From the city's economic development team.

You ever want to know a little bit more about Colorado Springs?

Listen to the podcast behind the Springs.

You'll know all about the fun, cool stuff going on in Colorado Springs.

Enjoy.

Helping clients comply with court orders by connecting them to classes, resources, and more.

He's part of the municipal court team, the legislative branch of our local government.

I'm Apollo Ono, and you're watching Springs TV in Colorado Springs, Olympic City, USA.

Near a city map, you'll find Matt.

He uses geographic.

Good morning.

Welcome to City Council Cara Springs regular meeting for Tuesday, February 10th, 2026.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Bailey.

Excused.

Councilmember Crow Iverson.

Here.

Councilmember Donaldson.

Here.

Councilmember Gold.

Here I am.

Councilmember Henjam.

Present.

Councilmember Lion Weber.

Here.

Councilmember Rainey.

Here.

Councilmember Risley.

Here.

Councilmember Williams.

Here.

Present when excused.

Please stand for the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance.

Um today we are joined by Reverend Carrie West from First United Methodist Church.

Thank you very much.

Invite us all to be in a posture and attitude of prayer.

Our divine and infinite holy one, your love is the source of all that is good and beautiful.

We give you thanks for this day and for this space in which we gather.

Thank you that you have implanted within each one of us a divine spark of peace, of grace, and humility.

It is these characteristics that you have called this body to embrace and to lean into as decisions are made for this amazing community that we live in.

And may your peace, the peace that passes all understanding, reign now and forevermore and for all.

Amen.

Amen.

Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the relief for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Moving on to the consent calendar, we will now consider the consent calendar.

Is there anyone who wishes to pull off an item from the consent calendar?

Madam President, I'd like to pull off four BG, please.

Noted.

Pulling off item 4BD.

I need a motion.

Have a motion from Councilman Risley and a second from Councilman Gold.

All in favor.

Any opposed.

Moving on to item 5A.

Will the clerk please read item 5A into the record?

A proclamation recognizing February 2026 is Black History Month.

So this morning we are celebrating Black History Month, and I will read the proclamation and then I believe Councilman Rainey has some guests that will come forward and speak in this honor today.

Today in the city of Colorado Springs, we have a proclamation of Black History Month for February 2026.

And whereas since 1976, the month of February has been formally designated to recognize and celebrate Black history nationwide, building on decades of work that sought to illuminate the stories, innovations, and leadership of African Americans who have contributed immeasurably to the advancement of our country, and whereas the year 2026 makes 100 years of national observance of black history, commemorating a century of education and awareness dedicated to the preservation and promotion of African American heritage and its vital place in American history.

And whereas throughout its history, the city of Colorado Springs has benefited from and been enriched by the leadership, creativity, and community spirit of African Americans who have helped shape its growth and development, contributing to the success and vitality of our community.

And whereas the city council affirms the importance of recognizing the diverse heritage and shared history that unite all people and continue to strengthen our community.

Now, therefore, I, Lynette Crow Iverson, President of City Council, do hereby proclaim the month of February as Black History Month in the city of Colorado Springs and encourage all residents, institutions, and organizations to join in honoring the legacy, contributions, and enduring impact of African Americans in our community and across the nation.

Thank you, Madam President, uh for reading that proclamation.

And uh we have a lot of uh guests here in the audience today, and I would like to begin by inviting up uh a couple of our guests, uh specifically first guest uh is Miss Shirley Martinez, who will be speaking, and then there are three other guests who will also be speaking, and I'll let her introduce those guests.

Thank you, Shirley.

Um, Madam President, um, council and guests in the audience, and also guests downstairs in the in the uh extra room that are watching that we brought with us.

Thank you for having us here today.

Um, we do have a couple of individuals here that will speak from our community.

Um, Ashley Cornelis, who wrote a special poem for today, is sick this morning.

So we won't be able to hear from her, but I'll make sure we post that because she always says amazing things.

But first, I think we're gonna bring up um Earl Shaper.

He's one of our ministers, and uh he will say a few words.

Good morning, Council President Crow.

Iverson, President Pro Tim Riley and all of you, the Colorado Springs City Council.

My name is Minister Earl Schaefer Jr., and I have the honor of serving as the incoming president of the Dr.

King Legacy Preservation Society, which is an organization that is committed to preserving and advancing the values of Dr.

King through education, service, and community engagement.

Black History Month is not only a celebration, but it is a recognition of the contributions, the struggles, and the ongoing work of building more than just an inclusive society.

It's a reminder that black history is American history.

And right here in Colorado Springs, Olympic City, USA, it is local history as well.

Colorado Springs has undergone remarkable demographic transformation over the last decade.

Once a predominantly white community, our city today reflects a broader tapestry of backgrounds and cultures.

Roughly two-thirds of our residents identify as white, nearly one in five residents are Hispanic or Latino and African Americans now make five to six percent of our population.

A growing and vibrant community that's contributing to every sector of this city.

This increasing diversity is reflected in our leadership as well.

Where in 2023 we made history by electing Yemi Mobilade as the first duly elected African American mayor in Colorado Springs' history.

His election represents not only progress, but the possibilities that emerge when every voice feels represented and empowered.

And as we celebrate Black History Month, we uplift the stories of black Coloradoans who have shaped the city long before diversity was the norm or accepted.

We honor Fannie Mae Duncan, whose cotton club, which was famous for its everyone welcome sign, brought world-class jazz music and a spirit of inclusion to Colorado Springs during an era of intense segregation.

We remember the Brown bombers, our local black baseball team who showcased excellence, resilience, and community pride.

Their legacy is a testament to the talent and determination that existed when opportunities were limited.

But black history is not only found in the archives, it's all around us, and it influences our routines of our everyday life.

Every time you drive through a traffic light, we depend on the genius of Garrett Morgan.

Every blood transfusion in every hospital relies on the life-saving breakthrough of Dr.

Charles Drew, who created the modern blood bank.

Our computers and personal devices exist in part because of Dr.

Mark Dean, who created the color PC monitor and helped engineer modern computer architecture.

Caller ID and the telecommunication features we rely upon today were made possible by the trailblazing work of Dr.

Shirley Ann Jackson and the modern home security system that safeguards our families and even this very building can trace their origins to Marie Van Britton Brown.

These inventions and dozens more show that black excellence has not only shaped the history of this nation, but the technology and the convenience and the safety systems and so much more that we rely upon every single day.

And as I step into the leadership with the King Legacy Preservation Society, my vision is to ensure that these stories are preserved and taught and elevated so that our children and our grandchildren can know the greatness that not only achieved in Washington and in Selma, Alabama, but right here in Colorado Springs, Olympic City, USA.

City Council, I want to thank you for once again recognizing Black History Month for uplifting our community and reaffirming your commitment to the city and the legacy of black Americans as it is integral to the story of this city, Olympic City, USA.

Together, not separate, together.

Let us continue to build a Colorado Springs where opportunity is real, where representation is expanded, and where not one community, but every single community's history is honored and preserved.

Thank you.

Thank you, Cheryl.

Good morning, everyone.

Morning, Madam President, City Council.

As you know, my name is Candace McKnight.

I'm the president and CEO of the African American Historic, excuse me, Historical and Genealogical Society here in Colorado Springs.

It'll be 17 years here in October.

And it's a small room, but it is mighty.

And it is located at 1620 West Bizou.

I invite you all to come over and see what we're doing here in Colorado Springs.

We are busting at the scenes, and we do need a bigger building.

Now, on February the 4th, up at the state capitol, I was given a proclamation by Regina English.

I was just so shocked.

It was for Black History Month.

And then today I'm turning around and getting another one.

It's making me know that somebody cares.

And I want to thank each and every one of you in this room because I see somebody does.

Thank you, everybody.

Next, we have Terrence Beasley with Buffalo Soldiers.

A little bit of our Black history here.

Good morning.

Madam President, Council members, those of you that are in attendance today.

I'm the founder and chair of Colorado Front Range Buffalo Soldiers.

We are a newly formed nonprofit organization that is committed to providing immersive interacting, interactive learning experiences for Colorado schools that are aligned with Colorado academic standards.

We also provide presentations throughout the community.

Buffalo soldier history is American history, and that history connects us all in some way.

History tells us that the efforts of the Buffalo soldiers were instrumental in Colorado reaching statehood, August 1st, 1876.

The Buffalo Soldiers were regiments of African Americans established in the United States Army in 1866 following the Civil War.

These soldiers defended a nation that did not fully support them.

And in doing so, they helped build the very communities that we live in here today.

Honoring their legacy is not just remembering the past.

It's about recognizing foundation of service, resilience, and unity that still strengthens our community.

They served, we remember.

In our brief existence, we have formed some valuable connections in the community, thus being with Buffalo Soldiers Community Memorial Committee, Lamar Foundation, Pikes Peak Area Rotary Endowment, the National Cyber Security Center, excuse me, District 2, District 8, District 20, and District 38 School Districts, and VFW Posts 101 and 3917.

I also would like to recognize we have a relationship here with Miss Candace as well.

We support each other with the African American Historical Genealogical Society.

And we're sure that list is going to grow as we move forward.

I say again, Buffalo Soldiers serve and we remember.

So please do not hesitate to reach out to myself if you have an interest in being a part of this organization, or if you like to schedule us for a presentation, or if you desire, if you desire to provide a donation for the cause.

I will close by saying, mark your calendars for our 160th Annual Buffalo Soldier event, July 25th, 2026, from 10 a.m.

to 3 p.m.

at VFW Post 3917, located at 4715 Cliff View Drive, Colorado Springs.

Thank you for your time.

So this is actually not the end.

I mean, I will be the last speaker until later in the uh meeting, but coming here about Black History Month, which has always been done by council, as long as I can remember coming in front and being a part of the audience or being a speaker.

What I say is thank you for this opportunity to stand here today as we honor Black History Month during a year of extraordinary milestones that I know we are going to be accomplishing.

As our nation approaches America 250 and our state celebrates 150, we also recognize I don't know if you knew this, but this is a hundred years of Black history, which started in 1926.

So it's the commemoration of this region.

These anniversaries remind us that history is not simply a timeline, because this is a trifecta right now.

History is storytelling, the stories we choose to preserve, the stories we uplift, and the stories we pass forward.

For a century, black Coloradans have gathered in community centers, schools, civic spaces to honor our ancestors and celebrate our progress.

Much of that work has been carried by civil rights icons in our community, such as Dr.

James Norman, Fannie Mae Duncan, John Mosley, Tuskegee Airmen, June Waller, Peggy Shivers.

There's many, many people in our community that moved this forward and continue to move this forward.

This courage advocacy and vision helps shape the civic and cultural landscape of this city.

They fought for access, dignity, representation, and opportunity, and their legacy continues to guide us.

As we reflect on 250 years of America and 150 years of Colorado statehood, we acknowledge that black history has shaped every chapter of that story.

From the Buffalo soldiers who served on this land to the educators, organizers, cultural visionaries who built spaces belonging to Black history, which is inseparable from the history of the state and this nation.

But today is not only about looking back, it is also about looking forward.

Our youth are the future authors of this story.

The lessons we teach them about resilience, justice, creativity, and unity will shape the next century of Colorado's history.

When we invest in our leadership, when we uplift their voices, when we give them the tools to dream and to build, we ensure that the legacy we inherited becomes the foundation for a brighter future.

And we do this work together as a community.

We come together across neighborhoods, cultures, and traditions to honor one another's histories.

We partner, we collaborate, and we build bridges because we know that no single group carries the story alone.

Our strength comes from recognizing the value of everybody's community contributions and the dignity of every person's lived experiences.

So today, as we proclaim Black History Month, we honor the past, we celebrate the present, and we commit ourselves to a future shaped by our youth, strengthened by partnership, and grounded in the stories that define us.

May we continue to walk forward together, learning from one another, lifting one another, and building a legacy worthy of the next 100 years.

And I'd like to add that we still have events going on this month.

The Pioneers Museum continues to have Black History Month tours on Tuesdays and Saturdays, and they're free.

There is going to be a 13th annual Black History Month event at the Int Center on February 15th at 4 p.m.

The third annual Black History Month community read in is at Ontario Elementary School on February 23rd from 10 to 3 p.m.

And then Rocky Mountain Film Festival is doing a free screening of I am Carl Lewis at the Peak Education Center, February 28th.

But this doesn't stop here.

We do work 365.

And we do work 365, not with just the black history and the black communities, but we also work with our Asian communities.

We work with our Hispanic communities.

We work with our Indian communities.

We work with all communities because together, those stories flourish, and it helps us with our children learning their heritage.

Because I don't know if any of you have kids that are blended, but I have many.

And I want them to know not just their black history, but I want them to know their Hispanic and their Asian and any other history that they may have, because I think it's so important for them to understand who they are and where they came from.

And so I thank you and thank you for doing this proclamation.

Bring it back up to the dais, Councilman Rini.

Thank you, Madam President, and thank you all for being here today.

Shirley, Earl, Terrence, others, the folks that are downstairs, and everyone that is watching.

Thank you very much, Madam President, to all of council.

Thank you for this proclamation.

The one thing I do want to emphasize about this proclamation is that when we look at the different perspectives of celebrating black history, it's not just about uh one ethnic group that is superior or inferior above another.

It's about looking at the journey of a group of individuals, a group, uh a family, a uh history of individuals brought to this country in bondage, and through that bondage, they fought for human rights, civil rights, voting rights, so their kids and grandkids and great-grandkids can be sitting here today to actually live out the American dream.

Because of that, before you, as a little 15-year-old standing next to his dad in the sugarcane field, shoving and planting cane and shucking and planting it into the hard dirt.

Those hands right here are now the same hands that can build laws that help govern and oversee the budget of Colorado Springs, that can ingest code that moves satellites throughout the deep space.

That's who we are as a people.

And that's one of the things I want to make sure that we all remember that is the essence of who we are as a great country and as a great people.

So never, never as a collective whole, never allow us to allow the celebration of black history to be the pawn of a chess game of self-serving political ideology.

It is truly about the history about us and what makes us great as a country.

So let us celebrate where we were, the journey to how we got to where we are uh today, because black history is American history woven into the fabric of this nation.

So I want to thank you all because I tell you there's not a day that doesn't go by that I know for a fact as a city councilman for District Six that I was elected in a district that is 70% white.

Because I tell you there's not a date that doesn't go by that I know for a fact as a city councilman for district six that I was elected in a district that is 70% white.

And I know that and I live it and I breathe it and I love it because it shows that the folks that came before us, our ancestors, has laid a pat for us to be a great country moving into the future.

Thank you all for being here today.

Councilman Gold.

Thank you, Madam President.

I didn't realize we were going to church this morning.

But wow, between uh Minister Earl and who I'm now gonna call Pastor Rainey.

Um happy Black History Month, y'all.

Be blessed and be a blessing.

Seeing no other comments on the dais, we are gonna take a celebratory picture.

And so even if you didn't speak in, you're here for Black History Month.

Go ahead and come down, and then the council will stay behind the dais so that we have um we're not crowding.

So anyone who wants to be in the picture, please come forward.

Where'd that go?

Church closing.

Not a passer by any stretch of the imagination.

Moving on to item five B.

Will the clerk please read item five B into the record?

City Council appointments to boards, commissions, and committees.

So this morning we have Parks Recreational Culture Service Advisory Board.

A vaccine a vacancy has occurred due to a resignation of a current member.

Ms.

Procheska has served as an alternate member since January of 2026.

Councilmember Linewember and Gold, do you have any comments?

I just want to publicly congratulate Stephanie.

Um she is an environmental project manager by trade.

And um, wow, she was really impressive.

I think we're very fortunate to have her on our committee.

Thank you.

Councilman Lineweber.

Yeah, I just want to say um we had um I can't remember the tollman.

I think in the 70s of people volunteering to be a part of the council board.

And then we narrowed it down to 22 interviews, and and then that was really tough.

I mean, all 22 were great, but um Stephanie definitely stood out as uh a key component, and so very, very excited to have her uh be a part of all that.

So we have a motion from Councilman Donaldson and a second from Councilman Gold.

Let's vote motion passes into zero.

Moving on to fitum six A, Mayor's business, chief of staff.

