Matters record-production argument

Updated

Sept. 3 Supp. §IV.B; Sept. 8 Corrigendum Part 2.5

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F
Sept. 8 Corrigendum: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=9853F190-DF07-4D29-B637-A7BEE72F7B80&ID=15843205&M=F

Use current wording: Request #60091 was closed Aug. 14 without stating whether the file exists; the question remains unanswered.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal says appellants requested the complete file for AR DP 00-00177, the number shown on the approved cover sheet as the original Development Plan, but the City returned AR DPA 00-00177. The later record request was eventually closed without the City stating whether a file under AR DP 00-00177 exists.

Does AR DP 00-00177 exist, and if it does, where is the complete file and decision record?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal says appellants requested the complete file for AR DP 00-00177, the number shown on the approved cover sheet as the original Development Plan, but the City returned AR DPA 00-00177. The later record request was eventually closed without the City stating whether a file under AR DP 00-00177 exists.

My question to Council is: Does AR DP 00-00177 exist, and if it does, where is the complete file and decision record?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G1-08

pp. 16-17

UDC § 7.5.516.B.2

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

Earlier development-plan files exist in the entitlement chain without decision documents

Integrity Matters argument based on City database and produced files

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §§II.F-II.I

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds additional Council/hearing-body history.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters lists development-plan files predating the 2000 amendment for which the City produced drawings or index entries but no decision document. One of them, CPC DP 79-30, carries the City’s own 'CPC' hearing-track designation.

Where are the decision records that establish who approved these earlier development plans and by what procedure?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters lists development-plan files predating the 2000 amendment for which the City produced drawings or index entries but no decision document. One of them, CPC DP 79-30, carries the City’s own 'CPC' hearing-track designation.

My question to Council is: Where are the decision records that establish who approved these earlier development plans and by what procedure?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G1-09

pp. 17-18

UDC § 7.5.516.B.2

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

A City Planning stamp does not by itself identify the decision-making body or procedure

Integrity Matters evidentiary/legal argument

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §§II.B-II.I

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing keeps the same distinction and adds entitlement evidence.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The appeal compares older stamped plan sheets with later administrative approvals that also have written approval letters expressly saying City Planning approved them administratively. Integrity Matters argues that a plan stamp shows a plan was approved and filed, but does not by itself establish who made the decision or what procedure was used.

What record, beyond a plan stamp, establishes the decision-making body and procedure for the claimed original approval?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The appeal compares older stamped plan sheets with later administrative approvals that also have written approval letters expressly saying City Planning approved them administratively. Integrity Matters argues that a plan stamp shows a plan was approved and filed, but does not by itself establish who made the decision or what procedure was used.

My question to Council is: What record, beyond a plan stamp, establishes the decision-making body and procedure for the claimed original approval?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G1-10

pp. 18-20

UDC § 7.5.516.B.2

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The Commission itself asked when the original development plan was approved and by whom

Integrity Matters hearing-record argument

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §§II.B-II.I

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds records bearing on the same question.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters reproduces the hearing exchange in which Commissioners asked for the original approval and questioned what AR DPA 00-00177 was amending. The appeal argues that staff answered in terms of file-number conventions and the 'latest iteration,' while § 7.5.516.B.2 asks about the original approval.

What is the actual answer to the Commission’s question: when was the original development plan approved, by whom, and under what procedure?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters reproduces the hearing exchange in which Commissioners asked for the original approval and questioned what AR DPA 00-00177 was amending. The appeal argues that staff answered in terms of file-number conventions and the 'latest iteration,' while § 7.5.516.B.2 asks about the original approval.

My question to Council is: What is the actual answer to the Commission’s question: when was the original development plan approved, by whom, and under what procedure?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G1-11

pp. 19-20

UDC § 7.5.516.B.2

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

Two staff statements at the hearing were later contradicted by City records

Integrity Matters comparison of hearing statements and later City records

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §§II.B-II.I

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds more conflicting entitlement-history evidence.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The appeal says staff told the Commission that AR DPA 00-00177 was not a modification application and that no earlier Planning Commission or Council case served as the development plan being amended. Integrity Matters then points to the City’s later-posted intake form calling the 2000 file a Major Amendment and to CPC DP 79-30 carrying a CPC hearing track.

How should Council rely on the authority finding when the City’s later-produced records contradict the factual statements used to support it?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The appeal says staff told the Commission that AR DPA 00-00177 was not a modification application and that no earlier Planning Commission or Council case served as the development plan being amended. Integrity Matters then points to the City’s later-posted intake form calling the 2000 file a Major Amendment and to CPC DP 79-30 carrying a CPC hearing track.

My question to Council is: How should Council rely on the authority finding when the City’s later-produced records contradict the factual statements used to support it?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G1-12

pp. 20-21

UDC § 7.5.516.B.2; quasi-judicial process

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The original-approval issue was resolved during a recess using a document not available to the parties

Integrity Matters procedural argument based on hearing transcript

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §II.B.1 and §IV.B

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing continues to identify the recess document as a record problem.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters quotes a Commissioner saying that during the break she reviewed a document with the Planning Manager, described it as not available on the website, and then changed her view on whether the original approval had been shown. The appellants say they were not present, did not see the document, and could not respond.

What document was used during the recess, and where is it in the record Council is reviewing?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters quotes a Commissioner saying that during the break she reviewed a document with the Planning Manager, described it as not available on the website, and then changed her view on whether the original approval had been shown. The appellants say they were not present, did not see the document, and could not respond.

My question to Council is: What document was used during the recess, and where is it in the record Council is reviewing?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G1-13

p. 21

UDC § 7.5.516.B.2

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The Commission’s final motion made no finding identifying the original approval, body, or procedure

Integrity Matters legal/record argument

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

No later filing narrows the point.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal quotes the Commission’s motion as finding generally that the review criteria were met and the appellants failed the reversal criteria. Integrity Matters argues that the motion contains no finding identifying the original permit or approval, who approved it, or what procedure was used.

Where is the required § 7.5.516.B.2 finding in the Commission’s decision?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal quotes the Commission’s motion as finding generally that the review criteria were met and the appellants failed the reversal criteria. Integrity Matters argues that the motion contains no finding identifying the original permit or approval, who approved it, or what procedure was used.

My question to Council is: Where is the required § 7.5.516.B.2 finding in the Commission’s decision?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G2-01

pp. 25-27

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.b

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The 'no prior conditions' premise is contradicted by the City’s own approval records

Integrity Matters argument using City approval records

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.G and Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing expands the showing to nine approvals carrying conditions, including five on A8MN19 and Council conditions from 1985.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters says the applicant, counsel, and City memorandum proceeded on the premise that prior approvals contained no conditions. The Council appeal then identifies the April 25, 2000 Record of Decision as imposing seven conditions and lists conditions on other approvals in the entitlement chain.

How can the consistency-with-conditions finding stand if the factual premise was that there were no conditions?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters says the applicant, counsel, and City memorandum proceeded on the premise that prior approvals contained no conditions. The Council appeal then identifies the April 25, 2000 Record of Decision as imposing seven conditions and lists conditions on other approvals in the entitlement chain.

