Planning Commission Work Session - Regular Meeting

Good evening, this is Commissioner Downs. Welcome to the August 17th, 2026 Planning Commission hearing. Couple of items to note as we get started. The public will have an opportunity to provide comment and testimony for each item during the public comment phase for each item on the agenda. If you need technical assistance to access the meeting, please contact the county staff. and audio enhancement devices are available at the back of the hearing room. Please return them after use. With that, thank you for attending tonight and please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. I'd like to ask the clerk now to take the roll call.

Luke Niferatos. Present. Ed Kubli. Present. Jim Smallwood. Present. Patrick Neville. Here. Mark Hampton.

Present.

Mark Reier. Present. Mark Wachowicz. Michael McKesson. Here. Lennard Bruzo. Calvin Downs.

Present. So with that we have eight commissioners present this evening and we have a roll call. Or we have a quorum I should say. I'd like to ask the county attorney at this time to certify the agenda as necessary.

Good evening, commissioners. Arielle Dennis on behalf of the county attorney's office. There are three items on the agenda today. The first two don't require notice. The first is Highlands Ranch filing 159, lot 1, location and extent, project file LE2026-010. Again, no notice requirement. The second item is Trinity substation and peaking facility location and extent, project file LE2026-009. Again, no notice requirement. And the third item on the agenda, is the Vacation of Pine View Circle Road Vacation Project File SB2026-017. It was published July 30, 2026, posted August 3, 2026, and mailed July 20, 2026. These agenda items have been properly noticed, and you have jurisdiction to hear them this evening. Thank you. CHRIS JERRAMSEN.

And thank you. At this time, I'd like to ask if there are any disclosures or conflicts on the part of my fellow commissioners.

Mr. Chairman, this is Commissioner McKesson. I have a disclosure relative to the first item on the agenda, the Highlands Ranch Metropolitan District application. I am a taxpayer within that district, and I expect to receive the benefits of all the taxpayers within that district. I also have public records information that show the property owner a little bit different than our package. Our package shows it as Shea or describes it as Shea Homes, but I question whether it's not a different LLC that I don't have any affiliation with. I own a Shea Home. The public information property owners I have on it shows a Central Park at Highlands Ranch LLC and not Shea, so maybe that's some affiliation. It's a disclosure I'd like to make just to make sure there's no question. Likewise, that I'm a taxpayer with the Highlands Ranch Metropolitan District.

Commissioner, will you vote on this item without bias?

Yes.

Do you prefer to recuse yourself or listen to the measure?

I would like to be present.

Okay, thank you. Thanks for putting that on the record. Anyone else? You're all set, thank you.

Thank you. So we'll move on to the meetings from the previous meeting on August the 3rd. May I have a motion and a second for approval of the meeting minutes?

This is Commissioner McKesson. I move to approve as drafted the minutes from August 3rd.

Thank you, Commissioner McKesson. Is there a second? Commissioner Neville, second. Thank you, Commissioner Neville. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. Okay, the ayes have it. The meeting minutes have passed. Excuse me, Commissioner Kubli has abstained.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Smallwood abstains.

Because you weren't here as well, right? Okay.

I was excused, sir.

All right. I think Commissioner Coopley was as well, but... All right, so the next item on the agenda is the Highlands Ranch filing 159, lot one, location and extent, project file LE2026-010 with Eric Pavlenik, Chief Planner, presenting for the county.

Good evening, commissioners. Eric Pavlenek representing community development. Before you is the Highlands Ranch Metropolitan District location extent application to construct a community park known as Chaos Park. Product number is LE2026-010. The district is requesting approval of an L&E application to construct an approximate one acre park. The intent of the O&E process as set forth in section 32 of the zoning resolution is to provide procedures for the timely review of the location extent of public facilities or uses provided by section 30-28-110 of the Colorado revised statutes. Per state statute, the only process is established for public applicants who are proposing public uses, facilities, or other improvements on land within the county. The submittal requirements, time frame, and overall scope of the county's review are dictated by state statute. The Planning Commission has 30 days after the date of official submission to reach a decision or the application is deemed approved. No comments were received from members of the public, and most of the referral comments were standard in nature, noting permits and approvals needed for the project. The site, as indicated by the red stars, is located within the northwest portion of the county within Highlands Ranch. The lot outlined in red is surrounded by other property zone PD within the Highlands Ranch planned development. This is an aerial view of the 9.69 acre lot. The park will be located on the western portion of the lot, kind of in this area here. This is the only exhibit. Proposed amenities within the park include a community garden, outdoor ping pong, horseshoe pits, bocce ball, outdoor fitness, class space, century garden, lawn areas, and other amenities. Other improvements include a park pavilion, pre-vault restroom, bike rack, benches, pergolas, and other site improvements within the park. Site access will be provided by Plaza Drive. The L&E application includes 24 parking spaces along this area here which are included with the L&E proposal. 13 parking spaces are shown here which are not approved with this application. Those are being considered with an SIP application for construction of a senior apartment project submitted by Shea. They are the property owner. This is a conceptual landscape plan which was included with the submittal and depicts tree and shrub plantings surrounding the park. Minor modifications to the final park landscaping is expected to occur during the construction process. In addition to the L&E approval, the permits and other approvals listed on this slide may be required prior to project commencement. Staff has evaluated the application according to Section 32 of the zoning resolution. The applicant has indicated that the proposed improvements will provide a valuable amenity for recreation and enjoyment of all users. Should the Planning Commission approve the L&E request, the applicant will be required to obtain all necessary permits prior to commencement of the project. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions at this time. Otherwise, the applicant is here with the presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Pavlenik. We will now hear from the applicant for this item. As you approach the podium, please state your name for the record, as well as your address.

I'm Tyler Ensign, I'm with Highland Ranch Metro District. I'm the construction and facilities maintenance manager there.

My name is Travis Frazier with Redland, 1500 West Canal Court, Littleton, Colorado, 80120.

Apologize. My address is 4988 Thorndike Avenue, Castle Rock, Colorado. Perfect. Well, gentlemen, thank you for having us here this evening. This is Plaza Drive Park. We'll get to it. Maybe. All right, perfect. Okay. Apologize technical difficulties. Okay, so this is kind of a better overview of where we're located. It's by the Windcrest apartment complexes there and Flying Bee Park and C470 kind of nestled in there. This proposal is a two acre spot. One is an active park. It's donated by Shea Properties, constructed by Shea Properties, and then as soon as completion has happened, Highlands Ranch Metro District will take on the responsibility of the park and ownership. We did reach out to the public in April for public input and survey. We did have a board approval if it gets accepted in May by Highlands Ranch Metro District Board, and if approved, we hope to start construction in Q4. Reviewing some of the Highlands Ranch Metro District Senior Center we just opened in 2025, some of the requests there were community gardens, games, recreation, exercise, and socialization. Most people look like they're within a short drive or 10 minute walking. The survey was sent out through social media, email, and then Windcrest was delivered to their response, and 246 people responded. Pretty much favorable. Everybody wanted a water-wise landscape, which I can appreciate. More outdoor parking and community gardens were some of the big hits. Seems like more than half of our residents were more than likely gonna visit the park. Some of the considerations, overall feedback was primarily positive. Some of the concerns were C470 noise. The way the park is gonna be nestled in is gonna be under C470 and it will kind of mitigate some of the noise and the trees there will kind of buffer some of the visual. Some of the other concerns were the lack of dog park and or playground. Given the size of this situation right now, the park, That wasn't feasible, but we do have a very beautiful Redstone Park and Rovers Run Dog Park about two miles away, which is about four acres. Okay, so here's the park a little bit closer up. If you look in the center of the park, that's where the community gardens are and if you look in the very center of that in the gray area, that's where the raised garden beds are for people that can't access the ground as easy. We have a vault toilet in there and then additional parking for the Highline Canal was also requested. Yeah, like I said earlier, requesting was parking for the Highline Canal, garden capacity, raised garden beds was a real priority for us as well. We have kind of an extensive waiting list. We still, at the end of summer, have 24 people waiting for a community garden, so this would be a huge benefit to that. At this time, we're requesting approval of location and extent of Plaza Drive Park. Any questions?

Are there any questions from the commissioners for the applicant?

Yes, I do.

Commissioner Kubli.

Commissioner Coobly, the proposed parking has 24 spaces that you've shown. Does this meet the county and or standards for a park of this size and type? And will it be sufficient to handle visitors to the community garden, fitness station and other amenities? And because you're adding on these 13 that's coming from a different adjacent property may be the same between the two sections, but are they gonna be synced up so that you'll have all 24 plus 13 spaces available at the appropriate time to have enough parking for the community?

Let me get back to that slide real quick.

So as you pointed out, there are two sets of parking for this park. So where the 20 is, the green, that's the Highlands Ranch Trail parking. So we worked with the Metro District, as Eric mentioned, as part of the SIP for a different project to create parking to serve the Highline Canal Trail. So that's kind of dedicated parking for that. Then we've created where 24 is additional parking there to serve. That's dedicated parking for this park identified and the number of spaces is appropriate for the park. And then the rest of the project, which is a senior affordable senior housing has its separate parking that meets all those parking requirements separately without impacting the park or using any of the park parking. Does that make sense? Park and parking. Park parking. Park parking. Park parking.

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

Any other questions from the commissioners?

Okay, I had a question. Commissioner Neferratis.

And by the way, I... Neglected to welcome you to the Planning Commission, so now's a good time. This is Commissioner Luke Neferratis, and he'll be speaking for the first time here as a new member of the Planning Commission. Welcome aboard.

Thank you very much. And forgive me as I get on board here, but I was just curious about, I noticed the exchange with Denver Water about access, road access, and I was curious about, is that, so you identified that there are two additional drives by the senior center, it sounded like. Is that something that is recorded or kind of what's the, is that something that you can count on if the main access is closed due to Denver Water?

Yes, so can you go back to the site plan? So over on the left-hand side, kind of where the number one is, there is a Denver water easement. So it's a 50-foot easement for a water main that crosses the property. So we had to get a license agreement and access easement to cross that. We're working with Denver Water on that. They're open to it. They haven't had any issues. We're going through that process right now. I think the big concern for them was if for some reason they had to close down that access, There are two other points of access to the east on the apartment project to provide access to the park in case of that situation. So there's still adequate access for fire emergency response and all that.

Commissioner Nefaratis, so the, and that is, it sounds like that's an informal arrangement. There's nothing that's needed to be agreed to with the?

There will be actual license agreements that Denver Water will grant us as part of that process. And we're moving forward with those as part of the SIP process with the apartment project.

Okay, great, thank you.