Uh, just a quick note and reminder that this Friday is the first furlough day um to meet budget constraints for this year.

It's important to note that um the citizens obviously expect services to be to be um handled anyway.

So obviously public safety, non-metro transit, code enforcement, snow plowing, should it snow, potholes, all those things will still continue.

To again meet those expectations of our citizens.

So I just wanted to note that for council.

Thank you.

Moving on to item seven.

Setting a revised legislative hearing date of February 24, 2026 for an ordinance submitting in Section 110 camping and public property prohibited or repealing Section 11, camping and ways deposit within public stream, public stream or pairing zone prohibited or part one general Article 6, offenses affecting property and repealing Section 404 camping restrictions and part four offenses related to persons of Article 9, Park Offenses of Chapter 9, Public Offenses of the Quota, the City of Colorado Springs, 2001 is amended pertaining to camping regulation and providing penalties and violations thereof.

Councilman Hindum.

Thank you, President Crow Iverson.

We are getting ready to vote for a second time on setting the date for this camping on uh public uh on public property.

And I called it off the consent agenda because I uh for for kind of process and transparency reasons.

Um I'm not gonna argue at all the the merits of the ordinance, but just simply I think it's important for people to be aware of why uh this date uh is now being moved to February 24th.

So there's a little bit more to the story.

Um we originally heard this ordinance actually in a slightly different format on November 10th.

About people came and spoke, uh, mostly uh against and some in favor of this ordinance, which very well intended and extremely responsive to constituents who are concerned about uh people camping in their neighborhoods in their cars and concerned about safety.

So very well-intentioned um ordinance for sure.

Um in that process and in that hearing, it became evident uh to me that the ordinance um was really crafted somewhat in in a bit of a silo.

It it did not engage those who were most impacted by the ordinance, the providers, um, those with lived experience, those for whom downstream impacts of the ordinance would really um have an impact.

And so um it's it's interesting.

You know, I I hear often from my fellow council members about their extreme frustration with our state legislators who often who put forth many, many bills, well intended or not, you can judge, um, but that have downstream impacts that actually can be quite negative for us in the city of Colorado Springs.

And I think honestly, it's a pretty fair criticism for the most part.

And I think it's because those legislators don't always take the time to really understand and talk with those for whom the legislation has an impact.

And I share that because I think that's really what we're doing now by moving this date up.

So back on November 10th, I um I made a motion to postpone the hearing date to give us the opportunity as a council to include um who some important people who had not been included in the creation of the ordinance, um, the how housing and homeless office, our homeless outreach program of the fire department in the city, the providers who provide services to people when they can no longer they've been cited and they can no longer uh stay in their car on the street.

Um, those with lived experience.

Those folks were not in any way, shape, or form involved in the creation of the ordinance.

So I made the motion and we started on a process of uh meeting uh planning to meet with those providers to meet with those stakeholders.

Um and then all of a sudden um we're talking at council lunch, and there's a decision uh by this council to move the hearing date up.

And uh because we do have to to vote on it, that's what we're doing here today.

So I still, after numerous conversations with my fellow council members had not fully understood why it's so important to move it up.

But I I I want to tell you that on Friday, just this past Friday, um, our Office of Housing and Homelessness uh led by Amy Cox.

Um, we held a meeting.

A number of people from the Department of Human Services with whom we previously had not really been in collaboration on these matters.

It was great, actually.

It was really good, good meeting.

And we did talk about the gaps in the system and the services that are difficult to provide for our uh fellow residents who are unhoused.

Um we were able to have that begin that conversation, but we really couldn't talk about the ordinance.

We didn't have time for those folks to even understand how the ordinance will work, what it will look like, what will happen when people get cited, uh, what happens when they go to court, will they go to jail?

We weren't able to talk about that.

We weren't even able to send the ordinance to them until a few hours before the meeting because it needed to be published to the public first, and that had just happened like the day before.

So not having the courtesy or the respect to meet with and connect with those for whom this ordinance has the greatest impact, I think is not really good legislative process.

Good, effective, thoughtful legislative process.

Which is hard to do because it takes time and it involves a lot of conversations.

It means really listening to and convening those who will be impacted by the legislation.

That's good policy, that's good process.

And so for some reason, there's an urgency that this council feels to get this ordinance read and voted on February 24th, and then for a second reading on March 10th.

Um I I again don't fully understand the urgency.

Um I would certainly invite any of my fellow council members in the majority who want to vote on it at our next meeting to help enlighten me, help enlighten you as to why it's so important uh that we we do this now.

Again, I'm not arguing the merits of the ordinance pro or con.

I'm simply striving to have thoughtful and effective legislation.

So with that, I will be um voting no on uh the the uh placement of this ordinance at our next meeting.

Thank you.

Councilman Lineweber?

Yeah, I feel strongly that we need to support our police officers um in ways of uh having clear and defined laws.

Currently, um when it comes to camping, we have several different types of laws, whether you're camping a hundred feet from a stream, yeah, you know, is it a park, is it a school?

I mean, there's all these different kinds of variances, and the idea of this law is just to say no camping.

And it was to do a broad spectrum because I mean, as a city, do we want to allow people just to camp wherever they want to?

Um, do we want Boy Scouts camping wherever they want to?

Do we want other groups or people or individuals to camp wherever they want to?

When I'm uh no, we need to give a clear, simple thing.

That's making government understandable, making laws understandable, I think is really, really key.

And so, although this will likely have an effect on our homeless community.

It still doesn't change what we already have.

We already have no camping laws.

This was to simplify and just make it easier to kind of make a blanket statement that on all public land, we do not allow camping unless you get a permit.

You can get a permit.

Uh if the Boy Scouts want to camp at a park, they just get a permit.

And so we we have a process.

And I think um, you know, when we delay uh government and um we delay things like this, um, I I think it's just we kind of know what the right thing to do here is is on the authority side, we need to have clear laws that people can understand.

Now, that doesn't preclude that we can't come alongside that with compassion.

Absolutely, we need to do that.

Absolutely, we need to develop more programs to help those in crisis.

Absolutely, we need to kind of form partnerships and stuff like that.

And is there an urgency?

There's been an urgency for five plus years as this homeless population has gotten more and more out of control.

There's been an urgency.

Um there's not any new urgency.

I'm not really sure how this is going to affect uh things in in that realm, but hopefully, if more people can come to the table and understand what's kind of the situation is, we can develop better programs with better outcomes and really work to help people where they're at.

You know, often our police officers are just thought of as people that write tickets.

And that's not really the case.

A lot of times they come and say, hey, how can we help?

Let me let me direct you to the programs that you need to be going to.

Because sometimes people in crisis don't know where they need to go.

And so these officers, believe me, they want to help.

And so I think it's really key that we give our police the correct tool in order for them to administer assistance whenever they can.

And I think that's the biggest of this.

And clarity, I think is what's really key.

And the quicker we can get to clarity, I think the better.

Thank you.

Have a motion from Councilman Donaldson and a second from Councilman Risley.

Let's vote.

The motion passes seven to two or six to two.

Moving on to item eight utilities business.

Would the clerk please read item eight A into the record?

A resolution authorizing the recreational use of Rosemont Reservoir and surrounding property.

Good morning, Jessica.

Good morning.

My name is Jessica Davis.

I am the land resource manager for Colorado Springs Utilities.

And I'm here today to request the authorization of an expanded recreational use at Rosemont Reservoir.

I have a short presentation, and then a member from Colorado Parks and Wildlife would like to speak as well.

Just as a little bit of background, Rosemont Reservoir is located about 12 miles southwest of Colorado Springs.

It was developed by the Broadmoor Power and our power and water company in the 1920s.

When the Broadmoor annexed into the city, they sold it to us in night in the 1970s, and we've been managing it since then.

In the early 2000s, we leased it to Colorado Parks and Wildlife as a recreation area, a state wildlife area.

They're responsible for the fishing, the hiking, trash cleanup, parking lots, and bathrooms on the site.

Today I'm asking to actually expand recreation at Rosemont Reservoir.

This would allow the expansion of the recreation would be camping, overnight camping, campfires, and non-motorized boats on the water.

We feel that these uses are compatible with utilities.

We will protect our infrastructure.

So we'll limit access to the dams and other things that we have, flumes, buildings, pipelines.

Also having somebody up there managing recreation supports our infrastructure to ensure that it doesn't get damaged and that we have more eyes on it.

The city code uh requires city council to approve any recreational uses on our watershed.

So that's why I'm here today.

And with that, my recommend my recommendation would be to ask you guys to move to approve the resolution expanding recreational uses at Rosemont Reservoir.

And I'm going to introduce so today the resolution is just approving utilities authority to expand recreational uses.

We plan to manage that through a lease with CPW.

That'll happen at a later time.

April E Step is here with CPW to say a few words about the expanded uses.

Thank you.

Good morning, Council.

I'm Abra East Step with Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

And I just like to say that I am very proud of our ongoing partnership with Colorado Springs Utilities and providing additional recreational access for the public in the Rosemont area.

We have a shared goal that with our expanded recreation access, that we are also protecting the quad the water quality in the area and the infrastructure.

Thank you.

Oh, Councilman Langliber.

I had a question.

I think it's important to establish we currently have a relationship with CARA Parks and Wildlife in that Cheyenne Mountain Cheyenne Mountain State Wildlife Area.

Okay, is property that's owned by the city, but Corra Parks and Wildlife manages it.

So we already have an existing model that has worked.

Can you speak to that a little bit, April?

How did how do you feel that relationship has gone?

Yeah, thank you for the question question, Council Lane Weber.

Um we do a lot of this around the state.

So what we do is take on the recreation and operations management of public lands for different entities so that we can provide additional recreation to the public, and that helps both partners in creating additional space, and then we of course take on that budgetary cost for those operations and management.

And so we have different funding sources in the state that allow you to do that.

Could you explain the two in particular?

Sure.

So we have different buckets of money that we use to provide recreation to the public.

Some of that funding comes from GoCo, so Get Outdoors Colorado.

That's comes from your lottery proceedings, and some of that goes to the schools.

Half of that funding comes to parks and wildlife, and that is split into separate quadrants so that we are spending just money on parks or just money on wildlife.

And we use that funding to increase our state parks, whether we own them fee title or if they're in partnership with an entity like the city of Colorado Springs.

And then we also have our internal budget process that we use for different capital development projects.

And then keep Caro Wild Pass.

Yes.

So we also have the Keep Colorado Wild Pass, which is our newly reduced pass into the parks used to, if you got an annual parks pass, I believe it was $89.

We brought that down to $29, and you add that to your vehicle registration and uh makes it a lot easier for people to access the parks and enjoy a park as they're driving through the state.

And we use that keep Colorado Wild funding to provide infrastructure updates to the parks to purchase additional parks as needed and to just continue that expanded outstanding recreation opportunities that we want the public to have.

Thank you.

I just wanted to highlight that because often, you know, taking care of maintenance and all these other things is a burden to the city, and that's it's a burden to our utilities.

And so being able to provide this and have access to those funds that state citizens, citizens of our state have agreed upon.

Uh, if it comes into if we all vote yes.

And um, so the idea here is it will not be a financial burden on the city that Colorado Parks and Wildlife will be uh really kind of pushing this forward through those different funding opportunities.

Yes, that's correct.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now we will open up for public comment.

First up, we have Cindy Mark Yules.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Cindy Margulis.

I flew in from Austin, Texas to speak with you today.

I am one of five owners of our family cabin.

Imagine a place where nearly 100 years of family memory memories has been made.

A place untouched by traffic, noise, and crowds.

For six generations, my family has had a sanctuary.

And today that sanctuary is at risk.

We lovingly call it Jehoma, and name honoring the women who for generations carried it through.

My mother Joan and Hope, both now deceased, and Marion, who is 95 and watching virtually from Nevada.

Sitting on one acre about 30 yards from the access road, it is completely surrounded by Colorado Springs land.

The cabin is quiet and remote, defined by a rare tranquility that shapes the entire experience of the property.

Imagine the effect of placing an airport next to your residential neighborhood.

Mechanical and human noise along with artificial lighting and campfires would permanently change the character of this historic property.

Increased public access all also heightens our risk of vandalism and the associated cost for security, insurance, and repairs.

We know that.

We are so very much appreciate Chris Olney and the team from C Cry on the team from CPW.

Um who has been who has welcomed our family in the planning process.

And we do support expanded recreation, but not at the expense of the area's only historic structure.

We respectfully ask you to protect Jehoma's tranquility, reservoir view, and historic character.

If this resolution cannot guarantee clear enforceable protections for the cabin and its setting, we ask that you vote it down.

Our family submitted a packet of materials yesterday, and we hope you've had an opportunity to review it.

Thank you for allowing my family to share a bit of our cabin's history and spirit as you consider this important decision for our dear Jehovah's legacy.

Thank you.

Next up we have Sherry Urig.

Thank you, City Council members.

My name is Sharon Yurik.

I'm Cindy's sister, and also a co-owner of the beloved cabin just on the north end of the Rosemont Reservoir.

I appreciate the opportunity to share my perspective and relevant concerns of the proposed campground development at the Rosemont.

We've been good stewards and fought hard to maintain its original integrity and rustic nature, opting to not modernize this unique heritage.

It still has no running water, no electricity, has an antique pump well, the original cast iron cook stove, and we utilize an outhouse near the cabin.

These are all parts of its charm.

I'd like to share a short amateur video that my son shot while practicing with his new drone a while back that'll give you a visual of the area for just for reference purposes.

So our Jehoma Cabin is not simply a structure, it's the living record of my family's history.

The beauty of this cabin lies in its isolation and its direct connection to the reservoir.

It doesn't just change our view, it destroys the tranquility that my family has spent decades preserving.

Another very important consideration is that this valley is a high potential wildfire zone with limited access.

Expanding the occupancy in the valley with a campground increases the significant threat of human-caused fire, which terrifies me because this cabin and its sanctuary are truly irreplaceable.

Not to mention that if in planning this proposed recreational area, using that access for the campground, would impact our property significantly as it runs very close to the cabin.

Opting instead for relocating the campground.

If that's not possible, I ask you to at least mandate a significant natural buffer zone, a different access road, and place the campsites away from our precious Jehoma to protect our family's legacy.

Thank you for listening to our heartfelt concerns.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Becky Lineweber.

Hello, everybody.

Good morning, members of City Council and fellow citizens.

My name is Becky Lineweber, and I'm the executive director of the Pikes Peak Outdoor Recreation Alliance, or PPORA, the state's designated regional partner for outdoor recreation in the Pikes Peak region.

I'm here today to strongly support the proposed agreement between Colorado Springs Utilities and Colorado Parks and Wildlife to expand recreational access at Rosemont Reservoir, including dry campsites on a reservation system and non motorized boating, along with day use parking and restrooms.

This thoughtful expansion aligns directly with the outdoor Pikes Peak Initiative vision plan that PPORA has led over the last several years.

Through extensive community input across El Paso, Teller, and Fremont Counties, our plan identifies priorities for enhancing equitable access to high-quality outdoor experiences while protecting our natural resources, water quality, wildlife, and the quality of life that makes our region special.

Rosemont Reservoir, owned by Colorado Springs Utilities and already managed as a state wildlife area, represents a tremendous opportunity to deliver on those priorities.

Adding low impact, non-motorized boating, and limited dry camping would provide residents and visitors with accessible close-to-home options for camping and paddle sports in a stunning alpine setting, just minutes from our city.

These additions promote health economic vitality through outdoor tourism and stewardship without compromising the reservoir's primary role in our water system as water contact activities like swimming would be prohibited.

This collaboration exemplifies the kind of balanced partnership-driven approach our OP Vision plan calls for, working together across agencies, nonprofits, and the community to advance recreation opportunities responsibly.

On behalf of PPORA and the many stakeholders we've engaged, from outdoor businesses and conservation groups to everyday residents who value our public lands, I urge you to approve this resolution today.

It will be a meaningful step forward for outdoor access in Colorado Springs and the broader Pikes Peak region.

And that is one of the exciting things about this is having CPW presence right there.

This is an area that has had some recreational use impacts, and having a presence of CPW for enforcement will make a difference for the local residents as well as the visitors who come to recreate there.