My question to Council is: How can the consistency-with-conditions finding stand if the factual premise was that there were no conditions?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G2-02

pp. 26-27

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.b

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The February 2001 landscape sheets are evidence that a 2000 condition was actually implemented

Integrity Matters record-based argument

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.G

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds further condition history; this point itself remains unchanged.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters points out that the 2000 Record of Decision required final landscape plans before certificate of occupancy and that eight plan sheets were later stamped in February 2001. The applicant’s own entitlement history acknowledges that later landscape approval while also asserting there were no conditions.

How was the City’s 'no conditions' finding reconciled with the later plan approval that the 2000 condition itself required?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters points out that the 2000 Record of Decision required final landscape plans before certificate of occupancy and that eight plan sheets were later stamped in February 2001. The applicant’s own entitlement history acknowledges that later landscape approval while also asserting there were no conditions.

My question to Council is: How was the City’s 'no conditions' finding reconciled with the later plan approval that the 2000 condition itself required?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G2-03

p. 27

UDC §§ 7.5.516.B.1, 7.5.516.C.3, 7.5.516.D.1.b

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

Prior conditions matter not only to consistency but also to who had authority to decide

Integrity Matters legal argument

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §§II.F, III.G

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing identifies additional Council-imposed conditions.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters argues that conditions can affect the decision-making body under §§ 7.5.516.B.1 and C.3. Because the City accepted the premise that no conditions existed, the appeal says no one examined whether any condition required Planning Commission or Council action.

Where is the analysis determining whether any prior condition reserved approval to a hearing body?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters argues that conditions can affect the decision-making body under §§ 7.5.516.B.1 and C.3. Because the City accepted the premise that no conditions existed, the appeal says no one examined whether any condition required Planning Commission or Council action.

My question to Council is: Where is the analysis determining whether any prior condition reserved approval to a hearing body?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G2-04

pp. 5-7

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.a incorporating §§ 7.5.515.D.1 and 7.5.409

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618
§ 7.5.515: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54534
§ 7.5.409: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54111

The Council Notice carries forward the argument that the Development Plan and General Criteria were never applied

Carried-forward Integrity Matters ground expressly preserved in Council Notice

Unaffected

Sept. 3 Supp. §I and Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing states that no ground or count is narrowed or abandoned.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council Notice expressly preserves Integrity Matters’ earlier argument that the City applied the Major Modification criteria without making the incorporated Development Plan and General Criteria findings. Those include the criteria the appeal identifies for compatibility, mitigation of significant off-site impacts, and the General Criteria.

Where in the decision are the findings required by §§ 7.5.515.D.1 and 7.5.409?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council Notice expressly preserves Integrity Matters’ earlier argument that the City applied the Major Modification criteria without making the incorporated Development Plan and General Criteria findings. Those include the criteria the appeal identifies for compatibility, mitigation of significant off-site impacts, and the General Criteria.

My question to Council is: Where in the decision are the findings required by §§ 7.5.515.D.1 and 7.5.409?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G3-01

pp. 5-7, 27

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.a; City Code § 9.8.104

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618
§ 9.8.104: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-17195

The Council Notice carries forward the argument that noise was judged against the wrong permissible limits

Carried-forward Integrity Matters noise argument

Unaffected

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.A

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds acoustic evidence but does not withdraw the wrong-limits theory.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters expressly carries forward its prior claim that the noise-compliance analysis used the wrong permissible limits under City Code § 9.8.104. The Council Notice does not abandon that issue even though Ground 3 adds a separate equipment-mismatch theory.

Where does the record identify and apply the correct permissible noise limit for the receiving properties?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters expressly carries forward its prior claim that the noise-compliance analysis used the wrong permissible limits under City Code § 9.8.104. The Council Notice does not abandon that issue even though Ground 3 adds a separate equipment-mismatch theory.

My question to Council is: Where does the record identify and apply the correct permissible noise limit for the receiving properties?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G3-02

pp. 5-7, 27

City Code § 9.8.106

§ 9.8.106: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-17217

The Council Notice carries forward the argument that the 5 dBA periodic-noise reduction was omitted

Carried-forward Integrity Matters noise argument

Unaffected

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.A

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

No later filing withdraws this argument.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters expressly preserves its argument that City Code § 9.8.106 was not applied. The appeal treats that as an independent noise-compliance issue in addition to the mismatch between the modeled and approved equipment.

Where in the compliance analysis is § 9.8.106 applied to the project?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters expressly preserves its argument that City Code § 9.8.106 was not applied. The appeal treats that as an independent noise-compliance issue in addition to the mismatch between the modeled and approved equipment.

My question to Council is: Where in the compliance analysis is § 9.8.106 applied to the project?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G3-03

pp. 27-28

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.a

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The approved plan and the noise study describe different equipment configurations

Integrity Matters argument using approved plan and noise study

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.A and Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds that the City peer review modeled 34 of 72 chillers and five of thirty generators from an older layout.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal says stamped Sheet M201 states 72 air-cooled chillers, 60 generators, and two 50 MW data-hall/UPS groupings, while the mechanical noise study relied upon in the approval modeled 36 chillers and 30 generators. Integrity Matters says that contradiction was never reconciled.

What noise analysis demonstrates compliance for the equipment configuration actually shown on the approved plan?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal says stamped Sheet M201 states 72 air-cooled chillers, 60 generators, and two 50 MW data-hall/UPS groupings, while the mechanical noise study relied upon in the approval modeled 36 chillers and 30 generators. Integrity Matters says that contradiction was never reconciled.

My question to Council is: What noise analysis demonstrates compliance for the equipment configuration actually shown on the approved plan?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G3-04

p. 28

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.a

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The Planning Director said M201 was never part of the plan for load or equipment, but it is a stamped approved sheet

Integrity Matters comparison of hearing testimony and approved plan

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §§III.A, III.D

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing addresses the later removal of M201 from the approved set.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters quotes the Planning Director saying it had always been 50 MW, 36 chillers, and 30 generators and that M201 was not part of the plan for those purposes. The appeal contrasts that statement with the stamped M201 and related LE Design Group sheets stating 72 chillers, 60 generators, and two 50 MW groups.

How can the City disregard the mechanical information on a stamped sheet within the approved Development Plan?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters quotes the Planning Director saying it had always been 50 MW, 36 chillers, and 30 generators and that M201 was not part of the plan for those purposes. The appeal contrasts that statement with the stamped M201 and related LE Design Group sheets stating 72 chillers, 60 generators, and two 50 MW groups.

My question to Council is: How can the City disregard the mechanical information on a stamped sheet within the approved Development Plan?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G3-05

pp. 28-32, 35-36

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.a

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The City’s peer reviewer requested source data and said detailed information was needed to independently audit the analysis

Integrity Matters argument quoting City-retained peer reviewer

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.A

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Use this narrower wording rather than saying categorically that the reviewer 'could not audit' every aspect.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The appeal reproduces the reviewer’s May 14 annotations asking for the exact sound-power levels and their sources and stating that a reviewer needs data rather than generalized statements. Another annotation says that if the rest of the report had similarly detailed information he could independently audit the analysis.

What record shows that the missing source data and auditability concerns were resolved before the City relied on the peer review?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The appeal reproduces the reviewer’s May 14 annotations asking for the exact sound-power levels and their sources and stating that a reviewer needs data rather than generalized statements. Another annotation says that if the rest of the report had similarly detailed information he could independently audit the analysis.