Okay, thank you, Commissioners, and thank you, applicant. We will now open for public comment. As you approach the podium, you may sit down. We might bring you back in a bit, we'll see, depending on where this goes, but please state your name and general location of where you live for the record. Please spell your last name. You will have three minutes to speak. And at the conclusion of public comments, the commission may ask the applicant and staff to respond. Are there any public comments tonight on this item? Okay, seeing none, public testimony is closed. Do the commissioners have any other questions for the applicant or staff?

This is Commissioner McKesson. I'd like to have a couple questions with the applicants. Sorry to bring you back up right away, but... A couple of them kind of bode with my fellow Commissioner Kubli's comments on parking and access. So in my package, I've got a pinkish dotted line that says park limits. And it does not include the drives. And the drives at 24... It does include the parking, and it does not include the parking at number 20 up there. Do you have, is Shea going to grant cross-access and parking agreements for all of this? That'll be in place as a formal arrangement for patrons?

Okay.

Okay, and then so, then the district maintains that drive and parking, or Shea, or how does that work? Who owns what, I guess? The limits of mine.

Yeah, so perhaps Eric, do you have that?

And while they're looking, I'm a resident across the street, so I love the concept. The HRMD has done a great job to reach out and whatnot. I just would like to help make sure that I understand it because I'll have a number of folks calling me to wonder about using it. And that's actually one of my next questions while staff is looking that up. I hear you say this is available for anyone to use within Highlands Ranch through the Metro District sort of sign-up sheet for Community Garden. Yes, it definitely is. Is that how it works? And that's helpful because it's not just for the senior living folks. It's for anyone in Highlands Ranch painting the district can sign up to use.

That's absolutely correct. We anticipate hopefully going through our wait list of 24 and continuing past that.

Excellent.

OK. I'm going to try to answer your question as clearly as possible. So the pink line is what we're calling the boundary of the park and the L&E that we're discussing tonight. What you see outside of here is this drive aisle, the parking, this parking over here. This is part of the SIP for the apartments that we were talking about. So both of these projects are happening concurrently to an extent. And then this is actually the property line for the property that was highlighted previously. And so you can see this access over here is offsite and there's an access easement in place. This is Highlands Ranch Metro District property today. So this access provides access into here for the apartments and the park and those access easements are in place.

So you can't use the park without the access, right? which is not part of the application today.

Correct, but it's part of the SIP that's moving through the process right now. And like I said, Highlands Ranch Metro District owns this property that provides the access to the park.

And I get the concurrent piece at all. It seems to make sense. Maybe this is more for staff. So have we heard the SIP? I haven't, don't recall it, but it's forthcoming is what I'm hearing from civil engineer of the applicant. Yeah.

It's currently in review. Yeah, it's for the department project that Shea has submitted.

Again, it makes great sense. I'm just, it's the logistical coordination between having it all in place and staff's comfortable with that. There's no other conditions need to be considered that it's subject to the SIP getting approved or?

I mean, Eric Padman for staff, there is approval criteria. I mean, engineering and planning are looking at both applications. I mean, this is the L&E for the park itself, which is gonna be kind of within the lot. This is on the western portion of the site. The developer intends to subdivide the lot into two, and the district would own the portion that is encumbering of the park.

And maybe it's just me and my inexperience on it. I don't know. In my tenure here, I've seen an L&E come through first before a development's finished. But you're saying that's just me? I haven't seen that? It's typical to have this happen, an L&E first and then an SIP happen later?

Yeah, I mean, I guess they're both in process, right? The SIP doesn't go to hearings. It's administrative. The L&E is coming before you for the location and extent of improvements of the park. I mean, the project would have to, you know, as part of the approval of the apartment project, access would be finalized, so the three access points.

But yeah, I mean, that's... And these cross-access agreements would be put in place at that point as part of the SIP? Venom.

That's correct, because there's access for the apartments through the park, and there's access through the park through the apartments, so there's some mutually beneficial agreements that are being coordinated and worked on between the property owner and the Metro District.

I appreciate it. It's a great project. I don't want to hold it up. I hear staff saying it's manageable and look forward to it happening, so that's all my questions. Thank you. Thank you.

Commissioner Hampton.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Obviously, you got to park generates children, although we have the apartment complex next door, and you're going to be right next to C470. Are they going to be taking any extra mitigations for safety reasons, especially for little kids? You know how they are. They'll dart off. There's a fencing out there, I know, for C470, but will you be taking any additional fencing requirements up against that back end?

We have not incorporated any additional fencing into the plan. If you go back to the park plan, we don't have any activated spaces up against C470. All the park is pushed towards Plaza Drive and internal here. There is a landscape buffer and drive aisle between the park and C470 as well.

So the answer is no. So we'll have to hope C470 has all their fencing up so a little kid doesn't break apart after the car pulls up and runs out into C470. I'm just saying. That's something you should be concerned. You're putting a park right next to a busy freeway. People going 65 miles an hour.

And I think that's great feedback as we continue to refine this design and work through it. I appreciate that. We'll take that into consideration.

Thank you.

Does the applicant have any, oh, sorry.

No more questions, I'm just waiting for the statement.

Does the applicant have any more comments before we turn it back to the commissioners? Okay, so we'll bring it back to the commissioners for further discussion before we entertain a motion.

Commissioner Kubli. Commissioner Kubli, brief statement. This project is a clear win for the community and Commissioner McKesson. I jest. It will create a valuable recreational amenity for Highlands Ranch residents. And there's a lot of them out there. I lived in Highlands Ranch for many years. Use is this entirely consistent with the planning, development, zoning, and the comprehensive master plan's vision for a primary urban use. So I just want to say I support the recommendation for approval tonight.

Any other comments? If not, I'd like to entertain a motion.

Here we go, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Smallwood.

Yeah, Commissioner Smallwood moves to approve the Highlands Ranch filing 159, lot one, location extent project file LE2026-010. Is there a second?

Commissioner Ryder has seconded.

The motion has been seconded. The clerk will now read back the motion and take a roll call vote.

Motion to approve the Highlands Ranch filing 159, lot 1, location and extent, project file LE2026-010. Patrick Neville. Yes. Luke Niferatos. Yes. Ed Kubli. Yes. James Smallwood. Yes. Mark Hampton.

Yes.

Mark Reier. Yes. Mike McKesson.

Yes.

Calvin Downs.

Yes. With that, the motion carries eight to zero. And thank you for your presentation tonight. We'll move on to the next item on the agenda. which is the Trinity substation and peaking facility location extent project file LE2026-009 with Matt Jakubowski presenting for staff.

Good evening, commissioners. Matt Jakubowski representing community development, core electric... Core Electric Cooperative is requesting a location and extent for a substation in Peking facility. The project number is LE2026-009. Brooks Kaufman and Derek Holscher are here on behalf of Core Electric Cooperative with the presentation after I conclude. The request includes construction of an electric substation and peaking facility for CORE Electric on a portion of a parcel owned by Trinity Lutheran Church. CORE indicates the project will enhance reliability of service and answer spikes in demand during certain peak times. L&E projects are processed per zoning section 32. which is enabled by a statutory citation from the revised statutes 3028-110. The L&E process is a 30-day period with a planning commission culminating that review. The L&E process includes a 14-day referral in which notifications are sent to abutting property owners and agencies that would have a potential comment or concern on the application. Comments objecting to the proposal were received from two property owners, a property owner to the south and a property owner to the west. Those comments were provided to you in the packets that went out on Friday. A response to the property owner to the south was provided to you on Friday. Today, Monday, and provided to the Planning Commission prior to this meeting, the response to the neighbor to the west, which is a property across State Highway 83, were provided to the Planning Commission. The comments from those neighbors generally stated that the project is inconsistent with the rural character of the area and the comprehensive master plan policies supporting rural and low density development in the area. Comments also stated that the project will generate negative noise and air quality impacts and concerns were expressed as to how the facilities would be monitored going forward. In terms of the referral comments received, they were generally standard in nature related to permits and other approvals that may be needed from the engineering department with the county and the building department with the county. Two nearby homeowners associations responded to the referral and did not provide any objection to the proposal. Trinity Church, which is the current property owner and within the northwestern portion of the parcel, has provided a letter of support for the proposal. In terms of major referral comments received, Douglas County Open Space and Natural Resources, which manages the Bayou Gulch open space to the north and east of the site, provided comments on the application, with concerns about screening of fencing that is in the project area. CORE addressed those concerns indicating that they will provide tan colored slats within the fencing as Open Space requested. Open Space also mentioned that they would Appreciate if there could be a consideration of landscaping on the north side of the site where there's a trail through the open space. Core indicated and would be able to provide some more information if you need to that because of grades on the site, they would not be able to provide any additional landscaping in that area. And as I mentioned, the applicant will have a presentation after my presentation to address referral and public comments. The site is located in Northeast Douglas County, where the star is located. It's basically between Franktown and the Pinery on Highway 83. So zooming in on the zoning map a little bit more, here's State Highway 83. Here's Bayou Gulch Road. Ponderosa High School is up here. Here's Bayou Gulch open space on the north and east sides of the site. This is the property owner to the south that provided an objection letter. This is the property owner to the west that also provided an objection. The property owner to the south that's currently undeveloped agricultural one property. The property owner to the west operates a commercial landscape nursery, and that's also agricultural one. And then this parcel, which is a little further to the southwest, is also undeveloped and agricultural one. This aerial map provides some site context. Here is the church, which is located within a corner of the existing parcel. The dashed blue area is CORE's proposed project area. Here's the commercial landscape nursery. Here is Bayou Gulch open space. Before you use the applicant's detailed exhibit, CORE proposes its facilities on a 14.8 acre portion of the overall roughly 34 and slightly greater property. Again, the dashed blue area is CORE's proposed project area. The church is within this area here with some fields. This area of the site is open. Course facilities include a 115 kilovolt substation, which is here to the north. That will tie in to existing overhead lines that are through the middle of the site The peaking facility, which includes 144 generators, is located to the south of the site. There's an operations and maintenance building to generally operate and control the peaking facility here. There is a natural gas yard here, and there are propane tanks here as backup. Access is proposed from Here for context is Highway 83. There's an existing driveway for the church. It also has a school. There's a service drive that exists on the south side of the property, which will provide access to the site and connection to the various drives and parking areas within the facilities proposed by CORE. Corps is proposing 7-foot high fencing around the facilities as well as 10-foot high fencing along the west side that will be wood fencing. There's also 26 ponderosa pine trees proposed. Within the staff report, there were some photos that show proposed photometric of the proposed facilities, which the applicant also has within their presentation. CORE indicates it will comply with Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, or CDPHE, permits for air quality, and it will comply with state statute regarding noise. As a utility, CORE is exempt from county noise requirements. CORE indicates that construction will commence in late 2026 and conclude in late 2027. This exhibit shows some elevations of the proposed operations and maintenance building within the peaking facility. And this elevation shows the facilities within the substation, which are pretty typical for a substation. Court indicates that equipment poles are proposed approximately 54 feet in height. So this would be the taller poles on the edges. Following our site photos, this view looks through the northern half of the site, roughly through where the substation is proposed. From approximately the same location but looking south is a view which would capture the area where the operations and maintenance building would be as well as the peaking facility. And then these are the overhead lines that I'd mentioned previously. This view looks a little further to the southeast on the site, roughly where the peaking facility would be proposed. This view looks north from the existing service road through the middle of where the tanks and the peaking facility would be proposed. And this view from roughly the same location but a little further to the east provides a view north through the site. In addition to the L&E approval, the applicant will be required to obtain approval from county engineering for construction plans, grading erosion and sediment control plans and its drainage report. Staff has evaluated the application in accordance with section 32 of the county zoning resolution should the planning commission approve the L&E request. The applicant will be required to receive approval of the construction, drainage, and gas permits that I mentioned. I'm available to take any questions on the staff report now. Otherwise, we have Brooks Coffman and Derek Holscher from the core electric side with a presentation of their own. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Jacobowski. Thank you. This time we will now hear from the applicant for this item. Please state your name and address. I know it's already been stated but please state it again and spell your last name for us too if you would.