Thank you for your time and your commitment for our shared outdoor future.

Thank you.

Bring it back up to the diaspora any councilwoman.

Rainey.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh just one quick question.

Um to the guests that were here, thank you very much for providing those packets and uh lovely pictures within uh I have one question.

There was a comment uh within one of the paragraphs about fire risk and sustainability due to campfires, cooking equipment and so forth.

So between CSU and CBW, has there been any engagement between all parties to make sure that you know there's protection in that area to make sure that there is no type of fire risk or anything of that nature?

Absolutely.

Even currently on the site, we do fire mitigation on a three-year random annual or three-year rotating cycle.

We actually have crews up there currently clearing out any of the dead wood and other stuff to prevent fires, and we do that on all of our watersheds.

And so having um the way that they develop their campsites, there'll be additional protection plus the protection of our um our watershed or what we do as far as the fire mitigation stuff.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thanks, Madam President.

And this this question might be better for April, but but from the property owners who spoke here today, it sounds like they've been part of there has been some um discussion with them.

What things have been done to uh address their concerns or um yeah, that address their concerns.

Yeah, thank you.

Um we have started conversations with the family, um, mostly through CS Utilities, and we will be working towards figuring out what works best for everyone involved as we move forward.

Is the campsite location set now?

Like I know that's the plan is to have campsites, but are they correct?

Yeah, these will be low-impact campsites, they're reservation only.

Um they're not set in stone of where we have them on the property, but we are trying to protect the infrastructure of the water source itself and the dam.

So um working through that, we've kind of located some locations that we would like to have both the tent pads and the small trailer-sized um campgrounds.

And are the uh property owners aware of where those sites are?

I don't know that we've had that discussion yet.

Okay, and are they very close to their property?

Are they right there at their end of the uh the reservoir?

I'd have to go back and review the map that we have for a conceptual design.

Okay.

And uh Jessica, should we just look here?

This is a resolution, so we only vote on this once, correct?

Correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

Is there so what I've heard is yep, there's been some discussion with the property owners.

The uh sites aren't um set yet.

Uh seems that that is their their primary concern is impact on their property and trying to maintain sort of that rustic uh existence it has had, you know, for 80 years.

Um are you committed to doing everything we can to uh to do that?

Absolutely.

And we still need to amend the lease with the after if if you approve the resolution today, we'll amend the lease with CPW allowing for the expanded recreational activities, and in that lease, we can put some of those requirements in there.

And one of them we know already is going to be a public process.

That's why everything has been a conceptual design at this point.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam President, Renee would like to speak.

Um City Attorney.

Yeah.

I would just like to remind you that you're just voting right now on a resolution approving recreation.

And as far as the actual layout of that recreation, that will be um further worked through in a land use process.

That will not be before city council because it's outside of the city limits.

So that will go through the proper jurisdiction, which I believe is Teller County.

Um, and so at that time, generally, public input is allowed.

And they I think the intent is that CPW is going to work with the stakeholders in the area going through that land use process.

So this is just step one, allowing public recreation in the area.

And then after that, there will then have to be a lease, and then after that, there will be the land use approvals.

Councilman Hinge.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, uh Renee, for that clarification.

That's actually really, really helpful.

Um, so so given that, I guess what I would um like to say and to the Jehoma family, um, you know, thank you for coming up and thank you uh for sharing with us this history and seeing that cabin.

Um, very very interesting.

I certainly, and it sounds like the Jehoma family as well understands the um need and importance of uh recreation on our Americas Mountain on this beautiful uh mountain of Pikes Peak.

Um and I think working with you know this existing property and its owners to uh create recreation for more people in a way that's as um least impactful in a negative way for the family.

Trust that that will happen through the land process and through the land use, and uh not necessarily something we can do in this legislation, but important to get on the record and for us to be aware that this is something very important to take into consideration.

Um and and suspect that those who will visit up there and camp up there will be very interested in learning about the history of that cabin and hopefully be very respectful of that property.

So thank you.

Councilman Lineweber.

Yes, I I'd like it just to highlight um Rosemont Reservoir.

What one, we don't really have a lot of water reservoirs um on the mountain, and and all the ones that we do are primarily drinking water.

Um, but Rosemont's different, and I'd like you to kind of outline why is Rosemont different than our other reservoirs.

When you say different than our other reservoirs, so Rosemont primarily feeds non pot water to the Broadmoor.

The system was set up for the Broadmoor Hotel, and so it feeds non pot water there, but we do have a way of getting or using it to uh transfer, we have pipes connected to it to basically bring it to the Phil Tulves and treatment plant and treat it as drinking water as well.

So the reservoir has dual dual um capacity, I guess, for both drinking water and raw water and non-pot water too for irrigation.

But it's not primarily used for drinking water.

Correct.

So that really, I mean, how many reservoirs do we have like that?

That are not primarily used for drinking water.

Well, particularly on Pikes Peak.

We can get I can get back to you with that the answer to that question.

Well, I believe it's zero.

So um, I think every reservoir we have, we primarily use it for drinking water except for Rosemont, and from my understanding.

Um is very complex.

So depending on where the water is coming from, depending on um what the needs are, what's happening on the watersheds, we may call in water from Rosemont, we may call in water from the South Slope, we may call in water from the home stake or Blue Maze or the Blue River S or even SDS.

So it depends on what the need of the community is.

Um, and so it it's there's it's a variety of different answers, I guess.

But I guess my my point I think I'm trying to make is that um if there was a really good choice to have human activity on a reservoir, Rosemont would probably be one of the best ones that we have.

I I don't know the answer to that.

Okay.

I'll I'll go ahead and let my comment kind of my opinion go.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Seeing no other comments from the dice, we have a motion from Councilman Gold and a second from Councilman Rainey.

Let's vote.

Motion passes a to zero.

Thank you.

Moving on to item 10A, will the clerk please read item 10a into the record?

An ordinance creating a new section 113 residence restrictions for sexually violent predators of article two offenses affecting public safety of chapter 9 public offenses of the city of Colorado Springs 2 that code 2001 is amended pertaining to residency restrictions for sexually violent predators and providing penalties for the violation thereof.

Good morning, members of council.

Uh my name is Chantel Withrow.

I'm the division chief of prosecution, and as council member Bailey is unavailable today.

I have been asked just to introduce this particular ordinance.

Um this ordinance was uh asked to be uh drafted by councilmember Bailey.

We have drafted it and it's in the materials today, so I'm here to answer any questions that any council members may have.

Seeing no questions at this time, and I have no public comment.

We have a motion from Councilman Hingum and a second from Councilman Gold.

Let's vote.

The motion passes a to zero.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We appreciate that.

Moving on to our public hearing.

Um we are going to take a 10-minute break before we start this public hearing.

Do you want me to read it in before?

So will the clerk please read item 11a into the record.

An appeal of the city planning commission decision denying an appeal of the administratively approved Colorado Springs Temple Development Plans and an appeal of the city planning commission decision applying conditions to the approval of the Colorado Springs Temple Development Plan for the property consisting of 18.6 acres, located at the southwest corner of Flying Horse Club Drive and Barrosa Valley Road.

Just so we're awake today's hearing, we'll proceed as follows.

We'll have a city staff presentation, an appellant presentation.

Number one, appellant presentation number two, applicant presentation, a public comment and support, public comment in opposition, appellate number one rebuttal, appellate number two applicant rebuttal, final comments from the staff, and back to the dice for councilman's questions delivered.

We are back in session.

It looks like some people have moved in and out, so I will go over the hearing process again.

Today's hearing process will follow.

City staff presentation.

Appellant number one presentation, appellate number two, applicant presentation, public comment in support, public comment in opposition, appellant one rebuttal, appellant two, applicant rebuttal, final comments from the staff, and back to the diet is for council member questions, deliberation and decision.

As well, we will be breaking at 12 o'clock for an hour meeting lunch that we have scheduled.

So we will take a hard stop at noon and come back at one o'clock and proceed.

We will now hear from the planning department for an introduction of the item.

Good morning, council members.

Uh Tamara Baxter for the record, planning supervisor.

Um before your two appeals for the Colorado Springs Temple.

Just to give you a little bit of quick facts on this location.

Um, this uh site is located in Flying Horse off of Vent No Way.

The current zoning on the property is MXN with United States Air Force Academy overlay.

The site consists of 18.61 acres.

And what is being proposed, or what was proposed is a religious institution.

The appellant is appealing the planning commission decision.

The development plan was administratively approved by staff on November 6, 2025, which granted approval for the religious institution consisting of a temple, meeting house, maintenance building, and pavilion.

To give you a little bit of history on this area, City Council approved the Flying Horse Master Plan in 2003.

In 2012, a portion of the site was rezoned to OC, which is office complex under previous Chapter 7.

And that is currently under the zoning of MXN mixed use medium or a neighborhood, I'm sorry, a mixed and mixed use neighborhood scale.

Under both of the zone district, religious institution is a permitted use.

Along with the rezoning, the flying horse master plan was amended to designate 18.61 acres to public institutional for religious institution.

A concept plan was also approved in 2012, showing a religious institution campus consisting of a worship area, meeting space, and detached accessory structures.

With regards to stakeholder involvement, public notification went out a thousand feet outside the property, roughly about 351 postcards.

Also during various stages of this project, the property was posted with posters.

One was conducted in May of last year, and then again in August of last year.

Public comments were received during the development plan application.

Roughly about 82 comments as of today, over 300.

Comments and opposition that were received raised concerns related to traffic, lighting, the steeple height, landscaping, and overall compatibility.

And during the review of the development plan, the applicant did provide responses to the public comments.

Just to give you a little timeline of the review, the initial application for the development plan was submitted to the planning department on May 7th of last year.

Again, the development plan was approved by staff on November 6th.

And the appeal was heard in front of Planning Commission on December 10th of last year.

And thus that's why we are in front of you.

With regards to agency review during the development plan application, all comments were addressed.

With regards to the planning commission meeting, City Planning Commission voted on the uh to deny the appeal of the administrative decision on in December.

Um vote was seven to one.

They did add some conditions to the development plan, and those consisted of the facade material of the steeple needing to be non-reflective map finish, and also that the top tier uh of the architectural feature not be illuminated with the exception of the required FAA regulations.

In accordance with the UDC Section 71105, City Council has the authority to interpret the UDC as it relates to land use uh decisions.

City planning is requesting that city council through deliberation of these appeals determine and interpret what is meant by top tier for the purpose of applying planning commission condition of approval applied to the development plan through the initial prior appeal.

I'm just going to touch base on the two appeals.

Obviously, they both have presentations and will provide additional clarity.

With regards to appellate number one, he is challenging the decision made by the city planning commission to deny the appeal of the administrative decision and imposing the two conditions of approval.

The issue of the appeal continues to be the 100 foot 140 foot spire and illumination of which has been compounded by commissioners failing to define what is meant by top tier.

The appellance states that neither the administrative approval nor planning commission modification to the development plan address the lighting of the architectural element.

And also noted that based on planning commission's motions that it is unenforceable and unclear.

With regards to the applicant, the applicant filed an appeal to preserve the right with respect to the conditions imposed by planning commission.

The applicant's specifically appeals the following condition, which is the top tier of the steeple not to be illuminated.

The condition requiring top tier of the steeple must not be illuminated as ambiguous and could be interpreted in ways that would restrict the church church's practice of religion.

The applicant has noticed noted that non-reflective map material of the steeple has already been planned.

So with regards to UDC, there is a section of uh code that addresses height exceptions.

So in the next couple slides, I'm kind of going to address both of these, uh, number one and number two.

So the first one is that no building or structure or part of a building or structure shall exceed the maximum building height within any zone district shown in tables 7.2 A through D, unless authorized in table 7.2 F below or otherwise in this UDC and below, meaning to the right on your screen.

So that exception for religious institution in spires and towers indicates that the maximum height and conditions that apply are that the height may exceed the maximum height of the applicable zone district, provided the largest horizontal cross section of the spire tower does not exceed 5% of the footprint of the primary structure for which it rises.

So I've provided kind of an illustration of what staff has interpreted that to mean.

So as you can see, um the maximum building height in the MXN zone district is 45 feet.

Um the proposed temple has a building footprint of approximately 33,000 square feet.

So 5% with the 5% rule, um, and I provided that information above.

Uh the spire could theoretically extend about 16 feet from the maximum building height of the applicable zone district, which is 45 feet.

Um obviously, this is not a practical design scenario.

Um, so what is shown on the image is the 45 feet maximum going all the way up to the top of the spire, um, which would result in a height of that area of 95 feet.

The second part of this exemption has to do with uh screening and design.

Um this section of the exemption reads building features that extend beyond the maximum building height in accordance to the table to the right.

Um shall be designed and screened to minimize visibility from RE, RE19, RE, or I'm sorry, R19, R16, R2, R Flex Low Districts, and from any portions of a PDZ district developed or designed for attached and detached family or two family dwelling structures.

Screening may not extend higher than the permitted exception to the maximum building height.

And it died.

And then the site and lighting have been designed to prevent light trespass beyond the property line.

One of the concerns raised by the appellant was that uh the general standards for um exterior lighting in UDC section 7.1203 um related to shielding, so it's light standard shielding.

Um and number C is the light fixture may be uh may beam.

Sorry, the light fixture may beam light upwards only if all upward light is reflected back down by canopy, roof or other structure.

Um the upward lighting based on the photometric plan that was submitted with the development plan and represented to us.

Uh the upward light has been um will be intercepted by the steeple, so it does not go directly into the sky.

The steeple functions have been designed to collect and uh not reflect light, and also the lighting plan was submitted to SAFA um to make sure that there was compliance with FAA um requirements.

Here are the criteria for a development plan um that staff use when reviewing the development plan.

These are the additional development plan standards.

Here are the criteria for an appeal.

Um, and then there are two slides with proposed motions for affirming planning commission.

Um these are those.

I'm more than happy to go through them if you'd like me to.

Otherwise, that is my presentation.

Councilman Risley.

Thank you, Madam President.

Good morning.

I just want to make sure that I understand the underlying administrative approval of the development plan.

Uh it was approved without any conditions or restrictions.

Correct.

So staff approved the development plan as appro uh uh proposed.

The conditions that were imposed were uh imposed by planning commission.

Which means that it's staff's opinion that the development plan was in compliance with the UDC, correct?

Correct.

Thank you.

Councilman Hindum.

Thank you, Madam President.

I'm I'm just trying to um there's some slides in here, Tamara, that are not in the slides that were linked in the agenda.

Um if you go back just a couple, for example.

Yeah, there have been some changes to the presentation.

I just would like to have a copy of that current one.

Yeah, thanks.

Oh, thank you.

So I can look at it after it goes on the screen.

Thanks.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thank you, Madam President.

Can we go back a couple more slides, Tamara, where even another one, one more?

Okay, that I think it's this one.

And so per the five per, and I'm looking at the bullets inside the box.

Um, per the five percent rule, the spire could theoretically up extend.

I thought you said 16, but it's 1000, it's more than 1,600.

Yeah, like yeah, 1600 feet.

Okay.

And can you go?

Um go back uh one more that one with the yellow highlighting on it.

Sure.

So, and then I'm looking all the way over in the far right, uh, maximum height and conditions.

Uh it may exceed the maximum height of the applicable zone district, provided the largest horizontal, so sideways cross section of the spire or tower does not exceed 5% of the footprint uh of the primary structure.

So isn't that really talking about the diameter or the horizontal um size of the spire?

I guess it's an interpretation that will our interpretation is the horizontal of the structure or the square footage of the structure.

Okay.

All right, Edward.

And okay.

I think I'm fine.

We can we can proceed.

Thank you.

Councilman Williams.

Thank you.

I just want to reiterate that the Air Force and the FAA have reviewed this.

They are in agreement with what was presented.

We'll call it originally and initially.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Thank you.

Okay, no other questions.

We'll move on to the appellate number one presentation.

Michael Kun, is that correct?

Kuhn to describe the nature of the appeal and present evidence in a pest in opposition to the project.

Please limit your presentation to 30 minutes.

Wonderful.

Members of city council, Michael Keune on behalf of appellant Jennifer Kuhn.

We're here today because applicant seeks to build a 45,000 square foot mega temple in the middle of a residential district.