My question to Council is: What record shows that the missing source data and auditability concerns were resolved before the City relied on the peer review?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G3-06

pp. 33-36

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.a

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The peer review relied on key inputs supplied by the applicant’s acoustical consultant

Integrity Matters evidentiary argument

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.A

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds more detail on the model and revision used.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters points to the peer-review memorandum itself, which says generator and chiller sound-power levels, building and wall heights, and chiller-yard elevation were supplied by the applicant’s acoustical consultant. The appeal argues that agreement between two models using the same supplied inputs is not the same as an independent validation of the approved project.

What independent record evidence verified the key inputs used in the City’s peer-review model?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters points to the peer-review memorandum itself, which says generator and chiller sound-power levels, building and wall heights, and chiller-yard elevation were supplied by the applicant’s acoustical consultant. The appeal argues that agreement between two models using the same supplied inputs is not the same as an independent validation of the approved project.

My question to Council is: What independent record evidence verified the key inputs used in the City’s peer-review model?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G3-07

pp. 34-36

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.a

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The City peer review used an older layout and modeled 34 chillers at 75% plus five of thirty generators

Integrity Matters comparison of peer-review memo and approved plan

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.A and Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing makes this mismatch a central post-Notice point.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal states that the peer reviewer used the second-submittal layout and modeled 34 chillers at 75 percent load, with a secondary scenario adding five of thirty generators. Integrity Matters contrasts that with the later approved M201 showing 72 chillers and 60 generators.

How does a model based on the April 22 layout and reduced equipment counts validate the project that was actually approved?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal states that the peer reviewer used the second-submittal layout and modeled 34 chillers at 75 percent load, with a secondary scenario adding five of thirty generators. Integrity Matters contrasts that with the later approved M201 showing 72 chillers and 60 generators.

My question to Council is: How does a model based on the April 22 layout and reduced equipment counts validate the project that was actually approved?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G3-08

pp. 36-37

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.a; Condition 4

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The Commission was told there was no dBC standard or medical linkage, while the technical record contained contrary statements

Integrity Matters argument comparing hearing testimony and technical record

Updated

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.A and Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds that Condition 4 sets no C-weighted value, making the enforcement question more specific.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters quotes the Planning Director saying there was no standard to apply to dBC and no linkage to medical impacts. The appeal then points to contrary statements from the applicant’s acoustical consultant and the City’s peer reviewer. The Commission nevertheless required dBC monitoring.

What standard or action threshold governs the dBC monitoring the Commission required?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters quotes the Planning Director saying there was no standard to apply to dBC and no linkage to medical impacts. The appeal then points to contrary statements from the applicant’s acoustical consultant and the City’s peer reviewer. The Commission nevertheless required dBC monitoring.

My question to Council is: What standard or action threshold governs the dBC monitoring the Commission required?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G3-09

p. 37

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.a

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The noise figures presented to the Commission were internally inconsistent and unreconciled

Integrity Matters record-consistency argument

Unaffected

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters identifies several different figures attributed to ambient sound, normal operation, nighttime operation, economizing, generator testing, emergency operation, and a prior guarantee. The appeal notes that some statements would place operating levels below the measured ambient level with the equipment off and says the figures were never reconciled.

Which noise figures did the City actually rely on for its compliance finding, and where are the inconsistencies reconciled?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters identifies several different figures attributed to ambient sound, normal operation, nighttime operation, economizing, generator testing, emergency operation, and a prior guarantee. The appeal notes that some statements would place operating levels below the measured ambient level with the equipment off and says the figures were never reconciled.

My question to Council is: Which noise figures did the City actually rely on for its compliance finding, and where are the inconsistencies reconciled?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G3-10

pp. 37-38

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.a

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The same site previously generated documented noise complaints requiring structural mitigation

Integrity Matters historical-record argument

Unaffected

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal cites the applicant’s own project history stating that a 2020 amendment was prompted by noise complaints from Chelsea Glen. It also cites a structural report describing a temporary container wall erected for acoustic dampening that collapsed and was later permitted as a permanent structure with conditions.

How did the City account for the documented noise history on this same site when finding the new project compliant?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal cites the applicant’s own project history stating that a 2020 amendment was prompted by noise complaints from Chelsea Glen. It also cites a structural report describing a temporary container wall erected for acoustic dampening that collapsed and was later permitted as a permanent structure with conditions.

My question to Council is: How did the City account for the documented noise history on this same site when finding the new project compliant?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G4-01

pp. 38-39

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.c

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The comparative-impact criterion requires a comparison, but the record did not identify a reliable baseline or model the approved project

Integrity Matters legal/record argument

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.H

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds further comparison problems based on the peer-review configuration.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters emphasizes that § 7.5.516.D.1.c asks whether the modification creates more adverse impacts than the approval being modified. The appeal argues that the required comparison could not be performed because the baseline approval was unresolved and the approved equipment configuration was not the configuration modeled.

Where is the side-by-side comparison between the approval being modified and Project Taurus as actually approved?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters emphasizes that § 7.5.516.D.1.c asks whether the modification creates more adverse impacts than the approval being modified. The appeal argues that the required comparison could not be performed because the baseline approval was unresolved and the approved equipment configuration was not the configuration modeled.

My question to Council is: Where is the side-by-side comparison between the approval being modified and Project Taurus as actually approved?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G4-02

p. 39

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.c

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The City identified an additional 24,689 square feet of generator-yard use but did not present that increase to the Commission

Integrity Matters argument quoting City correspondence

Unaffected

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal quotes a June 2 City message stating that the resubmittal resulted in an additional 24,689 square feet of generator-yard use. Integrity Matters says the figure was not stated to the Planning Commission and no record was produced showing it was evaluated under the comparative-impact criterion.

Where did the City compare the impacts of the additional 24,689 square feet of generator-yard use with the prior approved condition?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal quotes a June 2 City message stating that the resubmittal resulted in an additional 24,689 square feet of generator-yard use. Integrity Matters says the figure was not stated to the Planning Commission and no record was produced showing it was evaluated under the comparative-impact criterion.

My question to Council is: Where did the City compare the impacts of the additional 24,689 square feet of generator-yard use with the prior approved condition?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G4-03

p. 39

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.c; fire/life-safety review

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The Fire Department stamped the submittal containing M201 'DISAPPROVED' eight days before approval

Integrity Matters record-based safety/comparative-impact argument

Unaffected

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters points to the June 3 Fire Department disapproval stamp on the third submittal in which M201 first appeared. The Council appeal says access-door details were deferred and that the stamped set contains no fire-flow, fuel-storage, hazardous-materials, or hazardous-occupancy analysis.

What record shows that the Fire Department’s disapproval and the underlying safety issues were resolved before the June 11 approval?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters points to the June 3 Fire Department disapproval stamp on the third submittal in which M201 first appeared. The Council appeal says access-door details were deferred and that the stamped set contains no fire-flow, fuel-storage, hazardous-materials, or hazardous-occupancy analysis.

My question to Council is: What record shows that the Fire Department’s disapproval and the underlying safety issues were resolved before the June 11 approval?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G4-04

pp. 39-40

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.c

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

On the morning of approval, the Fire reviewer was still asking whether his review should remain 'Corrections Required or Approved'

Integrity Matters record-production argument

Unaffected

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The appeal reproduces emails in which the Fire reviewer asked the Planning Manager how to disposition his review, followed by a planned phone call. Integrity Matters says no record of what was decided on that call was produced before the approval issued later that day.

