How we got here
by Integrity Matters
source: https://www.integritymatterscos.org/project-taurus-data-center
How the City Gets to Make Decisions Without Us:
In February 2023, under then-Mayor John Suthers, Colorado Springs City Council adopted RetoolCOS by an 8–1 vote. It rewrote the development appeal process for the first time in nearly three decades — narrowing who may appeal a development plan to people living within 1,000 feet, or within three miles and who had already commented during the process.
Wayne Williams sat on that Council as an At-Large member and Board Chair of Colorado Springs Utilities. He is now the Mayor’s Chief of Staff.
On July 23, one of the five appeals against Project Taurus was rejected on exactly that basis.
And now the County. Buc-ee’s has asked El Paso County to determine administratively that its travel center is similar enough to a convenience store to be treated as one. Had that determination been made, future approvals for the site would have been handled administratively. No public notices would be issued, and no hearings would be held.
The County’s code lets only the property owner appeal an administrative determination. Residents have no standing at all. The applicant does — and Buc-ee’s appealed within a week.
Reversing one approval does not change who makes the next one. If you want a City Council that answers to the people who live here rather than to the people who lobby it, the work starts long before an appeal is filed.
Track the votes. Know the record. Hold them accountable.
Where we now stand with Project Taurus
(redo this side?)
On June 11, at 3:25 in the afternoon, one City planner clicked a stamp and approved a 100-megawatt data center 368 feet from homes in Chelsea Glen. No hearing. No vote. No public notice. Eighty-six days from application to approval.
Thirty-four residents appealed. The Planning Commission denied the appeals 6–2 on July 23.
The studies do not describe the project. The plan the City stamped shows 72 chillers and 60 diesel generators. Every study it relied on modelled 36 and 30.
The City hired its own acoustic consultant to check that study. He returned it with seventeen critical comments, writing that the modelling software “seems like a ‘freebie’” and that without the underlying data “a reviewer such as myself has no idea what they are doing.” Eighteen days later the City treated his memorandum as clearance.
Send email by September 17th