I want to be clear.

Our concerns center on two features of the unified development code.

One, a proposed 140 and a half foot spire that will tower above residential neighbors, and two, round-the-clock illumination of the spire with dozens of high-powered lights that will beam light into the night sky.

I begin by giving you an idea of what applicant proposes.

You have seen this slide before, that is the temple with its prominent spire.

Here are the actual plans.

Oh, back one.

Each one of those figures labeled K1.

There are about 50 of them, is a lighting fixture that will point at a 45 degree angle to wash the temple with bright white light.

On the center left is a cluster of figures labeled K1B.

That's the spire.

Those lights will be mounted on top of the roof to again illuminate the spire and further maximize its visibility.

Applicants proposed.

That's not all.

Applicant further proposes beaming lights from a cluster of additional lighting fixtures mounted both on the ground and on the roof of the temple from a distance so that it can be pointed at all point four corners, further maximizing the visibility of the spire.

Applicants propose light fixtures confirm this plan.

They further confirm that applicant intends to use 4,000 K light.

What do I mean by that?

I'm referencing the Kelvin scale, which measures the temperature or warmth of light.

Most neighborhoods are in the 2700K range, which minimizes glare and visibility.

Applicant here plans to use bright 4,000 K light, which is a daylight temperature.

So what is it going to look like, the temple?

Well, we don't know for certain because there was no photometric study or analysis of the spire lighting prior to its approval.

But we can look to the smaller temple in Denver to see how it will be illuminated.

As you can see here, there are lights at the base of the spire projecting lights at 45 degrees washing the temple, lights mounted on the roof to illuminate the spire, and lights at the corners hitting it from the four cross sections.

Likewise, you can see the difference in color temperature.

You can see the surrounding neighborhoods that have the warm 2700 K light, whereas the temple has that bright 4,000 K light.

Applicant appellant challenges the administrative approval of the temple because there was absolutely no consideration of the design and screen screening requirements mandated by UDC Section 7.4203B2, which I'll refer to as Section 203, and the lighting provisions of UDC 7.4.1201, which I'll refer to as 1201.

Several important things happened at the Planning Commission.

First, the commission on the advice of the city attorney held that Section 203B2 applied and mandated that the Spire be designed or screened to minimize visibility from surrounding neighborhoods.

Second, commissioners independently raised concerns that the proposed lighting schematics violated Section 12013C because it beams upwards and lacks a canopy to project it, a canopy roof or other structure to project it back down.

Here, as Ms.

Baxter confirmed, the light will be projected upwards, but even by her own admission, nothing projects it back down.

Applicant also made several key admissions.

Specifically that there was no photometric analysis of the spire lighting, and that the independent flying horse HOA did not approve of the plans.

After proving violations of the UDC, the planning commission ordered the spire to be a matte color, something to which applicant had previously agreed, and ordered that the top tier of the spire not be illuminated.

That was a start, but it doesn't cure the upward lighting violation.

Top tier is ambiguous, and applicants council has suggested it might be just the top few feet.

And the central problem remains: the spire is not designed to minimize visibility, it is designed to do the opposite.

Illumination maximizes visibility and does not minimize it.

So let's start with the failure to design the spire to minimize visibility from residential neighborhoods as required by Section 203B2.

There is no dispute the spire will be 140 and a half feet from grade.

Under the UDC, the height cap in this zone is 45 feet.

But table 7.4.2-F provides certain exemptions for religious institution spires.

But for such exemptions, Section 203B2 mandates that they be designed or screened to minimize visibility.

The requirement is mandatory through the usage of the word shall.

In other words, you can have a resident you can have a religious spire that extends above 45 feet, but if you're going to choose to build that in a residential neighborhood, you have to design or screen it to minimize the visual impact from the surrounding neighbors.

Again, applicant raised a different interpretation at the Planning Commission.

According to it, there is no design or screening requirements for a spire, provided that it complies with the 5% footprint requirement in the table.

In other words, you could have apparently a 1,600-foot spire with no designing or screening requirements.

So what is section 203B2 mean?

Well, senior city attorney Sarah Bruden said it best at City Council, excuse me, at the Planning Commission.

7.402.

Thank you.

B2 would be interpreted.

In looking at this entire section, the manner in which it would be interpreted would be that building features that extend beyond the maximum building height of the zone district would need to be designed or screened to minimize visibility.

Otherwise, this section would have no meaning if it was interpreted to mean that the height requirements in the table were, you know, it would exceed the height requirements in the table.

So therefore, the way in which we would analyze this is that if the building features extend beyond the maximum building height of the zone district, so exceed the zone district height limits, then it requires designing or screening the structure to minimize visibility if it faces residential any of these residential districts.

Okay, I just want to clarify that real quick.

So you're saying so the the applicant said that the um the one section uh 7.2, I'm sorry, 7.4.23b height exceptions, paragraph two, was saying wholly not applicable.

Are you saying it is applicable or is it?

Yes.

Yes, we our office would advise that we would interpret it based upon uh, although it is a bit vague.

And that interpretation makes sense.

You don't interpret the code in a way that creates an absurd results or renders portions of the code meaningless.

Now, former council member Wayne Williams may come up here today in public comment and say that the design requirements were not intended when the city council adopted the UDC.

I like Wayne a great deal, but the more recent interpretation is that proffered by Miss Bruin.

So what design requirements are necessary?

First, the height must be reduced because at 140 and a half feet, the spire cannot meaningfully be designed to minimize visibility.

At 140 and a half feet and illuminated around the clock with bright white light, it is not a minor architectural feature.

It is the defining visual element of the project.

And although the code does not impose a fixed numerical height cap, it still requires that the structure fit the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood and designed to minimize the visibility.

Those standards function as a practical cap limit on the height.

In an area defined by homes and low scale buildings, a structure of this height will inevitably stand out and be visible from long distances, regardless of landscaping or facade treatment.

Once a spire towers above nearby roof lines and tree canopies, its appearance cannot be meaningfully or realistically minimized.

The most direct way to reduce the visual impact and to maintain neighborhood compatibility is to reduce the height.

At a minimum, its visibility should not be maximized through illumination.

Now, applicants council will likely argue that the spire's tapered design, placement towards Barossa Valley, and trees which will never reach 140 and a half feet were intended to reduce visibility.

But the record contains no documentation showing that any design revisions were made in response to Section 203B2 or out of a concern for minimizing visibility.

That provision was not addressed in the planning materials because neither Ms.

Baxter nor applicant thought that it applied.

There were no studies, analysis, photometric evaluation focused on the spire lighting.

The fundamental point is straightforward.

Illuminating the spire at all hours does not minimize visibility.

It does the opposite.

It makes the structure more prominent, not less, and therefore conflicts with the plain text of the code.

And even a slender spire requires design mitigation on the code.

After all, the governing table references things like antennas and flagpoles.

Simply put, applicant did not design the spire to minimize visibility.

If that were true, it would not propose pointing dozens of lights at it day and night.

It will be about as big as a wind turbine, the Statue of Liberty, not the one outside, but the one in New York, an airport control tower, and 10 giraffes stacked from head to toe.

Existing spires around town are older, predate the UDC, and importantly are not in residential zone districts.

For example, Grace and St.

Stevens down the street is only 90 feet.

Will Rogers Shrine of the Sun is 100, and St.

Mary's, I believe the West Tower or West Spire is 73 feet.

So let's transition to the independent lighting violations of the UDC.

I say independent because while related to the design mitigation obligations under the code, they exist even if you adopt applicants' interpretation of the UDC.

The UDC specifically encourages lighting practices and systems that minimize light pollution, glare, and light trespass.

We will show you how applicants' plan violates the text and spirit of the UDC.

First, Section 12013A mandates that all fixtures be fully shielded, so that the lighting element is not visible to an observer at any property line.

Applicant proposed lights that will be projected on the temple and the spire at a 45 degree angle and lights mounted on the roof.

We submit that violates this provision.

Next, Section 12013B requires that all light fixtures be full cutoff, meaning that no more than 2.5% of the light can escape from above 90% of the vertical axis.

The code gives us image describing what they mean by that.

Applicants propose lights, which again will all be angled at 45 degrees, in other words, projected upwards, violate the section, particularly the one pointed at the spire.

But again, the most obvious violation, and the one planning commissioners had concerns with, but did not fully address is Section 12013C, saying that a light fixture may be pointed upwards, in other words, 45 degrees, if all of its light is being backed downwards by a canopy, roof, or other such structure.

But there are more.

Applicant proposes putting lights on the temple roof.

Well, that also violates section 1201 7A because the lot is located at its furthest edge within 75 feet of a residential property.

That section prohibits mounting lights above 20 feet on a building.

But by applicant's admission, I think everyone agrees today that there will be lights on top of the roof, which is going to be 40 feet.

So let's summarize briefly how the plan violates the UDC's lighting codes.

You can't be certain that they will all be shielded or full cutoff.

Most importantly, there is not a canopy, roof, or other object to project light back downwards for all the lights pointed upwards.

Certain ones will be installed at more than 20 feet, and even the light not pointed directly at the spire will still illuminate it because again, it's pointed at 45 degrees.

So why did Miss Baxter approve the project if it had all these lighting code violations?

Respectfully, I don't think she was told the full story by applicant.

Facts were omitted to conceal the impact of the proposed lighting that it would have on the residential neighborhood.

In fact, applicant admitted during the planning commission hearing that the photometric study included in the project statement didn't analyze the spire lighting.

Here's a photo from that photometric study.

Looking at that photo, you wouldn't believe that the spire would be illuminated at all.

Equally troubling are the representations in the project statement.

Applicant represented that all area lighting uses fixtures that will be full cutoff, with no upward light cast into the night sky.

A light aimed at 45 degrees is not full cutoff because the beam and optical spread almost inevitably will spill light at or above the horizontal plane, which by a definition is not zero upward up light, zero up light fixture.

The claim that no light will be cast in the sky is just not true.

Applicant proposes lighting the spire from the base, projecting light upwards on it, and importantly from four distant corners, two on the ground far away from the steeple, and two on top of the roof of the temple, which will beam light necessarily to reach 140 and a half feet up into the night sky.

Again, here's another photo from the photometric study.

Looking at again, you wouldn't think at all that there would be the spire would be lit by anything.

But we know that's not true.

I want to turn quickly to an argument that applicant raised below regarding a federal statute known as Relupa.

That statute generally protects religious land use from substantial burdens imposed by government regulations.

I only want to highlight a quick point that numerous cases have held that nothing in Ralupa prohibits generally applicable building codes and design standards, especially when an applicant chooses to build such a feature in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

The claim that barring a hundred and forty and a half foot spire would constitute a substantial burden is not credible.

Numerous LDS temples have spires well below 140 and a half feet, including temples in Albuquerque and Atlanta.

Likewise, applicant has previously agreed in other cases to voluntarily reduce the height of its spire.

Applicant has also agreed to turn down the lights in other communities, including Fairview, Texas, and Herbert Valley, Utah.

If a spire should be reduced and the lights turned down in those communities, it should be equally true here when the proposed building site is in the middle of a residential community.

What are we asking of city council today?

We ask each of you to make an unbiased decision guided by the facts, the law, and the text of the UDC.

Applicant has retained Mayor Southern's law firm and may have former councilman Wayne Williams speak today.

Both are good men, but that should not sway your votes.

And if you're too connected to them, you should abstain.

What this council should do is undertake a de novo review.

What that means is you're not bound by the planning commission's decision or even the issues raised below.

You can consider them anew.

But candidly, this body is not best suited sitting here today to undertake height design photometric studies and determine just how big a spire can be before it cannot be meaningfully mitigated.

Those decisions are best analyzed at the administrative level, which never happened here because an entire failure of the planning official to consider the governing sections of the UDC.

Incomplete photometric studies and incomplete project statements.

We thus believe the most prudent course of action today is to sustain the appeal, remand the matter back to Miss Baxter with instructions for her to apply faithfully UDC Section 203B2 and Section 1201 and to require any necessary studies to carry carry out that analysis.

But if the council wants to decide the issue for itself today, it should prohibit illumination of any portion of the spire above the 40-foot height limit.

Require compliance with all exterior lighting requirements, including the canopy and roof requirements.

Require warm 2700 K lights so that it fits the neighborhood compatibility.

Limit the spire height to 90 feet, which is double the zoning height cap, and continue to require the non-reflective color.

Again, I want to emphasize we are not objecting to the temple itself.

We are simply asking for the spot the spire.

We're not asking for the spire to be covered or boxed in.

We are simply asking that it be constructed consistent with the plain letter and text of the UDC.

I conclude with just a couple of questions I ask you to think about during applicant's presentation, and that you might consider even asking.

First, how is any illumination of a spire consistent with the code's requirement that it be designed or designed to minimize visibility?

It isn't.

Again, illumination maximizes visibility.

Two, what specific design changes were made in response to UDC 203B2's mitigation requirements.

And where were those changes documented in the project statement or submission materials?

There were none.

There was not a single reference to Section 203B2 prior to Ms.

Qun's submission.

Third, will any light project upwards?

And if so, what physical design feature will, such as a canopy or roof, will beam it back down?

It won't do so.

And finally, why wasn't the spire lighting on the roof and ground considered in the photometric study?

One can only speculate as to why this critical information was not included.

With that, we would ask that the city council remand the matter back to Miss Baxter, and I'd yield the balance point.

Unless the council has any questions it would like to ask at this point in time.

I don't see it at this time.

Thank you.

We'll now hear from appellant to applicant presentation.

The applicant to present evidence in support of the project, please limit your presentation and comments to 30 minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Council President, President Pro Tem, Council members, uh, members of the city staff and members of the public and council members.

My name is Carolyn White.

I'm with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shrek, and I'm pleased to hear be here before you today to talk about the temple proposed by our client, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which I'll just refer to as the church for purposes of this of today's presentation.

We thank you for the opportunity to present to you in connection with this appeal today.

We appreciate the opportunity to present our vision for this site and to explain why planning staff properly found that this temple does in fact comply with all of the applicable requirements in the UDC and why planning commission was correct in denying appellants' appeal and why the conditions opposed by the planning commission do require some additional clarification, which we hope you will do for us today.

Next slide, please.

Oh, do I have the clicker?

Yeah, sorry.

There we go.

Uh this slide just lists our team members.

We do have all these folks present to address your questions today, but not all of them will be speaking as part of our formal presentation.

So I'm going to start with just a little background and context on the site.

I think you've seen uh different versions of this aerial before.

I want to highlight a couple things on this slide.

The project site you can see with that white circle in the top right.

The pink line is the future powers boulevard, which runs immediately adjacent to the site, and also incidentally is in between the site and the appellants uh address.

Also, you can see on here the United States Air Force Academy campus and also the runways, sort of to the south of this.

So just to kind of get a visual of where everything is located there.

This slide shows the overall conceptual plan for the entire parcel, situated as it is within the aerial there of the neighborhood.

A couple other things I'd like to point out on this site.

You can clearly see the Future Powers Boulevard Rideaway immediately adjacent to the slide there.

An additional benefit of the temple's proposed location is that when constructed, it will actually serve as a bit of a buffer between the Future Powers Boulevard and the existing neighborhood there to the north and to the east.

There, the steeple is located on the portion of the temple that is farthest away from the adjacent neighborhood at the very top of the slide here on the western side of the building, away from the closest homes.

This is part of the design consideration that was given on how to minimize visibility of the steeple once the temple was constructed relative to the adjacent neighborhood.

So let's turn to the specifics of the appeal.

There's a technical aspect to this appeal, and there's also sort of a common sense, freedom of religion, First Amendment aspect to this appeal.

We're going to cover both of them.

In order to prevail, the appellant must show to you that the decision of the Planning Commission and the UDC, excuse me, and the zoning administrator below was either contrary to the express language of the UDC, completely erroneous, or clearly contrary to law.

None of those things have been proven by the appellants' presentation and the information they submitted.

So, as we will show the planning director correctly interpreted the UDC in approving the development plan, planning staff undertook a thorough, lengthy and comprehensive review that involves several submittals, comments back, revisions, and resubmittals.

And in that back and forth with staff, there is a tremendous amount of detail related to the analyses of the things that we're talking about today.