What record documents how the Fire review was resolved before the approval was issued?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The appeal reproduces emails in which the Fire reviewer asked the Planning Manager how to disposition his review, followed by a planned phone call. Integrity Matters says no record of what was decided on that call was produced before the approval issued later that day.

My question to Council is: What record documents how the Fire review was resolved before the approval was issued?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G4-05

p. 40

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.c

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The 'negligible impact' conclusion on fire services preceded the reviews that would establish the project’s actual fire and life-safety impacts

Integrity Matters chronology argument

Unaffected

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters cites a May 28 statement that the project would have negligible impact on Fire Department response, then cites a July City response saying the project was not far enough along for hazardous-material, fuel-tank, generator, water-supply, hydrant, or fire/life-safety reviews.

How could the City make a comparative-impact finding before the reviews needed to evaluate those impacts had been performed?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters cites a May 28 statement that the project would have negligible impact on Fire Department response, then cites a July City response saying the project was not far enough along for hazardous-material, fuel-tank, generator, water-supply, hydrant, or fire/life-safety reviews.

My question to Council is: How could the City make a comparative-impact finding before the reviews needed to evaluate those impacts had been performed?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G4-06

p. 40

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.c

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The drainage review was still unresolved when the Development Plan was approved

Integrity Matters record-based argument

Unaffected

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal quotes the June 9 Final Report stating that Stormwater Enterprise requested that the Development Plan not be approved until major drainage comments were resolved. The approval issued two days later, and a later City response said the preliminary drainage-report review fee had not yet been paid.

Where is the record showing the major drainage comments were resolved before approval?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal quotes the June 9 Final Report stating that Stormwater Enterprise requested that the Development Plan not be approved until major drainage comments were resolved. The approval issued two days later, and a later City response said the preliminary drainage-report review fee had not yet been paid.

My question to Council is: Where is the record showing the major drainage comments were resolved before approval?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G4-07

p. 40

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.c

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The City reported no additional records clearing the Fire Department disapproval

Integrity Matters record-production argument

Unaffected

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters says three records requests asked for the fire/life-safety analysis, the status of the review, and the record clearing the June 3 disapproval. The City responses quoted in the appeal state that no additional responsive Fire Department records were located.

What record establishes that the June 3 Fire Department disapproval was actually cleared before approval?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters says three records requests asked for the fire/life-safety analysis, the status of the review, and the record clearing the June 3 disapproval. The City responses quoted in the appeal state that no additional responsive Fire Department records were located.

My question to Council is: What record establishes that the June 3 Fire Department disapproval was actually cleared before approval?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G4-08

pp. 40-41

UDC § 7.2.604.B; § 7.5.516.D.1.c

§ 7.2.604: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-50904
§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The office responsible for wildland-fuels compliance reported that it did not keep the requested project records

Integrity Matters record-production/compliance argument

Unaffected

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal says appellants requested Wildland Fuels Management and fire-apparatus-access records for the project, and the Division of the Fire Marshal answered that those items were not part of the records it keeps. Integrity Matters links that absence to a project in the Wildland-Urban Interface Overlay.

Where is the project-specific record showing compliance with the Wildland Fuels Management requirements and related fire-access requirements?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal says appellants requested Wildland Fuels Management and fire-apparatus-access records for the project, and the Division of the Fire Marshal answered that those items were not part of the records it keeps. Integrity Matters links that absence to a project in the Wildland-Urban Interface Overlay.

My question to Council is: Where is the project-specific record showing compliance with the Wildland Fuels Management requirements and related fire-access requirements?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G4-09

pp. 43-44

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.c

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The approximately 200,000-gallon water-glycol cooling system was disclosed by the applicant but not analyzed by the City

Integrity Matters argument based on applicant disclosure and City memo

Unaffected

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters cites the applicant’s response describing a closed-loop system with an approximately 200,000-gallon initial charge of water and glycol. The Council appeal says the Administrative Decision Analysis Memorandum does not discuss the glycol system, replacement cycles, water demand, or disposal impacts.

Where is the comparative-impact analysis of the cooling-fluid system disclosed in the application record?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters cites the applicant’s response describing a closed-loop system with an approximately 200,000-gallon initial charge of water and glycol. The Council appeal says the Administrative Decision Analysis Memorandum does not discuss the glycol system, replacement cycles, water demand, or disposal impacts.

My question to Council is: Where is the comparative-impact analysis of the cooling-fluid system disclosed in the application record?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G4-10

p. 44

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.c

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The record contained no fire/life-safety analysis of the proposed 60-generator configuration

Integrity Matters record-based comparative-impact argument

Unaffected

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal quotes the City saying the project was not far enough along for generator, fuel-tank, hazardous-material, water-supply, hydrant, or fire/life-safety reviews. Integrity Matters contrasts that with the approved proposal for sixty 3.5 MW diesel generators.

Where is the analysis comparing the fire and life-safety impacts of the approved generator installation with the prior approved use?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal quotes the City saying the project was not far enough along for generator, fuel-tank, hazardous-material, water-supply, hydrant, or fire/life-safety reviews. Integrity Matters contrasts that with the approved proposal for sixty 3.5 MW diesel generators.

My question to Council is: Where is the analysis comparing the fire and life-safety impacts of the approved generator installation with the prior approved use?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G5-01

pp. 44-45

UDC § 7.5.515.D.1.k; § 7.5.409.C

§ 7.5.515: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54534
§ 7.5.409: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54111

The 50 MW figure used in the hearing was only one of several different load figures in the record

Integrity Matters load-record argument

Updated

Sept. 3 Supp. §§III.B-III.C

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing records that the reissued written condition says '50MW of electricity.'

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters notes that applicant counsel told the Commission the project would operate on only 50 MW for installed computer systems, and the Commission adopted a 50 MW condition. The appeal then lays out other load figures from utility and plan records.

What electrical load did the City actually evaluate and approve?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters notes that applicant counsel told the Commission the project would operate on only 50 MW for installed computer systems, and the Commission adopted a 50 MW condition. The appeal then lays out other load figures from utility and plan records.

My question to Council is: What electrical load did the City actually evaluate and approve?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G5-02

pp. 44-45

UDC § 7.5.515.D.1.k; § 7.5.409.C

The Council appeal identifies multiple unreconciled load figures, including a much larger buildout figure

Integrity Matters comparison of project and utility records

Corrected

Sept. 8 Corrigendum Part 1

Sept. 8 Corrigendum: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=9853F190-DF07-4D29-B637-A7BEE72F7B80&ID=15843205&M=F

Use approximately 300 MW critical / 420 MW gross, not 400 MW gross.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal’s load table includes 72 MW utility requests, a project document describing up to approximately 300 MW critical power, the 72 MW gross / roughly 50 MW IT phase figure, CSU’s 42-to-72 MW study, 100 MW on M201, and the 50 MW condition. Integrity Matters argues the City never reconciled them.

Where does the decision reconcile the different electrical-load figures and identify the capacity actually approved?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal’s load table includes 72 MW utility requests, a project document describing up to approximately 300 MW critical power, the 72 MW gross / roughly 50 MW IT phase figure, CSU’s 42-to-72 MW study, 100 MW on M201, and the 50 MW condition. Integrity Matters argues the City never reconciled them.