while we're waiting for the remote there. Derek Holscher with Ulteg. We've been brought on by Core Electric to help with the L&E process here this evening. Our address, thank you, is 6400 South Fiddler's Green Circle, Suite 600 in Greenwood Village, 80111. Last name is HOLSCHER. Thank you for the time here this evening. Matt did a great job on his presentation. We got a little bit more additional information to go through and then we'll open it up for some additional questions. So I'm just gonna get into the project description a little bit, kind of go over a few items that Matt touched on. It's located on the eastern half of the Trinity Lutheran Church property, which is about a 34 and a half acre site. It's currently the zoned large rural residential. CORE is looking to acquire about 14 point acres of that overall site. from Trinity Lutheran Church. It would be on the eastern side of the parcel, and that would be contingent on approval of this L&E application. Assuming that goes through, we would then go through the replat process to create both parcels. As Matt mentioned, we're dealing with a new electric substation, 115 kV to 1247, as well as the peaking facility. And then we also have the existing overhead transmission line that we'll be tapping for the project. In addition, CORE is going to build, own and operate the substation as well as the high voltage lines that are connected to the peaking facility. CORE will own the land and have exclusive rights to all of the generation produced from the peaking facility. The peaking facility is a unique facility in that it uses linear generation technology to convert natural gas into electricity via a very high efficiency, low emission, and low temperature reaction process. Again, just some vicinity maps here. Overall, Ponderosa High School here is Highway 83, Bayou Gulch Road, and this is the overall site here, as you can see on the right side. And then the dash line is the portion of the property that we're looking to acquire for the project. Gonna talk a little bit about the project need, both from a substation standpoint and the peaking facility standpoint. The substation itself's gonna provide reliable generation capacity needed by CORE as well as the surrounding Douglas County communities to meet the anticipated growth and development. CORE's the next closest substation, which is Bayou Substation. Doesn't have sufficient room to expand and handle the equipment needed for the peaking facility. And eventually that new substation that we're talking about today, Trinity, will be able to handle future load growth as well as what's being currently served by the Bayou substation. And eventually that Bayou substation is gonna be decommissioned and converted to what they call an underground distribution switching yard. Now, from the peaking facility standpoint, the main benefit or the need, I should say, will provide dispatchable power during high times of low generation, excuse me, low renewable generation. That means when the wind's not blowing, the sun's not shining, that's when this will kick on and will help meet the peak demand needs for CORE, as well as provide a local reliable power source for CORE members during those periods of high demand. which are typically the coldest evenings of the year and the hottest evenings of the year. It's also going to help balance the load on the overall grid, producing energy when demands are high and reducing load on the already congested transmission system. In addition, it's going to defer expensive upgrades such as future transmission lines and substations in the area. Lastly, the peaking facility is going to provide that ability for a rapid startup to support the local grid in need. Just a quick schedule overview here. This goes all the way back to February of, excuse me, yeah, last year, 2025. We met with Douglas County for a pre-submittal meeting. After that, we ended up switching sites. And when we did that, we did another pre-app meeting with the county on July 3rd. And then just after that, a little over a year ago, or the year past, we submitted the L&E application at the end of July in front of you here tonight. And then construction would be fall, winter, assuming we get approved of this year, and then in service the following year, fall and winter. Quick site plan again, I know we've already looked at this, but in order to get this to fit on the screen, I tilted it so north is actually to your left. The lower half is the Trinity Church there, as you can see down in this corner, and then the upper half is gonna be the substation and peaking facility. Just going to do some details here real quick of both the substation and the peaking facility. The substation itself is going to be designed for ultimate build out with three transformers. As Matt mentioned, the peaking facility is going to have 144 of these linear generators. Each produce about 0.25 megawatts. So collectively, we're going to be looking at 36 megawatts worth of generation. Each of the generation units are shipped pre-packed in a container unit, and I got a picture to show you after this to give you a sense of what they look like. And as Matt mentioned, we have fencing proposed for both facilities around the perimeter. It's a seven-foot chain link fence with a foot of barbed wire on top, but we're proposing tan vinyl slats to be inserted in the chain link fence, which are about an inch wide, and we'll end up providing about 75% screening. And then on the western side, facing the church, we're proposing a 10-foot wooden fence and a row of 26 ponderosa pines. Those are going to be an average of 15 to 20 feet in height. There are two stormwater detention ponds for the site, each with a dedicated access. And then also we have a permanent gated access that ties into the existing church access drive, which then ties into Highway 83. Here's a picture of a typical linear generator. Like I mentioned, they come prepackaged, or yeah, prepackaged or delivered basically like you see there, except for the foundation that's of course installed. Next going to talk a little bit about the site selection criteria like I mentioned we did look at a previous site Ended up not working out for us, but there are about ten Criteria that we look at in order to evaluate a suitable site Varying anywhere from acreage to zoning environmental constraints, and then you know land acquisition Little zoomed out map here so hopefully it's not too difficult to read. Essentially, this road right here is Highway 83. Here's the site we're currently looking at today, Bayou Gulch. The yellow pins represent the existing core substations. Like I mentioned, here's Bayou, and then there's a new Franktown substation just a little further south. The first option was up here on the northern end on some property that was owned by Parker Water Sanitation District. Option three was kind of just south of where we're at currently. And then we also looked at an option down near Franktown, the town itself. And after evaluating all of the sites and going through all the criteria for those sites, it was ultimately determined that the Trinity parcel site was gonna be the most feasible location with the least environmental interconnection and acquisitional challenges. Like Matt mentioned, he's got a couple photo simulations here, kind of give you a sense of what the site will look like. This first one was taken from the existing church access as it just comes off of Highway 83, so you're looking kind of northeast up at the site. These are the existing transmission poles that we're gonna be tying into, and then this is the substation side of the site, and then this is the peaking facility on this end. We got another view here, kind of shifting a little bit north. We're actually in the middle of the highway right here, looking directly east at the site. If you were to look right behind you on this image, you'd see the development across the road, the nursery that's currently there. Again, they got existing transmission poles that were tied into, and then you can see the trees and the fence in the background there. And then the last one here is looking directly south from CORE's existing Bayou substation. And again, these are the existing transmission poles. You can see the substation here. And from this vantage point, you can't see anything with the peaking facility. Got a couple slides here to talk about safety, one for the substation, one for the peaking facility. First off, with the substation, the facilities themselves or the equipment's gonna be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet a variety of different regulations and code, including the NERC, NESC code, the IEEE, and we're also gonna be, all the fire laws and regulations will be applicable to the site too during construction, not only during construction, but during the operation as well. And there is lighting associated with the substation and the peaking facility, I guess, for that. And that will only be on in emergency situations. So if you see the lights on out there, it's probably something wrong. There's an unplanned outage. So those lighting units will also be downcast and night sky compliant. Then we get to the peaking facility. I know it's kind of a busy slide here, but the first couple bullets just kind of demonstrate the same thing. With the peaking facility, they have their own set of rules and criteria, codes and regulations to adhere to, and all of them will be as part of construction and operation. There's also what's called fuel isolation that's integrated into the system, and what that essentially does, it gives you multiple points along the system to shut it off in case there is an emergency. So there's multiple places along the system in order to do that. Also to minimize risk, any kind of emergency risk to the site, we incorporated sufficient equipment spacing with the design. The entire footprint is aggregate base to prevent any fires from spreading. Let's see, where are we at? Oh, emergency access routes, we have all those in place. Like I mentioned, we have the shutdown capabilities. There's portable fire extinguishers all over the site and also a dedicated fire hydrant. Like Matt mentioned, there is an operation maintenance building on site. Two employees will be there basically Monday through Friday, regular business hours. Those employees as well as any contractors undergo regular safety training and operations personnel inspect and maintain the equipment on a regular basis. And then lastly, I just wanted to note that we did meet with the Franktown Fire Department District, which is the district that would serve this site. And they did indicate that they can provide service here within a matter of five minutes. Their closest station is just, like I said, five minutes away. They believe there's sufficient access at the site for what they need. We'll work on an emergency response plan in conjunction with them and provide that ahead of operations. So overall, they really didn't have any concerns at all with the project. The last couple slides here are just touching on the comprehensive master plan and how we're in compliance with it. I can run through, there's four here. The first one is to maintain that rural character with limited low intensity development. So based on the actual operations of the facilities, the limited development intensity and the mitigation measures that we're putting in place, And the fact that it's a public utility function, we believe that the project's consistent with the intent to preserve that rural character. Similar, preserve the future generations of landscape dominated by open lands around Franktown. Like Matt mentioned, we are surrounded by Bayou Gulch open space, and we're not doing any improvements outside on their property, so we're maintaining that. limited footprint, low operational intensity, and the essential utility function are predominant again. And then the last two, they're all kind of in that same vein as conserve important open land in area A, which is what we're in as part of the Franktown community area, characterized by ranching, farming, and wildlife habitat. So like I mentioned, the project preserves the surrounding open land character, minimizes any environmental impacts. We didn't have any at all. We did an environmental study that or a critical issues analysis and nothing came up during that evaluation. It also supports the critical electrical infrastructure. And then lastly, maintain a development pattern that's contiguous with local extension of community resources and infrastructure. And like I mentioned, we are utilizing the existing overhead transmission line so we don't have to build extended transmission to get to the site. So we're utilizing that and expanding upon that existing infrastructure. In closing, just wanted to say that both CORE and Mainspring are dedicated to safety. We feel like we found a really good site after over a year and a half of working on this. We've done extensive outreach and coordination with Trinity Lutheran Church for about over a year now. And like Matt mentioned in your packets, you should have a letter of support from them. And with that, I think we'll just ask for your approval tonight and open up for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Halsher. Appreciate your presentation. You're welcome. Thank you. Are there any questions from the commissioners for the applicant?