The lighting, the photometric study, the height of the steeple, the analysis of the steeple.

All of those documents are available and part of the public record, and they demonstrate that at least one of the things appellant told you today that no consideration was given to those things is simply not correct.

Going back here to 2012, just showing you something that staff already showed you that this property has been designated for a public institutional religious use at least since 2012.

There's really no dispute about that.

Just a little bit to put this in context, we wanted to show you where other temples are located in the immediate region.

You can see the Fort Collins, the Denver, the Grand Junction, Farmington and Albuquerque temples here when this one is built.

This will serve the southern portion of Colorado and will fulfill a need so that the residents of Colorado Springs no longer have to travel to one of these other temples in order for them to worship and participate in the activities that happen in those temples.

The exterior design of the temple combines the sacred role that the design of the temple plays for the church with tremendous consideration and thought given to the fact that it is located within a residential neighborhood, as are, by the way, the vast majority of the temples constructed by this church located within communities not dissimilar from the one that we're talking about here today.

We'll talk about this in more detail, but the steeple that you can see in this picture uses a narrow design that has minimal visual impact on the views enjoyed by the neighboring residents.

There's glass fiber reinforced concrete, which was selected for the building's material and that absorbs light, the mat materials chosen for the primary structure and the steeple were intentionally selected to avoid high levels of reflection.

Indeed, several considerations related to minimizing visibility through design were given for this project before it was ever submitted to the city, and additional changes were made made through that extensive revision process that I talked to you about earlier.

This rendering is looking from the front of the temple, looking from the west.

This rendering is looking from the opposite side from the sort of northeast, which is the direction that most of the closest homes would be viewing the temple from.

Alright, so let's talk about this UDC height analysis.

We've talked a lot about section 7.4.203B2, which allows for certain types of facilities and features to exceed the height in the base zone district.

And I've reproduced for you here that section from the table.

We're not disputing what the words say.

We're just interpreting them a little differently, I think.

And this graphic also shows you the footprint of the steeple on the top of the temple building.

There's really no dispute about the fact that it is well within the 5% maximum in terms of the footprint.

But uh I want to take a minute and ask you to visualize what if it were the full 5%, right?

The base would be much larger.

Each segment, therefore, would be much larger.

In order to appear proportional, it would overall have to be much taller.

But yet it is really.

So the maximum allowable would be 5%.

What is being proposed is 2.8%.

So just slightly more than half of the maximum footprint that is allowed for the steeple.

Um, as Tamara Ms.

Baxter presented in her presentation a moment ago, under the calculations allowable in the code, the maximum height would also be significantly higher, 1,668.

All of that would be possible and yet still be within the UDC.

And yet the church chose from the very beginning not to max out the maximum footprint of the building, not to max out the maximum footprint of the steeple, and not to max out the maximum height, but rather to design a building which is proportionate and respectful of the neighborhood.

Um I'll just mention that that 1,668 feet is approximately 17 times taller than the steeple that we are actually proposing, which is 95 feet.

Um there's also been a couple of numbers thrown around 140 and a half feet.

140 and a half is the total height of the building and the steeple combined.

The building itself is uh actually 39 feet, just below the 45 foot maximum in the zone district, and the steeple is 95 feet.

So we've got some dimensions for you here as we look at the different components of the steeple itself.

You've got that base area, which is in that non-reflective material.

That's about 37 feet, and then you've got the uppermost portion of the steeple, which has one, two, three, four, five, six gradations of different widths.

In the middle section of this graphic, we're showing you what the proposed square footage is of the base of the steeple versus what it could be.

And on the far right, we're showing you the width of each of those components.

And that's relevant here in a minute when I get to the another graphic to show you how this is visible from far away.

The uppermost portion of the steeple, which maybe might be referred to as like a needle, that is the portion which is not illuminated.

It is the portion that was the subject of much discussion at the planning commission, and it is approximately three inches in width, as you can see from the width measurements there on the right of this screen.

Carolyn, we have a question from Councilman Hintham.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm happy to do that.

Is the timer still running?

They'll stop it.

Um just so I'm as I continue to process all the information.

Um, one question for you and one question um maybe more broadly, potentially for the attorney.

Um, will you be addressing um the appellants uh concern that lighting that's on the roof that will be uh should you you'll be talking about that great.

I'll we're coming up, council member.

And then my other question is just um in terms of that definition of top tier.

Um, I think I understood at the beginning presentation that one of city council's uh responsibilities in this hearing is to determine the definition of top tier as part of the process.

Did I understand that correctly?

Sarah Bruin, City Attorney's Office.

If the council uh maintains the conditions placed by the planning commission, um the recommendation would be to clarify what was meant by the top tier of the spire, because it's not included in the UDC.

Okay, um, thank you.

Council President.

So this seems like a good time then to point out that this graphic is depicting the height of each of those separate components.

And in the planning commission, although it was not reflected in the actual words of the motion and the condition of approval, discussion was held about that topmost portion of the spire, which as depicted on this graphic is 17 feet.

And that portion under the current development plan as approved by the planning department is not illuminated.

I'll say that again, it's not illuminated.

So if that 17 feet is what the planning commission was talking about with that condition, then the proposed development plan already complies with that additional condition of approval.

And if you upheld the condition and clarified it in that regard, then the current development plan stands.

If what you have in mind is something different, then we would like to have further discussions about that, certainly.

On this slide, though, I also want to talk just briefly about this table in the UDC and how it is to be interpreted.

In the UDC, there is a maximum height for all buildings within a given zone district.

And in this particular zone district, that maximum height is 45 feet.

The building itself is well within that height at 39 feet.

That's not in dispute.

Then there's this table, 7.4.2 F that says certain features located on top of a building may exceed the maximum height in the zone district if it meets these conditions that are set forth in the right-hand column.

And in this particular case, religious institutions, spires and towers, and satellite dishes can exceed the maximum height if they have this 5% width as the maximum width of the steeple itself.

And we've already talked about how that's true.

That's not in dispute.

In fact, ours is about half of what it could be in terms of the maximum width.

Okay, very clear.

Then there's this other issue where the section 7.4.203B2 says if you exceed the maximum height in the table, you must design or screen to minimize visibility from residential neighborhoods.

Quoted exactly from the code.

If you exceed the maximum height in the table, what appellant has proposed is that what that really means is if you exceed the maximum height in the zone district, then you have to design or screen to minimize visibility.

But that's not what the code says.

And remember that standard, the exact language of the UDC.

This proposed steeple does not exceed the maximum height in the table.

So on a purely technical level, that design or screen requirement probably doesn't apply.

But it doesn't matter.

I'd love to spend all 30 of my minutes arm wrestling about what that means in the code, but it doesn't matter because ultimately the church did design this project in order to minimize visibility from the adjacent residential neighborhoods.

And the appellant suggested that you ought to ask me a question to delineate exactly what the church has done in order to minimize visibility.

You don't have to ask me the question because I'm going to tell you as part of this presentation.

First, normally in order to serve church members in this location, the size of the temple that would be proposed would require a two-story structure.

In fact, the concept plan that was approved back in 2012 says on it two-story structure to be located here.

There's a little circle that says two-story structure.

However, in deference to the neighborhood, from the beginning before it was even submitted, the church said we're going to propose a one-story structure, and we're going to find a way to accommodate all of the activities that we need to within this building with a shorter building, which in turn will result in a shorter steeple, and in turn will minimize visibility from the adjacent residential neighborhoods.

Second, the church is proposing to use glass fiber reinforced concrete known as GFRC, which is a building material, which is mat and sand texture.

It absorbs light, it is not reflective, and it is different than the material that is traditionally used for some of these types of facilities.

Third, the steeple is sighted as far away as possible as it could possibly be on the property relative to the closest adjacent homes.

Fourth, the project's design uses the site itself.

In fact, the topography of the site is such that when the grading is complete for this project, the portion of the building on which the steeple is located will actually be dropped down just a little bit from the viewplane of the adjacent homes, and it will be less visible.

Fifth, and finally, the design of the steeple itself with a decreasingly narrow profile as it gets taller and taller into the sky, makes it less and less visible as you go upwards into the sky.

And in fact, is actually consistent with the religious symbology of steeples of drawing one's eye towards the heavens.

So the appellant statement that there has been absolutely no effort to minimize visibility through design is simply not correct.

And that effort is well documented throughout the extensive back and forth commentary with Ms.

Baxter's uh review of the application and the applicant's resubmittal.

There's actually also an extensive QA response to public comment that was referenced by Miss Baxter earlier that's submitted into the record, in which the applicant addresses all of these issues.

Just to give you a little uh taste of what this might look like, if you happen to live in one of those homes nearby to the site, we've got some visual context views.

So you can see those numbers there represent where these views were taken from.

This is view number one, just across Barossa Valley and Flying Horse there on the other side of the cul de sac.

And from this particular perspective, I at least from here cannot see that topmost 17 foot portion of the spire, the portion which is not proposed to be illuminated.

Similarly, this is taken from the site number two over there across Barossa Valley immediately to the east, maybe slightly to the northeast.

This particular view is taken from the address on the appellants appeal documents.

And because you can't actually see the facility from that address, we have represented its approximate location and size relative to the property in that little paint graphic that you can see there in the middle.

And then finally, from a residence that's located just directly across the cul-de-sac there, this would be the vision, uh the view that they would have before any landscaping vegetation is planted.

This would be the view once the landscaping has begun to mature.

And as you can see, there is a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees here.

I point that out only because there are some public comments in the record requesting that evergreen trees ought to be a component of the landscaping plan, which they are, in order to provide year-round screening.

There was also an allegation, and hopefully, Councilmember Hedgem, this gets to your question about the lighting.

There was a general allegation in the appeal documents that it doesn't meet sort of any of the lighting requirements in the code.

So we're going to go somewhat line by line through all of the lighting requirements and show you how it meets them, but focusing on some of the most important ones.

And overall, what I would like to say is in fact there is an extensive photometric analysis of the entire project, both including a horizontal photometric analysis showing how the parking lot lights appear at the exterior boundary of the property, which is the traditional photometric analysis, as well as a vertical photometric analysis showing how the lights will be hitting the building and be absorbed by the building and the steeple.

All of that is in the file.

It's in the record, and I'm going to show you some excerpts from it here.

So the allegation that this analysis was not conducted or that it wasn't part of the file, or that staff didn't review it, none of that is true.

UDC section 1203 C3A says all lighting should be fully shielded.

A lighting fixture may beam light upward, only if all upward light is reflected back down by a canopy, roof, or other such structure.

I'm going to show you in a minute how we comply with that.

Exterior fixtures shall generate at least 80 lumens per watt of energy.

Floodlights and spotlights shall be fully shielded, not visible to an observer.

And then this centerline beam of 45 degrees issue.

So let's look first at the lights that are illuminating the steeple.

This is a colored in version of the black and white drawing that was included in the photometric plan that was submitted as part of the application and reviewed by staff.

On the right side of this drawing, you see a top-down view that shows the main four lights that are illuminating the steeple.

On the left side, you see a side perspective view.

And what I want to point out about that side perspective view is you can see those numbers 27 degrees and eight degrees, those refer to the angle width of the light.

Why is this relevant?

There's some discussion in appellance materials in which he is quoting from the manufacturer's materials saying that these are really powerful lights.

They are really powerful lights, but what makes them so powerful is that the beam can be very narrowly focused with great precision.

And in this case, eight degrees of width of where it's illuminating, such that, in compliance with the code, 98% of the light is absorbed by and is shining directly on its target, i.e.

the steeple or the building, depending on which light we're talking about.

And no more than 2% light is spilling out around either the building or the steeple in each case.

So it is not true, and it is demonstrated by extensive photometric analysis that the light will not be shining upwards into the sky.

It will be shining very precisely directly onto the steeple and only the steeple to a 98% degree of precision according to IES standards.

There was also some discussion about the lumens and the foot candles and the screening and the shielding of the light.

So I've got a lot of information on this slide.

We can come back to it during QA if you'd like.

A couple things that I just would like to point out.

On the bottom right, we have a graphic that's commonly used to illustrate the concept of foot candles when we talk about the illumination of a light source, how many foot candles in it is it?

That's one of the common ways to measure it.

And a foot candle is the amount of illumination required to illuminate one square foot from one candle that is one foot away.

And that's what that bottom right graphic shows.

On the top right, we have some excerpts from the photometric plan, which shows the cut sheets, i.e.

the specifications of all of the lights that are being proposed to be used here.

Every single one of them, according to manufacturer specifications, are fully shielded and are full cutoff.

Let me say that again.

Every single one of these lights are fully shielded and are full cutoff in compliance with the UDC, and the allegation that they are not is just not correct.

And the evidence to that is on sheet 35 of the development plan that was approved by staff, and that will become the governing document if this project moves forward.

And so I'm just showing you some excerpts there of what they look like.

The first one you can see the fixture with the eight degree of light.

The middle one you can see an anti-glare visor that is placed around the light source to ensure that the light does not bleed around the edges.

That's what we mean by fully shielded and full cutoff.

In the main center of this graphic, we also have a graphic depicting how to think about lumens compared to foot candles or lumens compared to the distance from which they are observed.

And I'll come back to that in just a second.

This is a summary from IES of kind of what are the recommended amounts of illumination for different types of uses.

And again, just to kind of give you a feel as we talk about the numbers here, a typical desk lamp that you might have on your desk is somewhere between 20 and 30 foot candles.

What we are talking about for the illumination of the spire and the photometric that I'm showing you right here on the right-hand side is part of the packet.

It is in the project narrative.

It was submitted to staff.

Staff has reviewed it.

What this is showing you here is that, for example, the upper segment of the south side of the spire has an average light level of 0.4 foot candles, 0.4 foot candles, compared to 20 to 30 foot candles that you might have for a typical desk lamp that you would have on your desk.

And that is achievable because of that very precise lighting with a very narrow direct beam that it can shine that can be directed to shine only where you want it to shine and nowhere else.

The spill lighting above the main building facade does not exceed 0.1 foot candles.

Again, one tenth of one foot candle.

98% of the light leaving each fixture is captured by the building, leaving effectively no light to spill outside the building.

Last thing I want to show you and talk about light, and then I'm going to ask my colleague to come to the podium and speak a little bit about some of the relevant law, and that is on the left side of this graphic, you see what appears to be an artist's rendering of the steeple at night.

This is not just an artistic rendering.

This is a precision drawing using IES standards for how to depict illumination.

And so there's two things that you can take away from this drawing.

One, this is you know, a pretty good representation of what it's going to look like at night from you know, standing at the property line.

But the other thing that you can see is with each level of the tower and the steeple, you can see sort of a horizontal piece that appears to be illuminated perhaps more brightly than the other portions of the steeple.

Those are the reflective canopies in compliance with that UDC code section that we talked about a moment ago that says, hey, you can only shine light upwards on a building if you have some type of canopy or architectural feature to reflect it back down.

This steeple has a canopy or ref or architectural feature, a cornice, if you will, at each level, which reflects the light back downward in full compliance with that UDC provision.

However, that top 17 feet portion of the steeple is not illuminated.

Why?

Because there's no cornice on the top to reflect it down.

And to put one there would be in conflict with the overall aesthetics of the design.

And so it is planned to light each of those sections as shown here.

It is planned for that cornice to reflect the light back down in compliance with the code, also as shown here.

Now I'd like to invite to the podium my colleague John Southers to talk to you a little bit about that religious land use and institutionalized persons acting.

Good morning, members of the council.

Pleasure to be with you in yet a different capacity.

Mr.

Kuhn suggests that there are no constitutional and federal law issues in the land use matter before you.

But he's wrong.

What he's asking you to do raises serious First Amendment issues.

In the year 2000, Congress passed the religious land use and institutional persons act, otherwise known as Relupa.

This federal legislation was intended to prevent government from substantially burdening religious exercise and land use decisions and ensuring the religious rights of people in institutions, including jails and prisons.

As to local land use matters like this one, under the local the uh the act uh dictates that local governments cannot promulgate any regulation that substantially burdens religious exercise or practices unless that regulation is justified by compelling government interest and is accomplished by the least restrictive means possible, something that Mr.

Kuhn never mentioned in his discussion of Relupin.