My question to Council is: Where does the decision reconcile the different electrical-load figures and identify the capacity actually approved?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G5-03

p. 45

UDC § 7.5.515.D.1.k

§ 7.5.515: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54534

The December 15 engineering sheet states 72 MW gross, roughly 50 MW IT, and two 50 MW UPS banks on the same Phase 1 design

Integrity Matters interpretation of engineering record

Unaffected

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters points out that one engineering sheet contains several different capacity measures in a single keynote block and labels the configuration Phase 1. The appeal argues those quantities needed to be reconciled rather than treated as interchangeable.

Which of the different power quantities on the Phase 1 engineering sheet was used for the City’s utility-adequacy finding?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters points out that one engineering sheet contains several different capacity measures in a single keynote block and labels the configuration Phase 1. The appeal argues those quantities needed to be reconciled rather than treated as interchangeable.

My question to Council is: Which of the different power quantities on the Phase 1 engineering sheet was used for the City’s utility-adequacy finding?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G5-04

p. 45

UDC § 7.5.515.D.1.k; § 7.5.409.C

The CSU Large Load Study modeled 42 MW rising to 72 MW and identified major utility-system implications

Integrity Matters argument using CSU study

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.B and Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds the 72 MW will-serve letter, capacity-queue material, and additional infrastructure evidence.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal says CSU’s March 9 study modeled 42 MW by July and 72 MW by October, estimated a ten-percent increase in typical annual CSU energy usage, discussed onsite natural-gas generation, and concluded that the gas-system model was infeasible with the requested parameters.

Where did the City’s land-use decision address the utility-system findings in the CSU Large Load Study?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal says CSU’s March 9 study modeled 42 MW by July and 72 MW by October, estimated a ten-percent increase in typical annual CSU energy usage, discussed onsite natural-gas generation, and concluded that the gas-system model was infeasible with the requested parameters.

My question to Council is: Where did the City’s land-use decision address the utility-system findings in the CSU Large Load Study?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G5-05

p. 45

Commission Condition 2; UDC utility-adequacy criteria

The original 50 MW condition did not identify which power quantity it was limiting

Integrity Matters condition/record argument

Updated

Sept. 3 Supp. §§III.B-III.C and Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Use the current written-condition wording: '50MW of electricity.'

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal says Condition 2 capped 'utility usage' at 50 MW without identifying whether that meant IT load, gross utility load, UPS capacity, or another quantity. After the Council Notice, the City reissued the condition as '50MW of electricity,' which Integrity Matters says still does not reconcile the underlying capacity record.

What exact project capacity does the 50 MW condition limit, and how does that limit relate to the approved plan and utility records?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal says Condition 2 capped 'utility usage' at 50 MW without identifying whether that meant IT load, gross utility load, UPS capacity, or another quantity. After the Council Notice, the City reissued the condition as '50MW of electricity,' which Integrity Matters says still does not reconcile the underlying capacity record.

My question to Council is: What exact project capacity does the 50 MW condition limit, and how does that limit relate to the approved plan and utility records?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G5-06

pp. 5-7, 44-45

UDC § 7.5.515.D.1.k; § 7.5.409.C

The Council Notice carries forward the argument that no utility-adequacy finding was made for the project actually approved

Carried-forward Integrity Matters ground

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.B

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds additional CSU records but does not withdraw the adequacy objection.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters’ Council Notice expressly preserves its utility-adequacy objection. The appeal’s point is not simply that different numbers exist; it is that the decision does not identify a reconciled project load and make the required adequacy finding for that load.

Where is the written utility-adequacy finding for the electrical load Council is being asked to uphold?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters’ Council Notice expressly preserves its utility-adequacy objection. The appeal’s point is not simply that different numbers exist; it is that the decision does not identify a reconciled project load and make the required adequacy finding for that load.

My question to Council is: Where is the written utility-adequacy finding for the electrical load Council is being asked to uphold?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G6-01

pp. 45-46

UDC § 7.5.516.E; Condition 3

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

Condition 3 used an office-layout sheet to replace the mechanical M201 sheet

Integrity Matters condition/plan argument

Updated

Sept. 3 Supp. §§III.C-III.E; Sept. 8 Corrigendum Part 2.3

The substitution was actually implemented on Aug. 11. Current corrected point: yard areas remain on DP1.0, but equipment counts, data halls, chiller/generator counts and load no longer appear in the 13 approved sheets.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal says the substitute sheet is titled 'Office Plan and Square Footages,' was supplied for parking calculations, and expressly says its layout does not apply to any other part of the Development Plan. Integrity Matters argues that it does not function as a corrected mechanical sheet.

How can an office-layout sheet that disclaims application to the rest of the plan replace the project’s mechanical keynote sheet?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal says the substitute sheet is titled 'Office Plan and Square Footages,' was supplied for parking calculations, and expressly says its layout does not apply to any other part of the Development Plan. Integrity Matters argues that it does not function as a corrected mechanical sheet.

My question to Council is: How can an office-layout sheet that disclaims application to the rest of the plan replace the project’s mechanical keynote sheet?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G6-02

p. 45

UDC § 7.5.516.E

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

When the Council Notice was filed, no revised Development Plan had been requested or created; a replacement was later stamped during the appeal

Integrity Matters chronology/procedure argument

Updated

Sept. 3 Supp. §§III.D-III.E

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Do not use the old statement that no revised plan exists as a current fact; the later substitution changed the record.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council Notice reports that as of July 30 the City had no responsive record of a revised Development Plan requested under § 7.5.516.E. Integrity Matters’ later filing says the City then removed M201 and stamped the replacement sheet on August 11.

What authority and procedure governed the August 11 plan-sheet substitution while the appeal was pending?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council Notice reports that as of July 30 the City had no responsive record of a revised Development Plan requested under § 7.5.516.E. Integrity Matters’ later filing says the City then removed M201 and stamped the replacement sheet on August 11.

My question to Council is: What authority and procedure governed the August 11 plan-sheet substitution while the appeal was pending?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G6-03

p. 46

Development Agreement; approved Development Plan

The Development Agreement’s 30-foot-wall language does not match all wall heights stated in the approved plan

Integrity Matters document-consistency argument

Unaffected

Sept. 8 Corrigendum Part 2.1

Sept. 8 Corrigendum: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=9853F190-DF07-4D29-B637-A7BEE72F7B80&ID=15843205&M=F

The Corrigendum confirms the approved set contains stated 30-, 33-, and 45-foot wall provisions plus a formula on another sheet.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal says the Development Agreement requires a 30-foot screen wall while the approved plan includes a 33-foot chiller-yard wall and a 45-foot generator-yard wall. Integrity Matters uses that mismatch as another example of the conditions and dependent documents not lining up cleanly with the approved plan.

Which wall dimensions are controlling for enforcement of the approval?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal says the Development Agreement requires a 30-foot screen wall while the approved plan includes a 33-foot chiller-yard wall and a 45-foot generator-yard wall. Integrity Matters uses that mismatch as another example of the conditions and dependent documents not lining up cleanly with the approved plan.