Yes. Commissioner Kubli. Commissioner Kubli. The report highlights that this facility is being cited here to allow for the existing Bayou substation to be commissioned eventually. Can you share the timeline on when, you could kind of put the schedule up there before, but when that would be complete and when the Bayou substation would be expected to be decommissioned? And specifically, would the Bayou substation site be fully reclaimed? Let me get to the slide here.

To start off with the timing with the project that we're talking about today. Oh, I think I'm going the wrong direction, pardon me. Like I mentioned, it would be, assuming approval, start fall, winter this year and take about a year. I don't think there's any solid plans in place for when Bayou would be decommissioned. And that's a relatively smaller site that would probably involve installation of some additional equipment. which would have to, I imagine, go through the L&E process here in order to get that approval. And any of the footprint of that existing substation that's not being used would be reclaimed.

Yeah, I just want to say if it was going to be decommissioned that it would be set back to a rural, urban feel. Yeah, as much as possible, yeah. Yeah, it's kind of feel of that area for sure. For sure. All right, one other question for you. And this may go to the staff on this one. You mentioned the noise analysis and the plan to put in the seven to 10 foot wood fencing or slatted fencing and the ponderosa pines for visual screening. Staff, I mean, I kind of saw the pictures on it and looked at kind of the height of, they said 15 to 20 feet, and they looked relatively wide space, like, yep, right there. Is that compliant with what we feel is the best screening and mitigation for the size of the trees and spacing of the trees that would meet the guidelines?

Matt Jacobowski for staff.

We do not have spacing requirements for landscaping in these situations and many other situations. We work with the applicant and typically suggests a combination of fencing and trees. If that's something that perhaps the planning commission feels should have some more robust landscaping, that's for sure something that you could ask core to see what they would propose.

Personally, I would like to see a little bit in older trees, which would be a little bit higher, and more of them in there that would give us a little bit more of a screen on that. Something to consider.

Okay, no, I appreciate that. And a little background on the trees themselves.

I'll speak on that behalf. I'm Brooks Kaufman with Core Electric Cooperative, 5496 North US Highway 85. And yes, we've been working with the church on this situation, especially with screening. Those trees are going to be transplanted trees that we're going to get off-site. So it's going to be about 15 to 20 feet, so they're not going to be like ones that you get at Home Depot or anything like that. So we did take a lot in consideration, bringing mature trees in. for screening and also given that aesthetic with the wooden fence behind it. So if you guys have more questions about that, feel free to ask.

Throw up a few more? Would you be willing to do that?

Well, they look like they're spaced out far enough because once a tree grows, you want to have that root ball and everything like that and you want to be able to get around them if you have to cut the grass, stuff like that. So they kind of spaced them out about 20 feet apart from each other from center line. So we came up with that number of trees. And as you get further to the north there, then you're competing with the cell sites there, especially with the crosses there. That's what those cell sites are within the crosses there. And then you get closer to our transmission line. Plus there's another obstacle to the north. There's a CIG gas line. That's a 50-foot right-of-way that has three major gas lines in there plus a water line with pinery water. So we tried to do what we could on recommendations from the church and also what would look more appeasing.

On the north end, you've got the Bayou Gulch. You can already see that there's a fair amount of natural growth in there, but with these being 54 feet high assemblies on one side, I was just looking for something to kind of blend that in a little bit more and draw the eye away since this is the more rural side of town.

Yeah, and one of the challenges on the north side, Mr. Cooley, is that we have a transmission line that tees off and goes towards Elizabeth in this section. And then also we have that gas line again. The one thing that is remaining, and we have an agreement, we're gonna have a recreational easement for that existing soccer field that will remain on our property and be able to be used by the church and their group.

That's nice. Okay, that's all my questions for now. Thank you.

Any other questions? Yes, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Neferratis, a couple questions for you. I want to get into the location aspect of this request as it relates to the CMP. So I was looking at, and I looked at the addendum and the exchange around policy 4-1c3. And so the line, I guess, well, just before I get into that, so there's no dispute that this is Franktown Area A, correct?

Correct.

So then policy 4-1C3 applies, correct?

Correct.

And so I was having a hard time with the language that says new non-residential and or non-agricultural uses are inconsistent with Area A policies. So to me, that seems to... exclude a project like this just at first read however um i saw your response and i felt that your response didn't exactly answer the concern with that line that to me is pretty straightforward so i guess i just wanted to give you a chance i have read what you said but i would wanted to give you a chance to just respond to the fact that i think it's a bit unpersuasive as it relates to the what this says and just wanted to hear further thoughts please

Yeah, I think the idea behind that was, you know, we have the existing transmission line in place. The existing Bayou substation is just north of there. So it's a similar infrastructure all in that same Franktown A rural community area. So that's another reason why we kind of said we were in compliance there because there's other facilities in the area that do, that are in that area, I should say. So that quite addresses it.

what you're kind of getting at is the policy five and how it talks about, you know, if there's, for example, the line that goes underneath, this would comport with that, in other words, what you're saying. But it's not direct, I guess what you're asking us, and this is just my attempt to say maybe what you're asking, you can tell me if it's correct, is essentially kind of overlook this, basically we're weighing these two policies, and I think you're asking us to weigh policy five more strongly than policy four, correct?

I would agree. It's a little bit more in alignment, I guess, with the objective.

Right, because I don't see how this project can conform with policy four based on dash one C3.

Okay, no, I appreciate the input there.

I think we're- I'm asking, sorry, I should have said, I should have phrased that as a question. Do you see how absent five, where I hear what you're saying, um you know this there's many reasons why this project makes sense in terms of what it's trying to achieve and what five talks about but let's just say that that's not being considered with this and just look at this this language how would you address that

I think just the low intensity of development, the mitigation that we're putting in place with the screening and the landscaping, working with the current landowner to make sure they're on board with all construction and operation activities associated with the project. Like Brooks mentioned, keeping the recreational facility in place on Coors property, just granting an easement for that. Yeah, I think that's essentially kind of our position on that. And as it relates to the response that we gave to the comment.

Thank you, I appreciate your answers. One more question for you on another subject. So I noticed in your presentation you said you'd spoken with Franktown Fire, but in the original request and then the addendum we received today, it says that they have no comment. So does that mean that, is that what you're trying to convey by what you put in the slides is that they said they have no comment? Because I think you said they support this and they're on board. But what I have in both the addendum and the original document is that they had no comment. So I just wanted to clarify that, please.

Yeah, no, that's a good point. I think we kind of added that in the application before we even got a response from the fire district that we just wanted the staff and the planning commission to know that we did the extra effort to meet with the fire department ahead of time to get their input. And I think their comment is kind of a result of our meeting with them and going over everything.

And their comment is that they have no comment or that they, so does that mean that they support this essentially?

Yeah, yeah, they support it and didn't see any issues on their end as far as being able to service the site or see that there's any danger to the community.

Okay, thank you very much. That's all my questions, Chair.

Anyone else? So would it be correct to say, regarding that point that It's not really that they have to approve or disapprove, it's that they basically have to weigh in on whether they can adequately service the site, is that it?

Correct, yeah. Okay. That was our takeaway from it, and then the no comment response meant that they felt comfortable with the project.

Okay.

All right, seeing no other questions right now from the commissioners, we might come back to you later with some questions. Thank you. Right now, I'd like to open it for public comment. And please state your name and general location of where you live for the record. Please spell your last name. You will have three minutes to speak at the conclusion of public comments. The commissioners may ask the applicant staff to respond to those comments and questions. So please.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Danielle DeSantis. That's D-E-S-A-N-T-I-S. And I'm an attorney at Otten Johnson. Our firm represents Thunder LLC, which is the property south of the applicant. Our address is 950 17th Street, suite 1600. That's in Denver. And as described in more detail in our letter, Thunder LLC requests that this application be denied due to inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. However, if approved, we request that the county impose a condition requiring noise levels that do not exceed the residential standards provided in the statutory provisions concerning noise emissions. Frankly, the applicant has requested an industrial standard be apply and that's inappropriate in this location because as we've talked about, the property is zoned as large rural residential and the comprehensive plan identifies it as a rural community and we need the commission to act to preserve this rural residential character of the area. We would request that once the facility is open, a test run at full capacity would be meant to ensure that the facilities Standards for residential sound are not exceeded at the distance required under the statutory scheme. And if that mitigation effort fails, we would then expect the county to require additional affirmative sound mitigation steps to ensure that this condition would be adequately satisfied. And we would also request ongoing and periodic testing to ensure continued compliance with this standard. We note that if this application is approved, the applicant may, that is, return to request a rezoning and a comprehensive plan amendment to allow uses and intensities on our property that would then be consistent with the adjacent land use being a power generation facility. So again, we respectfully request that you deny this application this evening, and barring that, impose conditions that require sufficient mitigation such that the the adjacent properties experience sound that's consistent with a residential standard as opposed to an industrial standard when it's operating at its maximum capacity rather than based on an average. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Any other comments?