Uh the regulation has to be justified by compelling government interest and is accomplished by the least restrictive means possible.

Let's look at what federal courts interpreting Ralupa have said about issues pertinent to this case.

First, building a church or temple is religious exercise.

Secondly, the architecture of a church or temple, including a steeple, is religious exercise.

A church steeple is deeply tied to religious practice and symbolism.

Serving as a landmark to guide worshippers and as a symbol of man's aspiration to be united with his creator.

Steeples are a signature characteristic that identifies buildings as places of religious worship.

And lighting a steeple at night is also a matter of religious expression.

A lighted steeple is a reassuring sign of hope, God's presence shining in the darkness, of the victory of light over darkness, and of good over evil.

As you'll hear from witnesses, for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints, a steeple and the lighting of the temple and steeple at night are long-established religious practices.

And any land use restriction on them must be justified by a compelling government interest.

What would be a compelling government interest in this case?

Clearly, the FAA or the Air Force Academy saying that the steeple is too high or the lighting poses safety hazard to aircraft.

That would be a compelling government interest.

But they pose no objection whatsoever.

To be compelling a government interest must be a matter of public health or safety, not as Mr.

Kuhn suggested, having to do with aesthetics.

And that the next question: what is not a compelling government interest?

Under federal case law interpreting Ralupa, neighborhood concerns about visual impact or other aesthetic reasons are not a compelling government interest.

So let me be clear.

The project is in full compliance with all local land use regulations, including lighting requirements, for reasons stated by my colleague Carolyn White.

But we wanted to point out that the administrative approval of this project as proposed is also supported by federal and constitutional law.

Thank you so much.

Moving on to public uh Councilman Hingem.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Southers, I do have a question for you, if you might.

They the uh appellant cited a case, I believe, in Massachusetts that where I believe this law was uh or an appeal was held up.

Um, and I don't know if you can speak to that law or can you speak in the U.S.

He's talking about where the uh the height in a case in Massachusetts, the height was reduced.

Can Carolyn respond to it?

Sure, sure.

I'm yeah, just trying to understand what case law they're referencing.

In that particular case, council member, the judge said the height of the steeple is not for the judge to decide.

However, it is true that the church in that case voluntarily proposed an alternative design based on those facts in that location.

So I think that, and I I don't speak for the appellant, but the principal said, hey, the church voluntarily lowered it here, why won't they lower it here?

Um every temple site is unique, every situation is different, and each one is custom designed, both aesthetically and architecturally to be appropriate to serve the needs of the members in that location, and this one has been designed to those parameters.

Um, but the case, we also cited it in our correspondence, and we cited it for the principle that the judge said it is not within the purview of a judge to decide how tall the steeple on a church should be.

Great.

Thank you.

And I guess my last question, and it could be for any of the attorneys here, including our city attorney, how much risk would we be putting um the city in if we were to uh side with the appellant?

I'd better defer to the city attorney on that one, although I certainly have an opinion.

Sarah Bruin, City Attorney's Office.

Uh the council uh your job here is to interpret and apply the code as it's written to this particular project.

And if you are applying restrictions, changes, et cetera, that are not compliant with the code and are being applied to the temple in a manner in which we wouldn't apply those to other projects, then the risk increases.

Thank you.

Just say one thing in response since that question was posed.

You will have a you will have a rebuttal time, sir.

We're gonna move on to public comment in support of the project.

And we will, I just want to remind everybody we will go until 12 o'clock, so for the next 30 minutes, and at the end of 30 minutes, we'll start at one o'clock with the rest of the citizens signed up in support.

Um please limit your comments to three minutes.

Um first up, we have Wayne Williams.

And do you live in the neighborhood?

I live in the council district, and but I do not live in the immediate neighborhood.

Thank you.

But my name is Wayne Williams.

I had the honor of representing the flying horse community as an elected official for 20 years.

As a member of City Council, I seconded the January 2023 motion when we approved the uniform development code that's in front of us here today.

Let me give you a little background about why that happened.

So in 1878, famed author Robert Lewis Stevenson said the height of spires cannot be taken by trigonometry.

They measure absurdly short, but how tall they are to the admiring eye.

In November 2010, when he consecrated the basilica of the church of the Sangrata Familia in Barcelona for religious worship, Pope Benedict XVI said this.

What do we do when we dedicate this church in the heart of the world placed before God and mankind with a humble and joyful act of faith, we raise up this massive material structure, fruit of nature, an immense achievement of human intelligence, which gave birth to this work of art.

It stands as a visible sign of the invisible God, to whose glory these spires rise like arrows pointing toward absolute light, and the one who is light, height and beauty itself.

By the way, the tallest of the spires the Pope's talking about, 566 feet tall, uh, more than five times the 95-foot spire that's proposed here.

Just a year ago, Pope Francis said, like the spires, may the gazes of pilgrims be lifted and their voices proclaimed with the angels holy immortal God.

So when council established a uniform development code that allowed an exception for heights for spires, we weren't talking about screening air conditioning units or ventilation shafts.

We were talking about something that would be visible.

We did so cognizant of both the importance of religious spires and the deference given to them under federal law, including the First Amendment and Relupah, which by the way passed Congress unanimously.

I think the last time something passed unanimously by the U.S.

Congress.

So that's why Table 7.4.2F specifically lists religious institutions, spires, and towers as an authorized exemption to height requirements.

It would be absurd to argue that we approved a height limit that could be 1,600 feet and then said you must minimize it.

That's completely illogical and absurd.

I believe our intent was clear.

It's only if the religious spire tower exceeds beyond the maximum spire height permitted on the table that you must screen or minimize.

This is not an air conditioning unit.

This is clearly not the case here that we exceed the height.

In fact, it's only 5.7% of the heights allowed and a fraction of the permitted width.

And it specifically shrinks as it rises.

Proposed land development code meets every proposed land development plan meets every requirement of the UDC.

This is different than many other temple sites where a rezoning was sought or where an exception was sought for city provisions.

In this case, it's already allowed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Randy Helms.

My favorite second, you know.

That's okay.

I'm limiting to you to two minutes.

And can you state if you live in the neighborhood?

Yes.

Um, Randy Helms, I live not in Flying Horse, right next to Flying Horse, North Gate Estates, but more importantly, I represented Flying Horse for four years as city council for district, city councilman for district two.

So I'm very familiar with the area and uh with this issue.

And first I'd like to say um thank you, Madam President, pro Tim, and Council members.

This is my first time in front of the council with an issue, and it's uh it is different standing on the other side of this.

But let me just say that the city approval of the land use code created a height exemption on table, has been repeated by both uh the church supporters and the church council, and it created height exemption on table 7.4.2-f for religious institutions, spires and towers.

The appellant is claiming that the religious spire tower must be screened or minimized.

Uh that totally defeats the entire purpose of the height exception.

And I agree with the church representatives and with Mr.

Williams, is that when the city passed uh the separate height requirement for the spires and towers in the table, that means that the screening minimizing requirement applies only if it exceeds the allowed spire tower height, which in this case it does not.

And let me just say that I took the time, as I know each and every one of you did from my previous experience when uh Mr.

Williams approached me on this.

I at first I was skeptical, but I I said I will absolutely look into this, and I did, and I read, I looked at the agenda and got the items, and I spent as much time as I could reading each and every document that I could.

And I come to the conclusion that I support uh the church's spire, tower, and the temple as a whole.

And I think they've done from everything I've been able to uh discover, they've done everything they can to make that good.

Now, let me just say I also I thought about this a lot.

I thought about what's in the district that could be compatible to this.

Um the closest thing I could think of, and it's different, is the New Life Church.

I went, I parked in the parking lot of the New Life Church both day and night, and I observed and I drove around it.

And even though it's lit differently, it is lit at night.

The New Life Church, I can't tell you, I didn't find out the exact height of what you would call the spiral, which is a cross on top of the building.

It's tall, I don't know the height, but it's tall and it's lit.

Now, the difference is the neighborhood is a little bit farther away.

It's commercial on the south side, but there's housing on the west side and housing on the north side.

It's a little bit farther away, but it's the same.

And in my four years on the city council, not one time did I receive a complaint.

So please support and I thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Shepard Coza.

And can you sit if you live if you live in the neighborhood?

I don't live in the Flying Horse area, but I live in the Hackamore Drive North and South area.

Council President and members of the council, thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning.

I appreciate the careful attention you are giving to this proposed Colorado Springs Temple.

I would like to address the questions surrounding the steeple height and the temple's illumination, but I want to begin the purpose of a sacred building like this one.

Across many faith traditions, houses of worship are designed to be places of beauty, peace, and welcome.

Their architecture often reflects the beliefs of the people who worship there.

The proposed temple is intended to be just that a quiet beacon of light and a place of calm in a city that is already known for its beauty and serenity.

Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are built around the world, each one designed to harmonize with its surroundings from Cape Verde to New Zealand, from Europe to Africa to the Americas.

Every temple is adapted to its local environment.

Its elevation, its landscape, its architectural character, the same thoughtful approach has been taken here in Colorado Springs.

The design proportions and placement of the steeple and lighting were created with a great care to complement the area and to meet all applicable building and safety codes.

I believe the height of the steep and the gentle continuous illumination of the temple contribute to us to a sense of safety and reassurance.

The steeple is proportionate to the building's design and helps the temple blend into the community as a place of peace and spiritual significance.

The lighting is not intended to dominate but to offer a soft, reverent glow.

For members of our faith, the steeple symbolizes our desire to look upward toward God.

And the light represents the hope and goodness we strive to bring into our lives in our community.

But these symbols are not meant only for us.

The temple grounds are open to all, and we welcome anyone who wishes to learn more or simply enjoy a quiet moment in a beautiful place.

Thank you.

Next up we have Lloyd Campbell Ryan Frost.

And can you state if you live in the neighborhood?

Yes, I live on the corner of Verossa Valley and Kyde Crest, which is just under half a mile from the Kehost site.

Thank you, City Council members, for allowing us to speak.

I sir, I I am an Orthodonist that practiced in this community for about 20 years and recently took a position on the Board of Trustees for the American Association of Orthodonists.

So I have sat sort of in your seats listening to people bring concerns or or issues to our board.

And one of the things that drew us, many things drew us to this community, the safety, the schools, the parks and recreational opportunities and the churches in the area, the church-based organizations, uh, groups like Compassion and Focus on the Family.

New Life Church was in the area.

So we knew that this was a community that respected uh religion and religious rights.

And so we were very comfortable settling here.

As somebody who's going to be driving by this site uh at least every day, if not multiple times a day, I'm excited to see this in my community, in my neighborhood.

Um, I I know that sometimes in these situations, fears of the unknown or unintended consequences can be the things that drive appeals or concerns.

Hopefully, today you've heard enough about the lighting and this and the height of the steeple to allay those concerns and allow this to move forward.

So I'm in support of the temple project and hope that you'll uh approve it and let the church begin their construction.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Catherine Bullock.

And can you state if you live in the neighborhood?

I do not live in Flying Horse proper.

I am I will be three minutes from the um location.

Um good morning, members of the commission.

My name is Catherine Bullock.

I've lived in Colorado Springs over 30 years.

I've served uh several charities in town as well as serving for eight years on the school district 20 school board.

And so I have been on that side as well as this side.

Um when the children of Israel escaped Egypt and were camped at the base of Mount Sinai, God commanded Moses to build a tabernacle.

This would be a place where God's presence could dwell.

In our day, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints build temples so that we can also draw nearer to our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ.

Worshiping in the temple is so important to me that I drive one hour each way every week to Littleton to worship in the temple there.

When it was announced that a temple would be built in Colorado Springs, I was in tears.

It would now be only a three-minute drive for me.

Just as God's presence was in the temple in the tabernacle, our temples are also literally houses of God.

Each aspect of the architecture carries deep symbolism, including the steeples prominent on churches of most religions, which point heavenward, a visual reminder to lift our eyes and heart toward God.

The height was already reduced significantly to respect the character of the neighborhood and ensure that no one's view would be blocked, reflecting a sincere effort to balance the temple's sacred purpose with the community's concerns.

Temples are unique places of peace in a very divisive and contentious world.

The grounds are open to the community for quiet walks and moments of serenity.

Someone said that temples invite men and women of all social classes to make the most binding and important promises of their mortal lives.

In those buildings, they promise not to steal or lie.

They promise to be faithful to their spouse and children.

They vow to seek the interest of their neighbors and be peacemakers.

If those promises made in holy temples are kept, it transforms society faster than any aid or development project ever could.

I have heard some say that the temple would cause light pollution across the city.

The lights of the temple are engineered to shine onto the temple.

I liken this to the North Star that can be seen from far away, yet I've never been woken up by a star shining into my bedroom window.

I respectfully ask that you uphold not only the uphold the original improval and deny the appeal.

Doing so affirms not only the integrity of the design, but also the principle that our community can embrace diversity in architecture and faith.

Thank you for your service to our community.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Danielle Neufer.

And can you state if you live in the neighborhood?

Yes, I live in Flying Horse in the village of Verona, just a short walk down Barassa Valley Drive.

Thank you.

I'm also a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

My family moved to Colorado Springs in 2017 due to my husband's employment with the Air Force.

While house hunting, we found out that the church owned property and flying horse.

This motivated us to buy a home in the neighborhood.

We expected a regular church meeting house, but we were thrilled when we learned that the temple would also be built.

For us, temples are the most holy places on earth.

They connect us to God and to family.

Consequently, we were excited for the opportunity to attend a temple so close to our home.

When I was in high school, my family lived a 15-minute drive from the nearest temple.

I would often go early in the morning before school with friends.

I have three children, one of whom is currently in high school.

I would love for him to be able to walk to the temple and serve and worship with friends just like I did.

Local teenagers who are members of our church periodically have the opportunity to attend the Denver Temple as youth groups under the supervision of adult leaders.

Having a temple closer to home would allow many youth who would not normally drive long distance, especially in snowy weather, to attend on their own or with friends.

In October 2023, when our church announced a temple would be coming to Colorado Springs, our then 17-year-old daughter excitedly declared that she could get married there someday.

We hope that dream will come true for her.

This temple will have a significant positive impact on our neighborhood with its high quality workmanship, meticulous maintenance, and peaceful, secure grounds which are open for all to enjoy.

It will also serve as a buffer to the traffic on Powers Boulevard.

Like the Air Force Academy Chapel, it will be a beautiful religious place of interest for our community.

Thank you for your efforts to move forward the construction of the temple in Colorado Springs.

Next up, we have John Harvey.

And can you state if you live in the neighborhood?

I do not.

I live about 10 minutes south of the temple site.

Thank you.

Council President, members of the council, my name is John Harvey.

I serve as a local ecclesiastical leader in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I oversee nine of the 45 congregations in our city.

I'm here to share why the steeple and lighting of the proposed Colorado Springs Temple are essential expressions of our faith, and why we respectfully ask that you uphold the temple's design plan as it has been presented to you.

Across many religions, sacred architecture uses height to express devotion.

Church steeples, synagogue towers, mosque minarets, and temple spires all raise rise upward as symbols of aspiration and reverence.

Though their designs differ, the message is shared.

When people seek God, they look upward.

Like other houses of worship in our city, the steeple quietly signals that this is a place of peace, prayer, and sacred purpose.

The lighting of the temple carries similar significance.

In nearly every faith tradition, light symbolizes the divine.

Christians look to Jesus Christ as the light of the world.

Jewish tradition celebrates the miracle of light during Hanukkah.

In Islam, God is described as the light of the heavens and the earth.

Light is universal, is a universal symbol of hope, goodness, and spiritual guidance.

This temple's illumination is designed in that same spirit.

Gentle, reverent, and carefully engineered to respect the surrounding community.

It's not intended to dominate the night sky, but to offer a quiet reminder of peace, much like the illuminated crosses, stained glass windows, and other sacred expressions already present throughout Colorado Springs.

Your approving the steeple and lighting design will continue that tradition.

It affirms that people of all faiths and even those of no faith can contribute beauty, meaning, and spiritual depth to our shared landscape.

To close, in my role as a local church leader, I speak on behalf of thousands of Colorado Springs church members who are observing this meeting with hope.

Today, my voice is their voice.