My question to Council is: Which wall dimensions are controlling for enforcement of the approval?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G6-04

p. 46

Development Agreement § 8

The Development Agreement reserves enforcement to the parties and treats affected neighbors as incidental beneficiaries

Integrity Matters contract/enforcement argument

Unaffected

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters cites the Agreement’s enforcement clause, which reserves enforcement to the parties and says others receiving benefits are incidental beneficiaries only. The appeal argues that mitigation relied upon for the approval is therefore not directly enforceable by affected property owners.

If the Development Agreement is part of the mitigation supporting approval, who can enforce it and what remedy exists if its protections are not followed?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters cites the Agreement’s enforcement clause, which reserves enforcement to the parties and says others receiving benefits are incidental beneficiaries only. The appeal argues that mitigation relied upon for the approval is therefore not directly enforceable by affected property owners.

My question to Council is: If the Development Agreement is part of the mitigation supporting approval, who can enforce it and what remedy exists if its protections are not followed?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G6-05

p. 46

UDC § 7.5.516.E; Condition 3

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

Integrity Matters argues Condition 3 either failed to cure the M201 contradiction or removed the mechanical design from the approved set

Integrity Matters legal/plan argument

Updated

Sept. 3 Supp. §§III.D-III.E; Sept. 8 Corrigendum Part 2.3

Current wording should reflect that the substitution occurred; yard areas remain, but the equipment counts and load do not.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal framed a two-part dilemma: if the substitute could not replace M201, the contradiction survived; if it could, the approved plan would lose the sheet containing the mechanical equipment counts and data-hall load. The later filing says the second event occurred when M201 was removed on August 11.

After the August 11 substitution, where in the approved Development Plan are the mechanical equipment counts and load that define what was approved?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal framed a two-part dilemma: if the substitute could not replace M201, the contradiction survived; if it could, the approved plan would lose the sheet containing the mechanical equipment counts and data-hall load. The later filing says the second event occurred when M201 was removed on August 11.

My question to Council is: After the August 11 substitution, where in the approved Development Plan are the mechanical equipment counts and load that define what was approved?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G6-06

p. 46

UDC § 7.5.705; appeal authority

§ 7.5.705: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-55478

Integrity Matters questions whether directing a plan-sheet substitution was within the Planning Commission’s appellate authority

Integrity Matters legal argument

Unaffected

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal points to § 7.5.705 as identifying the available appellate dispositions—affirm, reverse, modify, or remand—and argues that directing substitution of a sheet within an approved plan set was not one of the actions authorized in the manner used.

What UDC authority allowed the Commission, acting on appeal, to direct this plan-sheet substitution?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal points to § 7.5.705 as identifying the available appellate dispositions—affirm, reverse, modify, or remand—and argues that directing substitution of a sheet within an approved plan set was not one of the actions authorized in the manner used.

My question to Council is: What UDC authority allowed the Commission, acting on appeal, to direct this plan-sheet substitution?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G7-01

pp. 5-7, 46

UDC § 7.5.516.D.1.d; § 7.2.401.A

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618
§ 7.2.401: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-50678

The Council Notice carries forward the argument that the BP district’s 'quiet and clean' intent was never analyzed

Carried-forward Integrity Matters ground

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §II.J and §III.I

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds adopted-plan and classification material but does not abandon this argument.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters expressly preserves its earlier ground that the City did not make the required zone-intent analysis under § 7.5.516.D.1.d and § 7.2.401.A. The point is whether the decision actually addressed consistency with the stated intent of the BP district.

Where is the finding addressing consistency with the BP district’s 'quiet and clean' intent?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters expressly preserves its earlier ground that the City did not make the required zone-intent analysis under § 7.5.516.D.1.d and § 7.2.401.A. The point is whether the decision actually addressed consistency with the stated intent of the BP district.

My question to Council is: Where is the finding addressing consistency with the BP district’s 'quiet and clean' intent?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G7-02

pp. 5-7, 46

UDC § 7.2.401.C.1; § 7.5.514

§ 7.2.401: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-50678
§ 7.5.514: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54481

The Council Notice carries forward the former PIP-1 size-or-intensity / Land Use Plan argument

Carried-forward Integrity Matters ground

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §II.J and Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds the Holland Park West Master Plan as additional adopted-plan material.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters expressly preserves its earlier argument that the former PIP-1 treatment required a Manager determination if the development was of an unanticipated size or intensity or created impacts not previously considered, with a Land Use Plan consequence if the trigger was met.

Where is the Manager’s size-or-intensity determination and, if the trigger was met, the Land Use Plan analysis required by the Code?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters expressly preserves its earlier argument that the former PIP-1 treatment required a Manager determination if the development was of an unanticipated size or intensity or created impacts not previously considered, with a Land Use Plan consequence if the trigger was met.

My question to Council is: Where is the Manager’s size-or-intensity determination and, if the trigger was met, the Land Use Plan analysis required by the Code?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G7-03

pp. 47-48

UDC use classification; § 7.5.516.D.1.d

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The 2010 plan reference relied upon as a data-center designation predates creation of the City’s data-center use type

Integrity Matters classification argument

Updated

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.I and Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing reframes this expressly as a classification question, not merely a compliance question.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal states that the applicant relied on a 2010 plan reference to say the property had been designated as a data center for years. Integrity Matters then identifies Ordinance 12-65 in 2012 as the point when the City first created a data-center use type.

How can a 2010 plan reference establish a land-use designation for a use type the City had not yet created?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal states that the applicant relied on a 2010 plan reference to say the property had been designated as a data center for years. Integrity Matters then identifies Ordinance 12-65 in 2012 as the point when the City first created a data-center use type.

My question to Council is: How can a 2010 plan reference establish a land-use designation for a use type the City had not yet created?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G7-04

pp. 47-48

UDC § 7.6.301; classification under § 7.5.516.C.1.e

§ 7.6.301: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-56046
§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The use definition changed again in 2023, and the current UDC contains no standalone data-center definition

Integrity Matters classification/legal argument

Updated

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.I and Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Use the later classification framing.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal traces the use type from its creation in 2012 through the 2023 UDC. The later Integrity Matters filing clarifies that the old standalone definition was repealed in 2023 and no new standalone definition replaced it; 'data center' now appears as an example within Light Industry.

What adopted definition or classification standard did the City use to determine that this 2026 facility is the same approved use rather than a more intense or new use?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal traces the use type from its creation in 2012 through the 2023 UDC. The later Integrity Matters filing clarifies that the old standalone definition was repealed in 2023 and no new standalone definition replaced it; 'data center' now appears as an example within Light Industry.

My question to Council is: What adopted definition or classification standard did the City use to determine that this 2026 facility is the same approved use rather than a more intense or new use?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G7-05

p. 48

UDC § 7.5.516.C.1.e; § 7.5.516.D.1.d

§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

Integrity Matters says the approved lineage identifies Office/Manufacturing, not a land-use approval designating a hyperscale data center

Integrity Matters classification argument

Updated

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.I

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing refines the scale/classification comparison.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal concludes that the 2010 reference is descriptive and says the approved plans in the entitlement lineage designate Office/Manufacturing. The later filing further characterizes the 2010 record as an office-scale computer room within a manufacturing building.

Where is the land-use determination showing that the present hyperscale facility is the same designated use rather than a new or more intense use?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal concludes that the 2010 reference is descriptive and says the approved plans in the entitlement lineage designate Office/Manufacturing. The later filing further characterizes the 2010 record as an office-scale computer room within a manufacturing building.