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Dusty Headinger, and I'm at 4647 North Highway 83. And so I'm directly across Parker Road at the garden center. So it's been quite a night. Highlands Ranch gets a community garden and a park, and Franktown gets a power plant. We might call it a substation, another substation in Franktown, or a peaking facility, but it's a power plant. We're converting power from gas, propane or natural gas, putting it on the grid, and as was already said tonight, we're shipping it around the county to feed the developing growth. I get it, we need electricity, the county is growing. But Franktown's supposed to be rural. I invested not only in this property, but another 100 acres at the next light. I did that to stop development. Keep Franktown rural. That's what Douglas County was saying that Franktown was supposed to be. But what I'm really concerned about isn't how it's gonna affect my garden center, but it's how it's gonna affect me, my family, my four kids that are at our garden center every single day, and the employees that live on site, and all the neighbors. Because power plants produce emissions. And it's been brought up a little bit tonight, but there's three schools, three, within a half mile, mile away. We have a middle school, we have Ponderosa High School right across the street, and Trinity Lutheran is also a school 100 feet away. One of you commissioners tonight, I really appreciate, you said you were concerned about the kids in this park in Highlands Ranch because they might get too close to a busy highway. That's kids leaving the park and going to a busy highway. What about the kids that are sitting in their school rooms breathing the air? They're not doing anything. There are kids, not just Franktown's kids, but that's all of Douglas County's kids. What if they're outside practicing for marching band, or practicing for football, breathing these emissions? Now this core, this peaking facility, said they're only going to run this thing 10% of the time. That's 144 generators. Where does core have one of these peaking facilities anywhere? In fact, where is there another one of these facilities anywhere in the United States? How are we getting this information? Because this is new technology. and there's nowhere, how do we know how loud 44 generators are gonna be? They say they're only gonna run it at peak times and they're not gonna do it, all 144 generators aren't gonna run at the same time. But as Douglas County grows in 10, 20, 30 years, they're going to expand this. Let's think about the future. Let's think about our kids, not just our energy needs we need today. I appreciate you taking the time to listen to me, and it's definitely been a good experience.

Thank you, Mr. Hettinger. Is there anyone else who would like to testify this evening on this matter?

My name's Ainsley Ettinger. I'm also property owner of 4647 North Highway 83 across Parker Road. I would just beg you to think about the children and I would think that it should be up for public comment for the people that send their kids to those schools, not just to the people that own properties adjacent. They should know that you're gonna put a power plant adjacent right next to three schools. I think they should know and I think that you should really think carefully about if you approve this, what that effect it will have on those children for years to come. That's all.

Thank you, Mrs. Hettinger. Seeing that there are no other Residents, citizens who want to testify, we will now close public comment, bring it back to the commissioners for any additional questions for staff or the applicant.

Commissioner Kubli. Yes, I do, Commissioner Kubli. Thank you, Chair. For the applicant, I didn't review or notice, what was the comments, did you guys speak with the church? And do they have comments regarding noise emissions or the school or anybody else that's come up with a comment like that?

Yeah, you bet. I don't know, Matt, if you can pull the presentation back up. We have some additional slides I could maybe bring up to touch on some of these points. Like I mentioned, we have been in coordination with the Trinity Church for over a year now. including their board and they've been able to share that information with their congregation. Everything from noise emissions, air emissions, the screening, all that we've taken under consideration and worked with them on closely. The first one I wanted to touch on here was the sound levels. We did do a sound study for the project. It was done assuming that all the equipment was running at 100%, so maximum capacity.

And- So to clarify, this was max, not an average?

Correct.

Correct.

Okay. And what we came, the highest levels that came back were along the southern property line, which were in the range of 60 to 65 dBA. For comparison, that's equivalent to a conversation three feet away. For other comparisons, a running dishwasher has a range from 50 to 75 or 70 dBA, and then electric shaver, 50 to 80 dBA. There's several design changes, particularly engineering-wise, that were done to the peaking facility. Stiffer walls were constructed or proposed to reduce the vibrations. They're implementing what's called a restrictor plate, which functions as an additional muffler to then lower the dB level. and an installation of a resonator, which is on the intake and blocks out certain frequencies to keep the noise levels down. We proposed the vinyl slats on the chain link fence and the landscaping on the west side. That was to keep the noise levels down to the closest receptor, which is the Trinity Church. As far as air emissions go, that's usually a topic around these types of facilities. CDPHE, the Air Pollution Control Division in particular, issued a permit, air permit, earlier this year. As part of that air permit process, it included a 30-day public comment. Since they're the issuing authority, we're kind of directing all questions to them, the ones that we are unable to address. As part of that air permit, we did provide air dispersion modeling. Again, kind of assuming generators operating at full capacity. And so those were reviewed and approved by CDPHA as part of the permit approval process. And we're gonna, you know, once operational, we'll be adhering to all of those conditions that are imposed as part of that air control permit. There are frequency, checks, if you will. Like I mentioned, all the air permit requirements are going to be followed and maintained. For the first year of operation, the operator, which is Mainspring, would need to track emissions each quarter and compare it to established air emissions for each quarter throughout that year. After that first year of operations, then it's kind of limited to an annual basis. So those results can be shared publicly but will be provided to CDPHE as part of the conditions of the air permit. If those ever exceed, then they will have the final say on what the next steps would be, if they would pause the operations of the facility until we can figure the process out and to keep those air emissions to the permit levels. but we don't anticipate that. This would be the first linear generation facility of its type in Colorado. Mainspring does have others operation throughout the country, including California with some of the higher, most restrict air restrictions. And to date, those facilities have been operational without any issues regarding sound or noise, or I'm sorry, air emissions. So no issues there with any existing facilities in place.

So with Trinity, Commissioner Downs here by the way, so with Trinity Church involved in selling this parcel of land to you, have they raised any of the concerns about air emissions that we've just been discussing? Not that I'm aware of, no. Okay, because they have a school there too, right? Correct, yeah. Did any other schools get to weigh in on this? Did they have the opportunity to, were they notified of the station going in, proposed station going in?

No, none that were on the notification list. Any, I guess I should say, any that were on the notification list were provided a chance to comment. But both with noise and air emissions, attenuation is involved, so the further you get away from the facility, those numbers decrease rapidly.

I can speak on behalf of that. Thank you. Yeah, we have Trinity Lutheran Church here, the board president. They can speak on that behalf, that question. And then also we did have conversations with Douglas County Public Schools recently through our local and government affairs group on this, and they didn't have any concern. But I can bring the church up if you'd like to have a discussion with them.

So Ponderosa had no comments specifically?

Correct.

Okay, all right.

Clarification, did they not respond or did they give you no comment?

When we had the conversation, we explained it to them what the project was and they had no comment.

Okay. Commissioner Coobly again. You've mentioned this is a very high-efficiency system, a new technology, if you will. What is the actual emission? What is the burn-off that comes at the end of this? Is it CO2? Is it some kind of harmful chemical? I just don't know what it is.

Yeah, we're going to have MainSpring come up and tell you exactly what comes out of those generators. Great. Brandon?

name address all that good stuff yeah definitely brandon hartman h-a-r-t-m-a-n and i'm from california so santa rosa california mainspring headquarters is in memo park as well i'm just going to grab my notes here one second don't touch the microphone as was noted in the l e application the Emissions from a linear generator are small amounts of nitrous oxides. So NOx, we're a very low NOx system. And there's a small amount of particulate matter as well. And then your standard CO, CO2.

This is Commissioner McKesson. I have a few questions for MainSpring, if you don't mind. Sure. These are internally combusted engines you're proposing. powered by natural gas and or propane? 144 of them.

144 of them are correct. We don't call it an internal combustion process. It's a uniform reaction. So it's a reaction driven by heat. So they squeeze the air fuel mixture until it uniformly reacts. Diesel motor. Like diesel, similar.

Like diesel, okay. So it's got motor oil.

We do not use any oil. We have our lubricant is air. So we have an air cylinder, air spring on the back, and then an air cylinder as well around the, essentially a power cylinder. So it's floating on a bed of air there. If you can see the air bearing right there, it's, think of an air hockey table wrapped around the oscillator, pushing on the piston to keep it in place. So we don't use any lubricants or oils at all. in our system, there's a small amount of coolant just for the liquid cooled power cylinder, which is right around that reaction zone, but that's it.

So 144 of these is what are gonna be lined up, is what you're proposing? Correct. And I appreciate this context. I had seen this, I pictured an internally combusted motor here, and we're talking about generating power from that, but you're... You're operating more like a diesel and without the lubricants that get spilled all over time everywhere. I see it throughout Colorado and in the oil and just a number of things. So interesting. I don't know enough about it, obviously. I'm concerned, I was concerned about, and this is maybe for CORE, I've been an advocate with you all ever since I volunteered up here, and I just, this is the first, well, first in Colorado, as you admitted, that you're solving a capacity challenge with such a unique characteristic, and I've seen you all solve such with lithium battery packs. Is that not possible in this case? This is a question for CORE, I'm sorry. that looked into? I mean, you've come before us before and solved, I think, similar challenges with lithium batteries for peak demand.

Absolutely. Chris Hildred for Core Electric Cooperative. I'm their chief energy supply officer. H-I-L-D-R-E-D. Business address is 5496 US Highway 85, Sedalia, 80135. I apologize. So there's a lot to that question, and I have multiple tomes of information that goes into that. The short answer is that Batteries contribute to a solution, but they are not in and of themselves able to solve the problem that we face right now. The technology that can do that is still fighting it out to determine what will actually come to commercial liability. So we have contracted for significant batteries that have been in front of this body before and are in other parts of the county as well. So that helps solve part of the problem, but batteries have the unfortunate characteristic of they run out. They are currently only really commercially viable at about four to six hours of duration. And unfortunately, we run into those periods of multiple days in a row where we do have the sun not shining effectively and the wind not blowing. And that is where generation like natural gas really comes into play. It is clean, we expect to operate it infrequently, but it helps bridge those periods so that we can charge the batteries back up either from natural gas or for renewables to help make sure that the lights stay on during those periods when other generation is not available.

And I appreciate that resiliency and redundancy because, quite frankly, I think CORE's done a fabulous job. The other electrical provider within the county has had some huge challenges in the northwest part of the county where residents have been without power. And CORE's done a great job there. This is new technology. It's not in Colorado anymore. And you're generating power with an engine that's creating noise. And I'm... really concerned with the speed with which this is progressing, although you all talk about it, you've submitted a year ago, is that what I understand, it was a year ago?

Initial conversations, pre-application conversations.

And that we're gonna now challenge the comprehensive master plan with a solution yet it's really unknown. And this could be the first, but there could be more. And how does that come into play? So I'm just struggling with all kinds of long-term challenges here as to this new solution to a problem that's obviously real. I get it. And you've identified some other sites CORE has, but these are all within the county. This grid serves more than Douglas County that you're that you're supplementing, is that true?

Yes, that is true. The network serves the entire core service territory, including portions of 11 counties. That said, we have generation in multiple other areas we serve that also is important to serve Douglas County as well.

So this system would generate power for other counties?

It's really hard to pin down exactly where an electron flows. The majority of CORE's load is located within Douglas County. And this, while it seems large, is a relatively small plant in the grand scheme of things. So most of the energy likely will primarily serve Douglas County members of CORE.

And this concept of CORE being a nonprofit, utility supplementing to Main Spring, which is a for-profit operator?

It is.

And so I'm just a little again challenged with them wanting to generate power. That's the business they'll be in.