We respectfully ask the council to approve the church's temple design so that construction may begin and this sacred place where individuals seek peace and communion with God can begin blessing many lives.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Krista Wells.

Can you state if you live in the neighborhood?

Yes, I live one house away from the temple property.

I live on Mission Meadow Drive.

My name is Krista Wells, and my property, uh, my drive, my road directs right into the uh entrance into the temple.

When we moved to Colorado Springs 13 years ago, our realtor told us that uh this big expanse was owned by our church, and it would be uh future temple.

We chose specifically then to build and buy a property as close as we could to that location.

We different people make different decisions when they purchase property.

Do they want to be close to what parks and wildlife?

Do they would need to be close to medical facilities, access to highways or to shopping?

We chose to be as close as we could.

And we knew that the elegant architecture, the immaculate and well-maintained landscaping, and the beautiful symbolic steeple would all uh be beautiful for us, and we wanted to be close to it.

In fact, we built larger windows overlooking that church property to enjoy that.

Um we were drawn to Colorado Springs because of the strong religious base in this community, and we wanted to be a part of that.

Uh one of the tenants of our one of the 13 main tenets of our church is that we claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privilege.

Let them worship how, where, or what they may.

We um are privileged to live in this community and and hope that uh plans will move forward that this temple can be a source of hope, light to those in this community.

When we attended my husband and I, the uh architectural meetings, we asked the architects a lot of specific questions, being that we are one house away from the temple.

We were asking about lighting, and uh we we uh by looking at the photometric plans, we learned that none of the light that's shining onto the temple will spill over the property of the church and not into our own property.

And so I can see that the church has made it incredible uh concession, incredible uh consideration to the neighborhood, and I'm one of those beneficiaries.

Thank you.

Next up we have Stephen Wells, and this will be our last um speaker until we break for lunch.

And can you state if you live in the neighborhood?

Yes, I I live with her.

Umbers.

Um, my name is Stephen.

I'd also like to express my my support for the temple.

Uh we've lived in flying horses, my wife mentioned over 13 years.

Um, and our home is I literally walk out of our door every day to walk our dog, and we walk on the temple lot.

So we'll I will be driving by seeing this temple, living by this temple every single day.

Um, so it's obviously a great importance to me.

We are members of the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter-day Saints.

Some of our neighbors are members, but the majority are not.

And I've discussed the proposed temple with my neighbors while we've been shoveling snow or out talking, and the response from both members and non-members has been overwhelmingly positive.

Most are familiar with the church, its temples, and know that these are places of worship, are built to the highest standards, immaculately maintained with beautiful year-round landscaping.

Many have seen similar temples in residential areas throughout this throughout the state and nation.

There are havens of architectural beauty and peace.

By practice, I'm an engineer, so I've kind of taken an interest on kind of the drawing side of things, and I've been on the email list, and I've actually downloaded the different drawings and taken a look at them, the architectural drawings, landscaping and the photometric and the light analysis, um, both from professional curiosity.

But I've also looked at how many considerations they've taken because I live in this neighborhood, and I wanted to be aware of that.

I also attended and participated in the planning commission in December meeting in December.

Through the entire process, I've seen the church work with the city and the neighborhood, modifying and ensuring that the architectural and lighting designs not only meet and exceed the building requirements, but also that the temple itself will add to the overall character of the neighborhood.

As discussed by others, the proposed design has a steeple, which throughout history have stood atop religious buildings, serving as an architectural feature, but more importantly, contributing to the purpose of the religious purpose of worshiping, including symbolizing the desire to lift our hearts and minds toward heaven.

Based on all of these extensive design considerations, the numerous discussions that have occurred already between the church city and the neighborhood, the original plan approval by the city, and the subsequent decision by the planning commission, and in support of religious freedom.

Um as quickly as possible.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Um we are now in recess.

We will be back at one o'clock.

Okay, we are back in session.

Following on with our citizens signed up for in support.

Next up, we have West Allen.

Is it on?

There you go.

There we go.

And can you state if you live in the neighborhood?

I do.

I believe on Penfold Drive, and I welcome everyone back.

I'm glad to be here.

Um my comments today are based on my personal experience.

My name is West Allen.

I'm the homeowner on Penfold Drive 12960 in the Flying Horse community.

I'm also an intellectual property and constitutional lawyer and have served as the national president of the Federal Bar Association.

I am familiar with the First Amendment and federal civil rights laws that are applicable here today and the free exercise of religion.

My comments are indeed offered in my individual capacity out of professional responsibility and also as a citizen of faith.

The religious land use and institutionalized persons act, often referred to today as Relupa or our Lupa, is a federal civil rights law that protects people and religious institutions from unduly burdensome, arbitrary or discriminatory land use regulations that affect the building of religious structures.

The purpose of the act is clear.

Under the First Amendment, temples, mosques, chapels, synagogues are not ordinary buildings.

They are visible expressions of faith.

Their architecture, their height, their spires, the grounds, their illumination, express sincere religious belief, and constitute protected symbolic speech and religious exercise.

State and local governments, therefore, do not merely tolerate religious institutions.

Our constitutional tradition calls upon governments and their leaders to encourage and protect religious land use.

A city violates Ralupa when it imposes substantial burdens through individualized assessments without a compelling government interest that advances advance by the least restrictive means.

In the land use context, new conditions, unwritten criteria, and arbitrary reversal of planning commissions after the planning department has already given administrative approval, constitute substantial burdens and are the very essence of what Ralupa expressly prohibits.

Such burdens cannot be imposed without a compelling government interest.

As has been said, a compelling government interest is one of the highest order and necessary to protect public safety, peace, and order.

It is never mere aesthetics.

And that's based on federal law.

No such compelling government interest has been asserted by the city or any applicant in this case.

On December 10th, the planning commission overwhelmingly denied a single homeowner's appeal that would place more restrictions on the church's temple project.

But then the planning commission unilaterally added two new conditions on its own, as we've heard here today, a steeple with non-reflective material and a top tier of the steeple not illuminated except as allowed by the FAA.

These two new arbitrary conditions are not well founded in law and will violate Ralupa unless reversed by the City Council.

The record of this matter so far has been clear that the UDC and Colorado Springs Comprehensive Sub Development Plan have been met.

So I therefore recommend that the City Council avoid potential constitutional and federal civil rights legal liability and affirm the church's application as a submitted.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next up we have Creed Spillane.

And can you state if you live in the neighborhood?

Thank you.

I, like the appellant, do not live in flying horse.

Council members, thank you for your time and attention this morning.

We appreciate your patience.

I'm Creed Spillane and recognize some of you as neighbors, or through my work as a board member of the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce in ADC, or as board president of Bikita Mountain Home, a nonprofit providing housing and care to female survivors of human trafficking.

Or I recognize you from other councils and committees to which I've been appointed in Solvis Telepaso County.

But today I'm speaking in my professional capacity.

For the last 22 years, I solved residents of the Pikes Peak region as a Colorado real estate broker.

Currently, as the owner and operator of Quantum Residential Group, a brokerage servicing commercial and residential real estate.

Prior to this, I participated in the formation and operation of flying horse realty from 2007 to 2016.

As such, to date, I've brokered more than 200 of the property sales in the flying horse community alone.

When buyers consider communities in which they want to live, they consider a variety of variables, an exercise that I am confident each of you has also followed.

For example, did you know that there is an entire segment of buyers who will only move into a city if it has a Costco warehouse?

Until Colorado Springs had a Costco, these buyers excluded our city from consideration.

Instead, settling for areas in proximity to the Denver Costcos.

You may be less surprised to know that there was also a segment of buyers who excluded our city until it had an in and out restaurant.

Similarly, there is a segment of buyers who have excluded Colorado Springs from their consideration, at least until this temple was announced.

I have such buyers in my own family.

While not members of this faith, they also perceive the presence of one of these temples as a strong representation of the strength of that community and will only move to a city which has welcomed an LDS temple.

The presence of a temple represents many things.

It represents the importance of putting one's trust in their divine creator.

The presence of a temple represents the importance of family relationships and responsibilities.

The presence of a temple represents the importance of safeguarding the liberties and values of the community in which it has been welcomed.

And it accomplishes this by not having its designs and functions curtailed nor infringed upon.

In other communities which have welcomed these temples, the church has established a reputation as a good neighbor by also giving strong priority to the maintenance and beautification of these properties, sometimes more so even than the surrounding areas in which they are located.

The church has demonstrated itself as a good neighbor by complying with all the development standards and requirements set forth by the regional building department and by the city of Colorado Springs, even exceeding them in multiple respects.

Remember that this matter has not come to you because it is noncompliant.

It has not come to you because of any neglect or lack of consideration on the part of the church.

So I would encourage you to please continue to support the original design and submission.

Thank you.

Next up we have Mike Law.

And can you state if you live in the neighborhood?

I do.

I have been a uh resident of uh flying horse for many years.

City Council members, we appreciate being able to be here with you today.

Our family wishes to thank you for your service.

We know how important it is to have good people in City Council.

I too agree with the many good friends and neighbors that have talked, spoken about and in support of building the temple in Flying Horse as it was originally designed.

Our family has lived in Colorado Springs for 26 years.

We love living here and serving her.

Serving and loving was something that uh our God has asked us to do.

And we are fully cognizant of that and want to be good neighbors.

I personally appreciated getting to know many in our community.

Uh, like others, I've talked to many of my neighbors who are very supportive of this effort.

They think it's going to be wonderful, especially as the trucks and lights and everything come through down Powers Boulevard.

This will create a wonderful buffer for many of our neighbors.

And uh, we've had many uh during the two community meetings express that to us.

Fourteen years ago, we purchased our property in Flying Horse and built our home there on Coyote Crest View, and we've certainly enjoyed that.

On February of 2012, as been mentioned, the church purchased the property in Flying Horse.

And I uh was there as I watched the uh master development plan change.

Uh, the zoning laws were put into place.

I attended the initial HOA meeting along with uh others of my neighbors uh when they had a discussion regarding uh the possibility of a temple being built in Flying Horse.

Uh when leadership of the church determined that it was time to move forward with the temple, it was considered to have a two-story temple of around 45,000 feet.

If you do your research, uh many of the temples of that size, uh, one that was just completed recently, has a spire of uh from the ground to the peak of 179 feet.

This took into consideration the size and growth.

The reason we're building a temple of this size is the size and growth of the Pikes Peak region, not just of our faith, but of our faiths and our good faith inner faith friends.

I've had the privilege of serving with many inner faith friends in the community.

And additionally, uh on chamber and and the HBA board for a number of years.

So I know many of the people involved.

We truly appreciate our neighbors.

We appreciate those that feel a little threatened by something that may be a little taller than they would have wanted or anticipated.

We do care about our neighbors.

I've known one of our one of our neighbors for many, many years and have a lot of respect for them.

So we would ask that you move forward with uh the building of the temple as described.

Thank you.

Next up we have Stephanie Warner.

And can you state if you live in the neighborhood?

I do not.

Yes.

My name is Stephanie Warner, and I am connected to three immediate families that do live in Flying Horse.

Um, specifically in neighborhoods close to the temple lot.

So I currently live 12 minutes away from the proposed temple property in comparison to the Denver Temple, which is the closest temple to us, which is an hour away from my home.

So I'm sure you can understand our excitement and gratitude to have a temple that's going to be much closer for us so that we can attend more often.

Uh since I was a child, and for my children now, uh, it's always been an adventure and a pleasure to come around the bend or drive along a highway and see a temple steeple or a temple when it comes into view.

And sometimes the sepal is the only thing you can see on a temple from different directions.

Um that brings us such joy and what a wonderful reminder in the chaos and busyness of our everyday life when we get to see that temple steeple and remind us that our view should be much larger than just what's happening in our day right then.

Um to keep an eternal perspective on life.

Life is much bigger than just us.

So out of the about 20 temples that I've seen in person at night, none are an absurd Vegas style spotlight.

Um I feel like none of them are lighting the night sky as in depicted in that picture that was described as the Denver Temple, but I do not believe that was the Denver Temple, because I have been there for 25 years of my life, and it's never looked like that at night.

Um the light that is shown on the sepal of a temple reminds us to look upward and look to God.

So the temple is not just for members of our faith, but anyone that is in need of a peaceful place to visit or spend time to ponder.

It's for anyone who would like to visit.

And I stand with all those here today watching online or here with us, and are in favor of the temple, the way that it has carefully and thoughtfully been designed and planned the way that it is now, reminding you that it did start as a two-story building and was thoughtfully redesigned to more so fit the neighborhood.

Um, and I hope that it is approved today.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Kevin Woodward.

Can you state if you live in the neighborhood?

I live in the adjacent neighborhood seven minutes west of the temple site.

I'd like to begin by respectfully acknowledging those neighbors who have raised concerns regarding the temple project.

And I appreciate the seriousness with it with which those concerns are being considered.

I'm here today to express my support for allowing the Colorado Springs Temple to move forward as reviewed and approved by the Colorado Springs Planning Commission.

One key consideration in this matter is precedent.

Across the world, many of the churches, more than 200 operating temples, are located within residential neighborhoods, following a long-standing and well-established pattern of neighborhood compatibility.

This approach is neither new nor unusual.

Closer to home, the Denver, Colorado Temple where I currently serve, has stood and operated within a peaceful residential neighborhood for 40 years.

Over that time, it has demonstrated a consistent pattern of being a quiet, well-maintained and respectful presence.

There are places or these temples are places of reverent worship, and they're intentionally designed to operate quietly and with careful attention to their surroundings.

The church has worked closely and collaboratively with the Flying Horse Development Organization for 14 years since it acquired the temple site.

More recently, it has thoughtfully worked with city officials throughout the review and approval process based on decades of real world experience.

I believe the Colorado Springs Temple, like places of worship of many different faiths, can be a peaceful and positive presence in the neighborhood it will serve.

I respectfully ask the council to give weight to the thorough work already completed by the city planning commission.

The collaborative efforts involved and the extensive precedent showing that temples can and do coexist harmoniously within residential neighborhoods.

Thank you for your time for your service and for your careful consideration.

Next up we have Ed Ellsworth.

Yes, I I do live in the Flying Horse neighborhood.

I've lived in the community for 33 years.

Over the past 23 years, I've been a real estate developer.

And I've worked mostly uh developing hotels.

So I've I've been involved with some large structures as well and have worked with city planning and and even uh city council.

And as a developer, I understand the amount of time, effort, and expertise that goes into a thoughtful design.

I've personally spent thousands of hours on working through design and development decisions, and I strongly believe in doing projects the right way.

Successful developments coexist with surrounding uses, and just as we see with other well planned projects in the flying horse community, such as the uh classic headquarters and the new King Super, I believe the temple um achieves a nice balance within the flying horse community.

Hotels like um like many significant buildings have distinguishing features that create identity and consistency.

So a Hampton Inn looks like another Hampton Inn.

The same is true with temples.

They if if you were to look at temples throughout the United States and throughout the world, you could recognize them as temples.

So religious buildings do as well, and one of the most recognizable elements of temples are the steeples.

The design of this temple and steeple are consistent with other temples, and there's nothing that I've seen that would be inconsistent with the hundreds of other ones that are in it in operation or in design.

Um the sometimes in in design we can look at extremes.

What if the steeple were exceptionally high or there is no steeple at all?

And neither neither would properly serve the the building.

So I believe that the current proposal reflects a thoughtful proportion and relies on professional design expertise to create a steeple that is well balanced with the overall structure.

The lighting plan is also consistent with what is typical for religious buildings and remains respectful of the surrounding community.

We uh we have the privilege of of having a landmark and beautiful structure as part of our community, and I strongly support it.

Thank you very much.

Next up, we have Michael Clausen.

And can you state if you live in the neighborhood?

Yes, my name is Michael Kloss, and I live in the Alistoga village in Flying Horse, and actually out of my daughter's window, we'll be able to see the temple.

So we're very excited about that.

I hadn't planned on speaking today because I know there were so many other people who are gonna say what I what I have said, but I wanted to say that I have grown up here in Colorado Springs.

I'm a graduate of Doherty High School.

My father came here to Colorado Springs in 1968 to begin the law practice.

I currently practice with my brother, and we've had a practice together for about 20 years.