My question to Council is: Where is the land-use determination showing that the present hyperscale facility is the same designated use rather than a new or more intense use?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G8-01

pp. 48-49

UDC § 7.5.415.A.2.a(2); § 7.5.516.D.1

§ 7.5.415: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54159
§ 7.5.516: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54618

The Commission was told it would not review the original approval criteria even though the appeal asked whether the administrative decision was erroneous

Integrity Matters procedural/legal argument

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §§IV.A, IV.E and Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds further hearing-procedure material.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters quotes the July 2 work session, where the Chair said the Commission was 'not reading the original criteria' and was not making a decision on the original application. The appeal argues that the Commission could not decide whether the administrative decision was erroneous without comparing it to the criteria that governed that decision.

How could the Commission decide whether the administrative decision was erroneous without reviewing the criteria the decision was required to satisfy?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters quotes the July 2 work session, where the Chair said the Commission was 'not reading the original criteria' and was not making a decision on the original application. The appeal argues that the Commission could not decide whether the administrative decision was erroneous without comparing it to the criteria that governed that decision.

My question to Council is: How could the Commission decide whether the administrative decision was erroneous without reviewing the criteria the decision was required to satisfy?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G8-02

p. 49

UDC § 7.5.415.A.2.a

§ 7.5.415: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54159

Appellants repeatedly requested a written scope-of-review ruling and did not receive one before the hearing

Integrity Matters record/procedure argument

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §§IV.A-IV.B

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds the sequence of ground-rule versions and record requests.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal says appellants requested a written ruling on the governing scope of review on July 8 and renewed the request more than once before the hearing. Integrity Matters states that no written response was received.

Where is the written ruling that told the parties and the Commission what standard governed the appeal?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal says appellants requested a written ruling on the governing scope of review on July 8 and renewed the request more than once before the hearing. Integrity Matters states that no written response was received.

My question to Council is: Where is the written ruling that told the parties and the Commission what standard governed the appeal?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G8-03

p. 49

UDC § 7.5.415.A.2.a(2)

§ 7.5.415: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54159

The adopted motion did not state whether the administrative decision was erroneous under the criteria that governed it

Integrity Matters decision-record argument

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §IV.B and Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds record deficiencies and minutes issues.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters quotes the motion as saying the review criteria were met and the appellants failed the reversal criteria, but argues that it contains no finding explaining whether or why the administrative decision was or was not erroneous under the governing criteria.

What finding tells Council why the Commission concluded the administrative decision was not erroneous?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters quotes the motion as saying the review criteria were met and the appellants failed the reversal criteria, but argues that it contains no finding explaining whether or why the administrative decision was or was not erroneous under the governing criteria.

My question to Council is: What finding tells Council why the Commission concluded the administrative decision was not erroneous?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G8-04

p. 49

UDC §§ 7.5.705, 7.5.415

§ 7.5.705: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-55478
§ 7.5.415: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54159

The appeal instruction read after the vote cited the Land Use Plan section rather than the appeal provisions

Integrity Matters procedural/legal argument

Unaffected

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal notes that the Chair’s instruction cited § 7.5.514, which is the Land Use Plan section, while Integrity Matters says appeals from the Planning Commission to Council are governed by §§ 7.5.705 and 7.5.415.

Which appeal provisions controlled the July 23 decision and the Council appeal, and were those the provisions the Commission actually applied?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal notes that the Chair’s instruction cited § 7.5.514, which is the Land Use Plan section, while Integrity Matters says appeals from the Planning Commission to Council are governed by §§ 7.5.705 and 7.5.415.

My question to Council is: Which appeal provisions controlled the July 23 decision and the Council appeal, and were those the provisions the Commission actually applied?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G8-05

pp. 49-50

UDC § 7.5.415.A.2.a(2); § 7.5.415.A.7

§ 7.5.415: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54159

The motion did not identify which reversal criterion failed, and no written decision or minutes supplied the missing reasoning

Integrity Matters decision-record argument

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §§IV.B, IV.E and Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds that § 7.5.415.A.7 requires related-hearing minutes to be part of the record and that none exist.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters notes that § 7.5.415.A.2.a(2) lists three reversal criteria, but the motion simply says the appellants failed 'the reversal criteria.' The appeal also says no written motion, minutes, or written decision existed to explain the basis.

Which specific reversal criterion did the Commission apply to each ground, and where is that reasoning recorded?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters notes that § 7.5.415.A.2.a(2) lists three reversal criteria, but the motion simply says the appellants failed 'the reversal criteria.' The appeal also says no written motion, minutes, or written decision existed to explain the basis.

My question to Council is: Which specific reversal criterion did the Commission apply to each ground, and where is that reasoning recorded?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G8-06

p. 50

Due process / quasi-judicial record

The recess document issue left Council without the same record the Commission used

Integrity Matters legal argument based on hearing record

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §§II.B.1, IV.B

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing continues to treat the recess document as missing.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters invokes Colorado quasi-judicial-record cases and argues that the Commission acted on information used during the recess that was never made part of the public record. The appeal says that prevents Council or a reviewing court from being placed in the same position as the body that decided.

How can Council review the Commission’s decision if a document used to resolve a dispositive issue is not in the record before Council?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters invokes Colorado quasi-judicial-record cases and argues that the Commission acted on information used during the recess that was never made part of the public record. The appeal says that prevents Council or a reviewing court from being placed in the same position as the body that decided.

My question to Council is: How can Council review the Commission’s decision if a document used to resolve a dispositive issue is not in the record before Council?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G8-07

p. 50

UDC § 7.5.415

§ 7.5.415: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/coloradospringsco/latest/coloradosprings_co/0-0-0-54159

Standing, sufficiency, reversal criteria, and approval criteria were described as though they were the same test

Integrity Matters procedural argument

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §§IV.A, IV.E

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds hearing-order and procedure history.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal quotes the Chair saying, 'We’re making a decision on does the appeal have standing again? ... Clear as mud.' Integrity Matters argues that standing, appeal sufficiency, reversal criteria, and the substantive approval criteria are distinct tests and that the work-session discussion blurred them.

What exact legal test did the Commission apply when it denied the appeals?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal quotes the Chair saying, 'We’re making a decision on does the appeal have standing again? ... Clear as mud.' Integrity Matters argues that standing, appeal sufficiency, reversal criteria, and the substantive approval criteria are distinct tests and that the work-session discussion blurred them.

My question to Council is: What exact legal test did the Commission apply when it denied the appeals?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G8-08

pp. 50-51

Due process / procedural parity

Draft hearing procedures had already been sent to the applicant side before staff told the Commission they had not been shared with either side

Integrity Matters procedural-parity argument

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §IV.A and Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing traces seven versions of the ground rules.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters says staff told the Commission on July 2 that the proposed hearing information had not yet been shared with appellants or applicants. The Council appeal then cites a CORA record showing a draft had been sent to applicant counsel, the applicant’s lobbyist, and consultant six days earlier.

How was procedural parity maintained if one side received draft hearing procedures before the Commission was told neither side had received them?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters says staff told the Commission on July 2 that the proposed hearing information had not yet been shared with appellants or applicants. The Council appeal then cites a CORA record showing a draft had been sent to applicant counsel, the applicant’s lobbyist, and consultant six days earlier.