It is. So... For many reasons, CORE is not currently seeking to add additional generation capital to our balance sheet. We are primarily retaining that capital so that we can serve the growth in Douglas and Adams and Arapahoe and all of the counties that we serve through expansion of the distribution, the transmission system, substation facilities, the local distribution that has been our bread and butter for decades, for almost There we go, 88 years, thank you. And so we've partnered with what are called independent power producers. So we will contract and make financial obligations to support the development of projects like this and of solar facilities, of battery facilities, everything else. So they will have the balance sheet and they will have operational risk and then they will dispatch that power as we need it so that it serves our members' loads. And that means that our balance sheet and our capital is available to serve the membership through the distribution facilities.

get it it's your balance sheets trying to keep up with your growth and in my world it's in health care and it's it's a growing business for you all to serve the public but i still i'm challenged with grappling with this being the right solution to that without having everything in front of me so i i i look forward to hearing some more from my fellow commissioners on how that may work

So before the core representative steps aside, you looked at three other options all along Route 83, right? We did. Was there any consideration at all for other locations? Because I think one of those options was actually in the Franktown area, a little further south, right? I believe that's the case. So was there any consideration given to any other locations that might be more fitting for power generation that would not affect the rural character of Franktown?

So I can speak to the alignment of the conditions that we were focused on, which is where there is available natural gas, where there is available transmission capacity, and where there is a willing seller with land that is generally suitable from our perspective and allows us to minimize impacts on the neighbors. The power line in question runs basically north to south and we looked along that power line, along the transmission line to find a location that was suitable. There is, not a great number of locations where natural gas and transmission line up in a way that allows us to develop a plant while also minimizing extension of gas lines or transmission lines.

Thank you for that. I'd like to ask Mainspring, Did I get that right?

Mainspring.

Mainspring, to maybe address Commissioner McKesson's concerns about the, and really mine as well, to maybe educate us a little bit more on how long this technology's been around, how long it's been used. You're from California, Santa Rosa, right? You said Santa Rosa? Yes. So how long has this been used, and what are the results of it?

My name's Steven Figueroa. I'm from Indianapolis, Indiana. I do work for Mainspring. MainSpring has had working linear generators in service since 2020. Most of our early successes were behind the meter applications, a lot of them in California where We do have very high air quality standards. There's a couple things that I'd like to point out. One, unlike a diesel engine, we aren't injecting fuel into a preheated air. What we're doing is compressing a homogenous mixture of fuel and air, so that keeps our temperatures much lower. what that does is vastly decrease the amount of nitrous oxides that come out of that machine. So even though we do emit a little bit of particulate matter and a little bit of nitrous oxides, those numbers are far lower than you would see in a similar sized diesel facility or in a natural gas facility for that matter. Comparing it to reciprocating engines or to our aero derivative turbines, the emission profile is much, much lower by comparison. I would also suggest that we've got just recently have we transitioned into the utility space so our largest contracted and announced project is 48 megawatts in Utah but we have a number of much larger projects that are in late stage contracting we do expect to announce along with this one if this one were to be approved there are A number of questions that were brought before, would you mind, we can address them one at a time? If anyone is willing to come back at me.

Well, I think you addressed my question, so.

Outstanding.

All right. Any other questions for the applicant or staff?

If I may, this would be to CORE. Thank you. So, You talked about other locations and what other means of generation are there? I'm not familiar. It'd be nice to have a big water facility with a lot of water in it. That's not going to happen. And you've talked about wind and solar, but the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. So is this it?

I'd say for the moment this is it. This particular technology, it's a natural gas generating technology as Mr. Figueroa mentioned. It is, from our perspective, the lowest impact commercially available technology I have seen for natural gas, which again provides that dispatchable generation for when other types of generation are unavailable. Um obviously coal is going out of the state very quickly. Hydroelectric power while fantastic when we can get it is very limited from a drought standpoint as well as from a geographic standpoint. Solar and wind obviously can be developed and we have significant solar generation on our system already. We are pursuing additional wind generation right now. Batteries help move that generation around within the day. And that's kind of it right now. Nuclear is a very long lead time, I'd say minimum of 15 to 20 years before any nuclear facility could be available in the most optimistic case. Geothermal, similarly, there is very promising technology, but it is not commercially demonstrated yet. And I'm rapidly running out of things to say because while there are a lot of startups that are proposing very interesting technology, they have not demonstrated commercial feasibility yet. And while You alluded to our status as a not-for-profit. We exist to serve the membership that resides within our service territory. Excuse me. And so we try to take a low risk approach to getting generation to serve our members loads. And so that means that we're looking for somebody else to take the first step. And with a technology like this where it is very modular, the technology risk has been addressed in our view. The commercial risk is a piece of it that is part of any transaction with a power generator that we take. We don't see that as anything that we're concerned with at this time.

I don't envy your challenge, so I get it. I mean, modular is nice. If one of these goes down, you crane it out, put another one in place. But it's just I have to ask the question because I wouldn't be doing my job here if it wasn't. In my world, it's much smaller. I built a hydrogen fuel cell conversion facility for Kroger Foods 10 years ago, and that took off on things. But maybe that doesn't work in your world. You need a lot more power generation than hydrogen fuel cell, I guess.

Yeah, both cost and then the feedstock water availability is a major concern here in a way that is not for a natural gas facility.

And then you talk about geothermal is still a startup because that technology has been around for a long time. I've been doing it for. 20 plus years.

So for power generation, you need either very hot rocks, as you have in several locations in California, certain locations in Colorado, or you need lower temperature rocks, essentially the earth, obviously. And that is the point where that is on the cusp of being commercially feasible, commercially developed, but it is still very, very expensive for the generation that comes from it, such that we're not, we don't believe it's in our members' best interest to sign up for that technology right now. If you ask me in five years, I very well may have a different answer.

And the last question would be, nobody has a surplus of power around here anywhere, right? You can't buy it elsewhere.

With the state's transition to renewables and the rapid shutdown of the existing fleet, there's very little available generation.

Commissioner Ryer, I believe you had a question.

Yes, sir. Commissioner Ryer here. I just want to dial this down a little bit, a couple of targeted questions. Based on the average usage captured by Corps, so you described a cold winter night, hot summer, we know what that means, peak power. What's the average use potential for this? What does that look like? Somebody said infrequently. Can you define that more, articulate that?

It's very hard to pin that down other than averages. I mean, it's like asking how far are you gonna drive next year?

And that's all I'm asking is for the average. Yeah, what's that look like? Because I mean, you kind of know, but you have 11 counties in here, so I'm just curious what that answer is.

So from our modeling, and again, caveat that models are wrong, but sometimes they're useful, we would expect to run the plant kind of at the high end of our estimates, about 10% per year. So that if you average it out over the year, that's, you know, 2.4 hours per day, right? So two to three hours per day. More likely it would run more frequently in the winter and in the summer than it would in the spring or the fall because loads are higher. So you might expect to see maybe four hours per day during the summer, generally speaking, in the evening after folks are heading home, turning on the oven with the air conditioner running.

I appreciate that and then just to follow up to that. So at what point does this operate at like full all the time with growth pending no other building of anything? Is that a potential?

No.

Never?

The air permit would not allow it and if we violate the air permit then we lose the plant. I mean it's no longer operable from our perspective. Um and so this over time I would expect to run less rather than more because the state has imposed some fairly stringent greenhouse gas reduction requirements for all utilities in the state. So I expect to have most of the energy provided to our membership come from non emitting sources over time. But there will, in the foreseeable future, always be a need for something that we can turn on when the wind has stopped blowing, the sun has gone behind a cloud, and the batteries have all run out.

Thank you for that answer.

I'd like to come back to a different subject, back to the noise emissions or noise pollution. brought up earlier, especially by Attorney DeSantis. She referenced operating at peak capacity and you've modeled that out. using appliance, household appliances as examples or as comparisons. So are you, would you be saying then that you do meet the noise standards of a residential community or do you not?

I'm gonna have to defer to the experts on that one.

I think as Matt mentioned earlier in his presentation that the county doesn't have any noise standards and defaults to the Colorado State statute. Which breaks down the maximum permissible levels based by zone district. this being large rural residential with no residential development on it or anywhere near. We were going by a different zoning category, light industrial, industrial, and those have slightly higher maximum permissible noise levels. So that's what we were kind of comparing it to. After running the noise models based on full operation. We do follow within those guidelines, just slightly out of the residential guidelines. So that's what we were asking to evaluate the site against, those maximum permissible levels.

All right, thank you very much. Any other questions for the applicant?

Yeah, you mentioned you're just outside of the industrial standard.

No, just outside the residential.

Oh, you're just, excuse me, yes.

We're within the light industrial and industrial.

what would it take to get to a residential standard? I mean, is there some sort of way to mitigate it, further mitigation? A sound wall comes to mind. And the reason why I am looking to that is because we don't know what's gonna go around This facility ultimately, Thunder LLC, I believe, is a residential interest. I see some heads nodding. So they're very concerned about having a residence within, I don't know how far away it would be, but within it. So I'm just kind of curious what would it take to get to that level. A sound wall comes to mind. or other dampening options.

Yeah, exactly. There'd be some other type of mitigation that'd have to be looked at, sound wall, other options, and that would be, I think, something that the applicant would be open to discuss with Thunder LLC or the church or others.

This is Commissioner McEschne. On page 11 of our packet, there's a sound modeling. Is there a way to show that on the screen? Today, you all did a...

Correct. That was part of the application. I have a hard copy of the map that shows the results of that sound study.

I guess I'm sorry. It's page 11 of your packet. It's page 18 of 77 of our staff packet. And it just cuts off south of this modeling map, cuts off south. It goes to the north more than the south, and the south is what's been given testimony on.

Is this the drawing you're talking about? Correct.

And that is showing 45 to 50 dBs at the southern portion of this map, which is how far from the facility and how close to the testimony we've gotten this evening.

Okay.

To scale, I would say it's probably a couple hundred feet south of the south property line where the blue is that you're talking about.

I guess my question is, we're talking about standards here. It shows 45 to 50, which is the light blue. And that is, we do have limits on residential standards. Is that right, staff?

Matt Jacobowski for staff.

City Council Chambers, In this particular case, the noise limits don't apply to core in other cases in other residential projects, but primarily adjacent to state highway or federal interstate is when those standards would apply, but there are standards for residences in our. zoning resolution, but not particular to this.

Well, and I appreciate that clarity because we don't have standards because of this type of application, but we do have noise standards. And how does 45 to 50 dB sit within our guidelines for other type uses?

So Matt Jacobowski for staff. In a situation, a project, say multifamily residential adjacent to a highway, which is a situation that happens, there are HUD noise standards that require the inside noise levels for those units be 45 or less. So that does happen in other cases, but that's kind of apples to oranges to this particular situation.

And I appreciate that. We've had that over at Centennial Airport where those developers have been burdened by building a facility or exterior wall to supplement that. But this, we have a utility that's got 45 to 50 dBs outside at the property line. I don't know how that relates to the highway. I don't even know what the highway would be. I'm trying to put it in context, the 45 to 50 dB that you're showing on that.

Well, just to reference the state maximum permissible levels for the residential zone district, between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., it's 55 dB. And this is 25 feet south of the property line is how they gauge that. And then at night from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., it's 50 dB in the residential zone district. And as far as the north, south, east, west closest receptors, north is the open space. Anticipated noise levels there are 50 to 55. so it's in that residential range. East, similar to the open space, it's 45 to 55, so we're in that residential. West would be the church, 50 to 55 DB. The only one that kind of gets above that level is the south where we're at 60 to 65, so it's just outside the residential zone, maximum permissible levels, and it's more aligned in either a commercial or light industrial.

I guess maybe my question is better put, like the testimony we've been given from Ott and Johnson today, are you willing to mitigate the sound to the south in accordance with what the testimony was given today?

Yeah, I think the applicant would be open to other mitigation options to try and get that down a little bit lower.

Thank you for that.

I have a question for the attorney on this. on this matter. Given the fact that the county does not have noise standards relative to a project like this, are we even able to require a residential standard from this panel up here? Is that permissible? I mean, basically what I'm saying is we'd be enforcing something that the county doesn't even enforce.

It's not criteria, so you shouldn't be considering it for this application.

Okay.

That's a great question. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair, I have a follow-up question for the attorney. Commissioner Neferratis. So just back into the legal question here. So I'm reading the statute on location and extent. and it says that the final component of a required written narrative for an application for this has to assert compliance with the Comprehensive Master Plan. So am I to interpret that, and maybe this is a question all the other Commissioners have already answered, but for my sake, am I to interpret that as that is a critical consideration when looking at this project, that it needs to comply with the Comprehensive Master Plan?

Matt Jakubowski for staff. The component of the comprehensive master plan is really related to the narrative and the community impact report. That's a requirement of the L&E application, then it being an approval criteria. So it's appropriate to look at it from the narrative perspective, but it's not an approval criteria.

So when it says compliance with the comprehensive master plan, is that just... a term of art, I guess, as opposed to like a term of complying with a requirement.

Matt Jakubowski for staff. I should mention that the comprehensive master plan is a policy document that has some competing values throughout their various chapters. It's correct that it's in the rural community in Franktown and some of the policies that have been mentioned today relate to rural character and the like. However, there's also a section five that talks about community resources and has a several policies on utilities and the location of utilities. And so, It's difficult to say how the comprehensive plan would apply. There is maybe some art to review of the comprehensive plan because of the way that it's set up. There are policies that can support one thing or another thing depending how you look at it. So the idea is that it be a balancing document. And so it's absolutely appropriate to be thinking about it, but it needs to be kept in mind also that there are these competing values.

Thank you. So a follow up question to that. Sorry, I'm going to keep you working a little bit. Apologize. So I understand what you're saying. Totally agree. I'm not an expert on the CMP and all of the policies yet. So I had a follow up question for you about this is four dash one C three. is pretty clear that non-residential or non-agricultural uses are inconsistent with this area. So it says such uses are appropriate in the Franktown Village area only. So it's pretty exclusive and in the negative. So is that common across all the policies in the CMP that This is something that's said because I hear what you're saying about balancing and I understand that that's the idea with the CMP. I can see how you could balance what I see in five with perhaps other policies, but this one specifically says that such uses are only for the Franktown Village area and it also says that these uses are inconsistent. So it's very negative and pretty clear to me. So is that something that's common across the CMP and it is meant to be balanced with other policies even though that's not? indicated, and I apologize for difficult questions.

Matt Jacobowski for staff. One other perspective is that the large rural residential district does allow the use. The policies that discuss rural character, as black and white as they are, there are so many perspectives to take into account. I would say that this is something that comes up quite a bit. And oftentimes, as the applicant has indicated, there's a balance of the mitigation that might be proposed. And that might be their way in terms of saying perhaps that we may not meet the black and white letter of what the policy says, but that perhaps there's, again, a balance that can be considered. But it is correct that that policy is pretty clear.

Sorry, one more question for you, and I apologize. That's it. Isn't there a process that already exists for quandaries like this, which is that the amendment process for the CMP, if something is not correct, can't they seek to amend it? Or is that only for the MAP?

Well, there is an amendment process of either policies or the MAP. in terms of the CMP, however, being a utility, it's really considered, and especially under the lens of the location and extent, it's considered very different to a situation where you may have an applicant that wants to propose something that is specifically not allowed in the zone district or the CMP policies would really conflict. But you're right, there is a process for that. It just typically wouldn't come up in this location and extent lens.

Thank you very much, I appreciate your answers.

Any other questions? Commissioner Smallwood.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So my question for the applicant, as far as this particular linear generator or series of linear generators, it looks like these have been deployed by lots of partners, Kroger and so on, and it appears that they've been deployed in populated areas. What's like the longest these have been out in neighborhoods? I'm curious about the pollution aspect, the feedback from neighbors, citizens, all of that as far as smells, noise, illness. fill in the blank, if I could get some historical context there, that'd be great.

Brandon Hartman with Mainspring. So our first deployments, as Steven was mentioning, We're back in 2020. That was actually our closest one to a residential home. It's about 150 feet away from a residential home in the back of a Kroger. So that has been operating since mid-2020 without any issues. Some of the first projects I deployed were in downtown Los Angeles as well. So very high density populated areas. One of the generators is 40 feet below a school classroom window and basketball court as well. So literally right next to a school there as well. And as was mentioned, the generators are operating in South Coast Air Quality Management District. That's the most stringent air district in the world. Thank you. Second one is San Joaquin Valley, and we also have units there as well.

Commissioner Hampton here, what you were just describing, were those just one next to the basketball court? Give me some context of how many of these in those examples you just gave me, how many of these?

Yeah, those were one generator.

Single, we're talking 144 of them.

Correct.

Okay, thank you. Okay.

Okay. If I may. Commissioner McKessie. It's helpful because in my world, I do a lot of backup generators for healthcare. This is not backup, this is peak demand. It's so that you don't go down on a grid. And I'm getting my arms, my head wrapped around this a little bit more, and really it's about how much it's used to. And we have this loose guideline that 10% of the year, 900, 877 hours a year, sometimes more in a day or not. But how is that committed to so that it doesn't become more regular power generations? And I don't know if that's a core thing or not, because it's one thing to have a backup generator that I can comprehend, and it's not on all the time, and it's not emitting these emissions that much. But in this case, you're talking about 900 hours a year to satisfy peak demand. But I'm concerned it grows to half the year. How would I know it's not going to happen that way?

Chris Hildred for CORE again. I mean, quite simply because there is monitoring recording of air emissions and again, to keep the air permit and not lose it, we have to keep below the permit volumes of the specific emissions. So again, the enforcement, excuse me, the enforcement mechanism through the state provides for a maximum amount of generation that can come from the plant. Again, in addition to the specific air permit emissions limits that are included in that document, CORE is committed to meeting the state's greenhouse gas reduction guidelines. Again, over time, we will run the plant less because the amount of space available in our greenhouse gas emissions limit will go down over time as well. Again, I can't point to a specific year it will run no more than X or Y because, again, it's like asking how much you're going to drive your car in five years. It's hard to know, but you have an expectation based on how it will work in the context of the overall portfolio, which will be increasingly renewable and increasingly constrained on a greenhouse gas basis.

So the state would limit the usage by the gas emissions is a maybe. I mean, at some point, I guess, is what I'm hearing you say.

So there is already greenhouse gas limitations in place that has a step down between, I think it was a 2023 is when we filed our specific plan through 2030. And there is further commitments at the state level to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power generation beyond that level over the next 20 years beyond that. and you say that that would be the limit not core saying that the limit usage that you're going to comply with the state which limits your use of this facility to generate power yes over time our portfolio limits go down and that means every resource that emits greenhouse gas emissions will run less over time thank you

Okay, I'd like to bring it back to the commissioners now for comments amongst ourselves and discussion. Any other comments?

I guess I wished that, what I did hear was the applicant say that they could mitigate noise, and I appreciate your comment, Mr. Chair, that while we can't put that upon them, I heard them agree to it. Did I hear that correctly, or?

I think they agreed to look into how they can mitigate it further. I don't think they necessarily agreed that they would meet those noise emission standards per residential requirements. Nor can we require that they do that.

I understand we can't require it, but we can ask for it. And I just want to make sure I heard If you didn't hear it correct the same way I did, maybe we need them to clarify what they'd be willing to do as far as mitigating those.

Mr. Holscher, could you come back up and maybe clarify what you said you would do or could do?

Yeah, I think on behalf of the applicant, before agreeing to anything as far as mitigation goes, there would have to be maybe some additional study done. See if the, maybe run another study on the sound just to see if the DB levels will change. But definitely something open to, whether it be a sound wall, other options. more vinyl fencing. And it's like I mentioned earlier, it's just on that south side that we're kind of getting on the higher DBE levels. On the other sides, we're all within state permissible levels.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that. All right, I also would like to come back to, given the fact that we can't mandate it, it would be beyond our, as we come to a motion, I think it would be inappropriate then for us to motion that we would make that a condition, right? And then the second thing is something that Matt Jakubowski mentioned earlier that I was gonna allude to as well is that given the nature of this being large rural residential, this is a use by right, correct? For utilities, right?

Matt Jakubowski for staff. The large rural residential district allows this use.

Okay. All right. Those are my comments. Anyone else?

If I may add relative to the comprehensive master plan perspective, I don't know in my tenure here, I've seen that used as more of a guide, I mean a requirement. It's a guiding document that we reference and it has its own competing value. So it's, in my mind, it's a good source for information, but it's a guiding document. It's specifically not law, is how I've heard it.

Correct, yep. Commissioner Neferratis.

Thank you for that. That's helpful.

I do think, though, that this is an important document that is referenced within our statute. So it certainly is important. And I do think that I agree with you, and a lot of this, very easy to see how you balance competing values, and it's a matter of priority. I think where I struggle is this language just doesn't feel like something that's designed to be balanced with other competing priorities to me. It's negative twice, so to me, it seems like it's something that was agreed upon by the county that is serious, and so maybe it's not dispositive on its own, but if we say that the county agreed to a plan and said certain things shall not be done essentially in terms of a value. And we counterweigh that by saying, well, there's other values that we think are more important. I think that that could lead us down a road of essentially rendering some of these policies meaningless. And I don't think that that, before anybody goes to the extreme with CMP, I don't think that that applies to most of the policies because the policies are, most of them are pretty positive and exhortational and not necessarily in the negative like this is. So I guess that to me feels like a striking difference, but I appreciate the further education on it. And I certainly look forward to learning more.