My question to Council is: How was procedural parity maintained if one side received draft hearing procedures before the Commission was told neither side had received them?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G8-09

p. 51

Due process; UDC appeal procedure

The standard the Commission would apply was withheld from the appellants as privileged

Integrity Matters due-process argument

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §§IV.A, IV.E

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds procedure and disclosure evidence.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal says appellants asked four times for the written scope-of-review instruction. The City Attorney’s Office responded that legal guidance outside a public meeting was confidential and that no written instructions were part of the public record. Integrity Matters argues the parties could not read, brief, or object to the standard before the hearing.

How could appellants meaningfully address the governing standard if the standard applied to their appeal was not disclosed before the hearing?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal says appellants asked four times for the written scope-of-review instruction. The City Attorney’s Office responded that legal guidance outside a public meeting was confidential and that no written instructions were part of the public record. Integrity Matters argues the parties could not read, brief, or object to the standard before the hearing.

My question to Council is: How could appellants meaningfully address the governing standard if the standard applied to their appeal was not disclosed before the hearing?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G8-10

p. 51

Due process / procedural parity

No appellant was served with the final Ground Rules and Procedures

Integrity Matters procedural-parity argument

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §IV.A and Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds the seven-version history.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters states that no appellant received the final Ground Rules and Procedures through any channel and that their knowledge of the hearing structure came from CORA production and the public work-session recording. The appeal says a written request to correct the record before the full Commission was not acted upon.

Where is the record showing the final hearing procedures were served equally on all parties before the hearing?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters states that no appellant received the final Ground Rules and Procedures through any channel and that their knowledge of the hearing structure came from CORA production and the public work-session recording. The appeal says a written request to correct the record before the full Commission was not acted upon.

My question to Council is: Where is the record showing the final hearing procedures were served equally on all parties before the hearing?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G9-01

pp. 51-52

Due process; City Council Rule 6-2(B)

The same law firm served as the City’s lobbyist and as counsel to the applicant

Integrity Matters pleaded procedural concern

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.F and Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds engagement letters and additional waiver records.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters presents this as a process ground, not a land-use criterion. The Council appeal states that Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck was the City’s state and federal lobbyist while also serving as counsel to the applicant in Project Taurus.

What safeguards ensured impartial quasi-judicial process while the same firm held those concurrent roles?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters presents this as a process ground, not a land-use criterion. The Council appeal states that Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck was the City’s state and federal lobbyist while also serving as counsel to the applicant in Project Taurus.

My question to Council is: What safeguards ensured impartial quasi-judicial process while the same firm held those concurrent roles?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G9-02

p. 51

Conflict-waiver process

The firm’s own internal lawyers identified the matter as lobbying and a conflict requiring waivers

Integrity Matters pleaded procedural concern based on produced records

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.F

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds the formal engagement records.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal quotes the firm’s General Counsel and Conflicts Director describing the proposed work as lobbying and identifying the City as a client for whom waivers were needed. Integrity Matters relies on those records as part of its procedural ground.

How was the identified conflict evaluated and resolved before the quasi-judicial proceeding?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal quotes the firm’s General Counsel and Conflicts Director describing the proposed work as lobbying and identifying the City as a client for whom waivers were needed. Integrity Matters relies on those records as part of its procedural ground.

My question to Council is: How was the identified conflict evaluated and resolved before the quasi-judicial proceeding?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G9-03

p. 51

Conflict-waiver process

The waiver itself described the engagement as a 'Lobbying Matter' involving the City as an adverse party

Integrity Matters pleaded procedural concern

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.F and Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing says the firm recommended independent counsel and no record shows the City obtained it.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters points to the waiver text circulated between the firm and the City, which the appeal says described the engagement as a lobbying matter in which the City was involved as an adverse party.

What independent review was performed before the City consented to that waiver?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters points to the waiver text circulated between the firm and the City, which the appeal says described the engagement as a lobbying matter in which the City was involved as an adverse party.

My question to Council is: What independent review was performed before the City consented to that waiver?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G9-04

p. 52

Due process / lobbying context

Before the administrative decision, the attorney described plans to seek governmental and community support for the project

Integrity Matters pleaded procedural concern

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.F

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds communications after the conflict was identified.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal quotes an April 21 internal email describing PR assistance, attendance at public meetings, and efforts to secure support from governmental and community leaders, while also predicting the project would likely be approved administratively. Integrity Matters offers this as context for its process concern.

How did the City ensure those advocacy activities remained separate from the quasi-judicial decision-making process?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal quotes an April 21 internal email describing PR assistance, attendance at public meetings, and efforts to secure support from governmental and community leaders, while also predicting the project would likely be approved administratively. Integrity Matters offers this as context for its process concern.

My question to Council is: How did the City ensure those advocacy activities remained separate from the quasi-judicial decision-making process?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G9-05

p. 52

City Council Rule 6-2(B); due process

The Acting City Attorney specifically raised the quasi-judicial lobbying concern before granting the waiver

Integrity Matters pleaded procedural concern

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.F and Table 20

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Later filing adds that the firm recommended independent counsel; no record shows the City obtained it.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters quotes the Acting City Attorney raising Rule 6-2(B) and asking whether the work was truly lobbying or instead legal services connected with the applications. The response stated an understanding that Council should not be lobbied in a quasi-judicial matter and described work with officials outside Council and community leaders.

What analysis resolved the Rule 6-2(B) concern before the City consented to the waiver?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

Integrity Matters quotes the Acting City Attorney raising Rule 6-2(B) and asking whether the work was truly lobbying or instead legal services connected with the applications. The response stated an understanding that Council should not be lobbied in a quasi-judicial matter and described work with officials outside Council and community leaders.

My question to Council is: What analysis resolved the Rule 6-2(B) concern before the City consented to the waiver?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

G9-06

p. 52

Due process / conflict-waiver process

The City consented to the waiver, and the same attorney later signed the applicant’s letter in the quasi-judicial Planning Commission proceeding

Integrity Matters pleaded procedural concern; not a finding of misconduct

Strengthened

Sept. 3 Supp. §III.F

Sept. 3 Supplement: https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=56F87B4D-60E2-4230-9501-33841CA6DF93&ID=15843254&M=F

Keep this framed as Integrity Matters’ procedural argument, not as an established finding of wrongdoing.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal states that the Acting City Attorney consented to the waiver on April 28 and that the same attorney later signed the applicant’s July 16 letter to the Planning Commission. Integrity Matters asks Council to evaluate that sequence as a procedural issue.

What record demonstrates that the concurrent representation and waiver did not compromise the impartiality required for the quasi-judicial proceeding?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

I understand this is a quasi-judicial appeal. I’m asking Council to apply the Unified Development Code to the record before you.

The Council appeal states that the Acting City Attorney consented to the waiver on April 28 and that the same attorney later signed the applicant’s July 16 letter to the Planning Commission. Integrity Matters asks Council to evaluate that sequence as a procedural issue.

My question to Council is: What record demonstrates that the concurrent representation and waiver did not compromise the impartiality required for the quasi-judicial proceeding?

If the record does not support the finding required by the UDC, I ask Council to reverse the approval or remand it for the analysis the UDC requires.

100