Commissioner Hampton.

Well, I'd have to agree with the CMP policy for 1C3. It's pretty cold and hard and fast. This doesn't comply with that. You can't put that in there. I mean, as I look at that. And yeah, sometimes we have to balance, but this one is pretty solid where it's at. And looking beyond that, as I'm looking at these new generation of power, you've placed one at a time. And we're putting 144 out there. If you get one mosquito bite, yeah, you kind of blow it off. You get 144 mosquito bites, you're gonna know it. You get one bee sting, yeah, you might go out of the garden. You get 144 bee stings, you're going to the hospital. So maybe there's some things here that we just don't understand yet. But the CMP is a guiding document. And if we continue to water it down, it's death by a thousand cuts. And that's not acceptable. I'm not going to be able to vote in the affirmative to have this go through just on that alone tonight.

Commissioner Kubler. Commissioner Kubler here. The substation aligns well with the CMP's purpose, which is not the straitjacket, but is a flexible guide that accommodates the appropriate and planned change. That's why we're here. It's not like the Bible that's not amendable. It is. We're not here for that, but I wanted to just point that out. This project demonstrates compliance with several of the CMP policies, including goal 5.1, objective 5.1a, ensuring that new development does not overwhelm existing services. Goal 5.5, objective 5.5a, applying design standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding areas, which we've talked about, as evidenced by... the proposed visual screening wood fence, and the Ponderosa Pines. Now, I guess the main potential points of debate that we all talked about here in the hearing is likely centered on the noise, air pollutants or emissions, and the visual impact of the facility in a rural area. Has CORE provided extensive analysis and mitigation to supersede these standards, whether we have them through the county or whether we have to upgrade them to a state standard? And I've had a little bit of a struggle here. And based on the criteria that we're here and that we look to, this infrastructure is supported by the CMP's goals. Corps has justified, you've done research, you've found multiple locations. This does meet the needs for, excuse me, reliable concerns that the Bayou substation needs to meet, peak, demands. It will tie into existing transmission lines and is considered a logical location for the facility. While I would like to see, also, excuse me, it's located in a non-urban area, but it's adjacent to church, school, and potentially future development in the areas around it, to the south specifically. I would like to really push for a better, a chain link fence to me doesn't do much, right? Besides a visual piece. I would very much like to see, and I know, and I've worked with them in the past in many other applications, where a sound wall, it doesn't even have to be that tall, but a sound wall certainly to the south, excuse me, west-south would certainly, I think, appease some of the concerns here tonight, including mine. If that would be at least something you guys would consider looking into doing the study, that you've mentioned that you could look into, then I will support this tonight.

And that's all I have to say right now, thank you. Thank you, Chair. You're welcome, Commissioner Coobly. Anyone else? Okay. I think we're at the point where we're ready to entertain a motion.

I apologize, but I thought perhaps I could add a little bit to the conversation with the comprehensive master plan. And I apologize for doing this, but wanted to make sure there was all the information out there. Uh, commissioner Kubli did mention goal five, five, which is in section five of the comprehensive master plan. He mentioned a few of the policies I wanted to. Read some of those again just because those policies apply specifically to a utility project. Goal 55, maintain high quality standards in planning for utility sites, minimize impacts to the surrounding area, Objective 55A. Policy 55A1, apply design standards to ensure compatibility. Policy 5-5 encourage high tension power lines and electrical substations be located away from residential and visually significant areas where feasible. Policy 5-5 encourage the joint use of utility corridors for newer upgraded major transmission lines. Basically, those things would apply to a utility project. The rural community standards that we've been also discussing are applicable, are black and white, but are also applicable to the wide variety of land uses that we would consider when there's, say, maybe a rezoning project and you have a differing land use that might be considered in that rural community. So I wanted to mention that perspective to be able to balance that, to be able to consider that we have some policies that would appear to specifically apply and support a project such as this. But then again, the competing values make this document somewhat difficult to review and to look at. But before you made your decision, I wanted to make sure that you had that perspective as well.

Yeah, thank you, appreciate that perspective. All right, do we have a motion?

Commissioner Coobly, Commissioner Coobly here. I will support a vote tonight to approve the Trinity substation and peaking facility LE2026-009. Do we have a second? Commissioner Neville? Second. We have a second.

Would the clerk please take the roll call vote?

Motion to approve the Trinity substation and peaking facility location and extent project file LE2026-009. Patrick Nebel. Yes. Luke Niferatos.

No.

Ed Kubli.

Yes.

Jim Smallwood.

No.

Mark Hampton.

No.

Mark Reier.

No.

Mike McKesson. Calvin Downs.

Yes. Without the motion fails by a five to three vote. And so the commission has denied the request for Trinity substation project file LE 2026-009. The next item on the agenda is the Vacation of Pineview Circle Road Vacation Project File SB2026-017 with Eric Pavlenik presenting for staff.

Good evening, Commissioners. Eric Pavlenek representing Community Development. The item before you is a road vacation request. The product number is SB2026-017. Vivian Greenwood Campbell is here this evening as the applicant. This is a request to vacate all of Pine View Circle right-of-way in Spruce Mountain Estates. Two of the abutting landowners would like to acquire ownership of the right-of-way. The intent of Article 7B is to provide a review and approval process for various types of public road vacation requests. The road vacation process begins with the submittal of an application following a review period by referral agencies and courtesy notices to abutting landowners. Public notice is given for public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. No adjacent property owners or members of the public have provided any comments on the request. Larkspur Fire Protection District has no objection to the application. Public Works Engineering has no objection to the road vacation request as all lots within the subdivision now have access to their properties. This item is scheduled before the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, August 25th, 2026. Spruce Mountain Estates is located in the West Palm Creek sub area of the non-urban area of the comprehensive master plan. The red star indicates the approximate location of the subdivision in the southern end of the county. Spruce Mountain Estates is zoned as state residential. This aerial view shows the proposed road vacation which is outlined in red. and provide some context regarding the surrounding lots and road network. As background, Pine View Circle was created with the original plat in 1966. This cul-de-sac segment was never constructed as a public road. Seven lots directly above this road, but take access from other roads and easements. This is the road vacation exhibit which shows the cul-de-sac road. Pine View Circle is approximately 1.04 acres in size. It's approximately 870 feet long by 50 feet wide. In addition, the vacation resolution will reserve a utility easement for the continued use of existing utilities at the date of vacation. The vacation resolution will also reserve an access easement for the benefit of Lot 8, Spruce Mountain Estates, Filing 1 to Pine View Road. The Lot 8 property owners, James and Linda Swan, requested access from their lot to Pine View Road. This exhibit details the proposed vesting of the right-of-way between the two lot owners. While other abutting lot owners were initially interested in participating, Vivian Campbell requested ownership of most of this segment. A small portion of right-of-way is proposed to be conveyed to lot owners of lot 7, Rolf and Christy Berkland. Before you are the approval standards applicable to row vacation requests, which is described within the staff report. For road vacation requests, the Planning Commission and Board have discretion to consider these standards when making a recommendation or determination. Staff has evaluated the road vacation request in accordance with Article 7B of the subdivision resolution. Should the Planning Commission find that the road vacation request may be approved, the following proposed condition should be considered for inclusion in its recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Condition number one, prior to recordation of the road vacation resolution, all minor technical corrections shall be made to the satisfaction of Douglas County. Section 709B.04 of the subdivision resolution sets forth the parameters for the planning commission's recommendation on road vacation request, which is noted on the slide. This concludes my presentation. As stated earlier, the applicant, Vivian Greenwood Campbell, is here tonight. She does not have a formal presentation, but can answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Palahniuk. All right, are there any questions for staff or for the applicant at this time? I have just one question for the applicant. If you wouldn't mind, yes, if you wouldn't mind coming up to the podium.

I should say co-applicant with Rolf Berkland.

Thank you, so my question is very simple. No one is harmed by this, right? Everyone wins, correct? All the homeowners win, nobody's harmed by this?

Nobody's harmed by this. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

All right, it doesn't look like there are any other questions. Any comments then amongst the commissioners? All right, if not, we'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, I don't think there's any public testimony, but did you want to formally ask that for the record? All right.

Well, seeing only staff in the room and applicant, I see that there are no members of the general public here for public comment.

Fair enough. All right.

Is there a motion?

Commissioner Ryder. Yes, Mr. Chair, I want to make a motion to recommend approval of the vacation of Pineview Circle project file SB2026-017.

Commissioner Smallwood will second.

Thank you, Commissioner Smallwood. I'd like to ask the clerk to take the roll call vote.

Motion to recommend approval of the Vacation of Pine View Circle project file SB2026-017. Patrick Neville.

Yes.

Luke Nefortis.

Yes.

Ed Kubli.

Yes.

Jim Smallwood. Yes. Mark Hampton.

Yes.

Mark Reier. Yes. Mike McKesson. Yes. Calvin Downs.

Yes. And with that, the motion to recommend approval passes. And without objection, this meeting is adjourned.

We'll need to reopen the meeting to redo the motion on the last item, not the second item.

On the second item?

Yes, for location and extent. I believe the statement was that the item fails. Your options are to approve or deny it. So we would just need a new motion. and then a vote.

So the motion was to approve and that motion failed, so you're saying we need a motion now to deny?

It would be to approve or deny, not to state that it has failed.

I think it's literally the words that she's saying. Denied versus...

Us lawyers and words, you know. Okay.

So do we have a fresh motion then?

This is Commissioner McKesson. I make a motion to deny the Trinity substation and peaking facility location and extent project file LE-2026-009.

Is there a second?

Commissioner Smallwood, second.

Okay. Would the clerk please take the roll call vote?

Motion to deny the Trinity substation and peaking facility location and extent project file LE2026-009. Patrick Neville?

No.

Luke Nefortis?

Yes.

Ed Kubli?

No.

Jim Smallwood? Yes. Mark Hampton?

Yes.

Mark Reier? Yes. Mike McKesson? Yes. Calvin Downs?

No. With that, the motion passes five to three.

Thank you.

Are you satisfied with that?

All right. Thank you, gentlemen. You may adjourn. Okay.

And the meeting is adjourned.

So here's to that place. And all the people who come together every day to make it.