Uh Colorado Springs is very important to us.

We my wife and I decided to move back here because we wanted a uh a community that was Christian-based that we could raise our family.

I am here to support the temple.

I believe it will be an asset to our community.

I've talked to many friends and neighbors around flying horse.

They are also very supportive, not to mention, if you look at the statistics, our our home values will increase as a temple is built.

I don't want to belabor the point, but I am fully in support of this temple, and we ask that you approve the plans as have been submitted to you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Nathan Wood.

I do.

I live in uh Solera village of Flying Horse.

Um my appeal is less legalistic and more personal.

My wife and I currently serve uh collectively 10 times a month in the in the uh Denver temple located in Littleton, representing approximately 50 hours of service that we give voluntarily to our church and to members of our church and members of the community.

I would submit to the council respectfully that the plan of the steeple of the Colorado Springs Temple was made purposefully and with great thought that it represents to those of members of our faith as well as to the broader community and culture.

Um a deeper meaning behind life and a deeper meaning behind why we're here and what we do.

In addition to serving in the temple, we serve in our local congregations.

All we do is is attempt to be good neighbors to serve the community around us and to be um good members of faith as we attempt our very best to follow our Savior Jesus Christ.

I as well wasn't going to speak today, but I wanted to add my voice to those who are in the community who live close to this site that we respectfully request that this temple be approved as submitted, that this symbolism represented not only by the steeple, but the building, the grounds, the interior architecture represent a deep and meaningful connection that we have to our Savior Jesus Christ and our Father in Heaven.

And with that in mind, I respectfully um submit my request as well in support of the temple as submitted to the council.

Thank you.

So that ends the portion of public comment in support.

Um we will now hear from any member of the public who are in opposition, have the applicant please um come up as a call your name and limit your comments to three minutes.

Um Dave Phillips.

And Mr.

Phillips, could you state if you live in the neighborhood?

Yes, I do.

Uh this is a picture of standing on my uh patio door.

So I will have a I will have a front row seat uh to the uh uh to the temple.

My comments are not uh about code.

It's uh the church is has as we've heard uh has done some things to mitigate the influence of a very big building.

It changes the neighborhood.

Don't uh don't uh uh kid ourselves, but uh having this structure.

But I think there's some more things that can be can be done.

Uh and I'm gonna suggest uh several ideas.

Um Evergreens versus deciduous.

You know, deciduous are good about three uh six months of the year.

The green there shows the evergreens along Barossa.

The church has done a great job with that.

But uh if you go over to Flying Horse Drive, which is the main uh is the main part, uh it's pretty skimpy.

And same way on the vanetle drive on the uh on the right side of it.

I'm saying, uh, church, would you consider uh putting evergreens along the uh flying horse drive uh so that uh because that is a main thoroughfare, particularly if you're driving east, uh uh you're gonna be right up against the the church.

There is some median uh evergreens, but they are not a reliable screen.

Uh the ones that have died that have not been replaced.

And uh, and so our the request is that the church uh uh put evergreens along the side.

Um the other the next thing I want to talk about.

Oh, this is the this is the December uh temple with deciduous trees.

You see that uh evergreens help, but deciduous uh don't get the job done.

Uh the next thing I'd like to talk about is the heights of the temple.

Uh the uh here's a list of the heights of temples around the U.S.

They're all over the map.

You can see at 140, uh, we're up there a ways.

Uh 72 percent of the uh temples around the world are less than 140, so almost three out of four.

So 140 is not a magic number, and putting it down to 120, I understand the uh the current standard for mid-sized and large temples is 120 to 150.

So moving it down to 120 would still be in their standard, and uh lowering that ought to be considered.

Whoops.

Can you go back?

Um, I went too fast there.

Uh no, back to the next one.

Uh the uh I want to speak to the light.

Uh something that we haven't heard as people have presented is that 24-7 the lights are on.

And I, you know, uh, with due respect for what the church means in terms of light in terms of the faith.

The fact of the matter is between 10 and 6 in the morning, it can't be uh absolutely crucial to their faith to have the lights on, and that is a a huge deal within our neighborhood.

And my I downloaded what uh the Book of Mormon says or downloaded what the scriptures say.

Uh they have to balance what the neighborhood needs with uh what the church desires, and uh uh turning the lights off at night would be a great compromise that would make us really appreciate what they're doing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, Linda Miller.

In key state if you live in the neighborhood.

Hi, yes.

We live right across the street from where the temple is sighted currently, directly across.

So our view out the back of our house faces south, and we'll look at the entire side of the temple as it is constructed, including we will see the steeple.

Um here, whoops.

Here is the picture of what our view is right now, all the way from Pikes Peak, Mount Almagre, Mount Rosa, all the way down to Cheyenne Mountain.

We bought this particular lot when we moved here in 2015, and we chose this lot because it affords us this gorgeous view, and we did come to Colorado for what Colorado is, for all this natural beauty and for the outdoor life.

That is what we really enjoy.

We lived in the Midwest forever, and yet when we retired, we chose to come here.

We had two kids who had already moved here because they enjoyed it so much, and our third has since moved to the state.

This is where our kids learned how to ski.

We came to Colorado summer and winter.

And so this view is just very important to us, and it's one that will be obstructed when that temple is built.

Um we chose this lot as I said.

I live in, oh, by the way, I didn't tell you, I live in West Siena Village, which is, as I said, directly across from it.

Um, and we're very concerned about the negative visual impact of this building on what we came here for and what we enjoy both day and night, because we sit out in the evening, watch the sun go down, enjoy the all of the views then, and I even enjoy looking up the stars at night because we have a little slice of dark sky over us still.

Not much to be found anymore, I know, but we do have a little bit up there that we can see, and I enjoy that as well.

Unfortunately, a structure this large and this high will in no way conform to the um character and the size and proportions of our established neighborhood, which has been here for 10, 15, 20 years.

Instead, it will dominate the landscape.

That will be the one feature that dominates it.

It will hide the beauty of our scenic views, and it will light up the nighttime sky.

So we ask, as Dave has mentioned, that the high uh height of the spire of the entire structure be lowered to be more in conformance with what is there where we live.

And we also agree that we need more evergreens to block the view.

Also, that spire and the building should not be lighted up all night.

Um, that is what we will see from our windows every night.

And I thank you for your time and your consideration of those who live right across the street.

Thank you.

Next up we have Monica Fuchs.

Fuchs.

Didn't want to say that wrong.

Yeah, trust me, I've heard it.

Can you state if you live in the neighborhood?

I actually live next to Dave Williams, and my entire view is this property.

Earlier there was discussion about the impact of decisions that you make, and I want you to be aware that there is a huge impact to those of us who have lived there for a while.

We did our lot reservation in 2011, and we chose our lot for the full encompassing views to sit at night and watch the sun go down, the range of mountains glowing, getting up in the morning, getting a cup of coffee, cuddling up with a blanket, and watching this the moon go through our windows.

This is a bedroom in our entire living area is fully focused diagonally right at this building.

Unfortunately, the lot we chose is now going to be this.

I fully support the temple.

I'm nothing against any of your religious symbolisms.

But our home is our sanctuary.

And having this day glow light, there were discussions earlier that this would be glowing and peaceful.

The pictures taken have shown what actually happens.

The bright white light that is meant to dominate and draw attention.

And so I am just asking you to please, please, if you adjust the lighting, turn it down at night, have it so that it's not as bright white.

Do something to be considerate of the neighbors that have been there.

We encourage you to celebrate your religion, but please don't impose this level onto us.

So thank you for your time.

And I hope you consider this.

Thank you.

So that ends public comment portion of this hearing.

I didn't see and the public comment is now closed.

There will be no more public comment during the rest of this hearing.

Next, we have the appellant rebuttal.

And you have you can rebuttal the limits issued raised during the preceding testimony or argument.

No new evidence shall be presented during rebuttal.

And please limit your comments to five minutes.

Certainly.

Thank you.

Your job today is exactly what Ms.

Bruin said.

Apply the text to the UDC.

You have the planning commission decision, and it is clearly contrary to the provisions of the UDC.

It is this body's to correct this body's duty to correct that decision.

The UDC, as interpreted by the city attorney, requires anything above 45 feet in this district, requires through the usage of the word shall be designed to minimize visibility.

How is any illumination consistent with that command?

It isn't.

This unquestionably doesn't apply here.

Light reflected at a 45 degree angle will reflect off in a similar degree.

The little lips or whatever they are on top of the the Miss White referenced is the canopy, is neither mentioned in the project statement, no meaningful analysis, and it will not reflect all light that is projected upwards back downwards, as the code as the plain text of the code commands.

Briefly on Ralupa.

Despite Mother's Mayor Southern's claim, dozens of circuit courts have held that the statute does not give a religious institution carte blanche to violate any provision of the code that it wants.

And I can give you several cases, but there's actually a BYU law article that discusses this.

I think you can look at it.

It's volume in 2011, issue one, Article 7.

And the point is this.

If the applicant has agreed to reduce spire heights and other jurisdictions, if they have agreed to turn down the lights.

If they have agreed to other modifications, how can it be a substantial burden on their religion?

It isn't.

As to the references to New Life Church, just to be clear, that is not in the middle of a residential district.

They did not choose to build that structure in the middle of a residential district.

Likewise, all the light projected on it is being backed down.

There are not dozens, 50 plus 50 plus as I count lights pointed at the building.

So I end with this.

Illumination does not minimize visibility as a matter of law.

And without a complete photometric study of the spire, we can't tell the lighting impact of it.

Those facts were not presented to the administrative official meaningfully, at least not that I can find in the record.

And there was not a single mention of section 203B2 until Miss Kuhn raised it.

With that, we'd ask that this body remand the matter back to Ms.

Baxter, and thank you for your time and would welcome any questions that you may have.

I don't have any at this time, but it's possible you'll be called back up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President, President Pro Tem, members of the Council, City Staff, and members of the public.

The appellant first says in his letter, uh filing this appeal that he wants the steeple to be screened.

And then he says, well, it's not really possible to screen it.

And then he says he wants it to be reduced in height.

And today he said he wanted it to be reduced in height to 95 feet, which is the actual height that it actually is.

And then he said, actually, it's not about the height of the steeple, it's really about the lighting.

And so I uh and raise some new issues about the lighting that were not actually in the original appeal, to which we object, by the way, but it doesn't matter because the project complies with all of the requirements in the UDC.

And I don't have time in five minutes to go through all the ways in which those uh issues were misrepresented to you, but I'm gonna just give you a handful.

The spire is 90 feet 95 feet, not 140.

The lights are not K2, they are K1 and P6 as shown on the lighting plan that has been part of this since the beginning.

The lights are not the most intense available, actually, they are the least intense available in that particular product line from that particular manufacturer.

Uh there are, in fact, canopies reflecting the light back down from the steeple as required by the code and in compliance with the code, and as has been demonstrated using IES approved methodologies and technical data that was submitted to the staff and reviewed and approved by the staff through the normal course of this process.

Um there was in fact a photometric uh uh addressing this fire lighting that has been presented to staff that has been reviewed by staff.

All of the light fixtures are in fact fully shielded, contrary to the assertions that have been made.

And there is ample evidence of the design modifications that have been made by this applicant in order to address some of these concerns and in order to minimize visibility from residential neighborhoods, as is required by the code.

Just because we didn't cite to that particular section, doesn't mean that those design modifications were not made in order to minimize visibility visibility and address the proximity to residential neighborhoods.

Um pieces of correspondence that we know you have received and that we have now received copies of, and by my review of them of that 313, about 294 were expressing support for this project.

They almost unanimously spoke of the religious significance of the spire and its illumination.

Quoting from one of those letters, this is not an ornamental choice, but a deeply religious expression of faith.

And for your benefit, because you might not be familiar with the um procedures of the church, as I was not until I undertook this representation.

Um, these architectural and aesthetic choices that are made in designing this temple are not made by some real estate committee in a conference room in order to market a product or sell a service, like like is the case with many of my corporate um clients.

These decisions were made by the highest authority within the church, and they were made after a prayerful reflection and deep consideration of many of the factors that have been brought up here today in terms of location within a neighborhood, the role of this facility within the community.

And so there is no question, there is no dispute that the spire, its illumination, the steeple are all critical components of the fundamental expression of faith for this community.

And the appellant has identified no compelling governmental interest in removing these things or imposing a substantial burden on them.

There is no scenario in which agreeing to appellance requests is consistent with the law, not with your code, not with state law, not with federal law.

For that reason, we ask you to approve the development plan as it was originally approved by the planning staff, and without the conditions opposed by the planning commission, or if you do impose those conditions to clarify that limitation to the top 17 feet.

Thank you again for your time and attention to this matter, and we look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you.

Now we have final comments from the city staff.

That's your question before we have anything further.

You don't have anything further.

Are there any questions for city staff?

Councilman Lineweber.

Yeah, often when I kind of look at big projects and stuff, I want to I want to try to recognize kind of the impacts that it's gonna kind of have happen.

And sometimes those impacts have been planned for for some time, but not realized.

So I wanted to see if um the city would make a comment about that will change that community when powers does go through, and that has been planned for some time, correct?

Uh yes, powers has been planned for some time.

It's currently uh in the final engineering phases.

Um powers in this area will be below the elevation of powers will be below the uh elevation of the existing areas that are adjacent to it.

Uh so powers will be about 30 feet below um the areas adjacent to it in this area.

So that will help with lighting that would come from cars and stuff like that.

We're still gonna have some noise factor, but even there, to some degree, that that building might provide some noise relief to some of the neighborhood.

The noise study is currently underway.

Um I would hate to speculate on what that noise study is going to yield, but um certainly powers being below 30 feet below the adjacent area noise will be um minimal.

Well, I'll say minimized being being below grade there.

Well, I'm just trying to get my head around it because I this is um I mean powers is not just a street.

Correct.

Correct.

I mean, we're talking it's gonna be a highway.

I don't is it will be designated a highway.

I mean, yes.

So it is gonna have a number.

Okay.

Um so I mean, I think that's pretty impactful to kind of realize that that's gonna be right there.

And um, and so I wanted to kind of highlight um that piece um and uh kind of make sure that I understood that correctly.

Thank you.

I don't have any other comments or statements for city um staff at this time.

We'll bring it back up to the dais for consideration.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thanks, uh Madam President.

I want to thank everybody who uh came today and uh provided comments or uh were part of the two parties uh appealing.

And recognize uh the citizens that live there and and express their concerns.

Um it's noticeable that there were only three.

Sometimes we we have tremendous uh turnout against something.

Uh this is smaller today.

There were a couple of issues that we were really directed to today.

Uh one is you know the height of the of the spire of the steeple.

It's uh I think agreed to by the uh party which believes it that is is uh opposed the uh spire at its current well at its current height, it's really about lighting and the uh materials.

I was uh in I agree that the church has done things to minimize the lighting uh while still expressing their their religious um beliefs or their um uh the message that they can convey with the aesthetics of the of the temple.

Um and those were laid out for us uh today with the focusing of the light.

I do think it was significant.

There are the cornices uh that are at various levels of the spire, and then uh the part that is above that uh will not be lit.

Also, I think it's important that the materials are not reflective, and that was part of the plan which was approved by our planning department.

So those those two things I think were looked at by plant the planning department and considered to have been appropriately designed, you know, perhaps not screened, but I don't think screening uh a steeple or a spire is appropriate.

That's that hides the purpose of it.

So uh the our lupo was brought into this, and I think it's very important.

I think it's very important that unless there is a compelling interest, uh, we should not limit uh expression through a temple uh or the or the spire.

And so for that reason, Madam President, I would like to make a motion, and this is motion B.

We have kind of some various versions, but for the city clerk, it would be motion B to deny the appeal seeking reversal of the development plan approval, but to reverse the city planning commission decision to add conditions of approval on the development plan for the Colorado Springs Temple, based upon the finding that only the temple appellant met the appeal criteria found in the city code um section 7.5.415.

And so with that motion, I would ask for a second.

I don't have it a second at this time, but okay.

You oh, um councilman Rainey.

Thank you, Madam President.

And as it was already stated, uh I too want to thank everyone uh for being here today.

Uh and those who I believe are downstairs and those that are watching, uh thank you for being active citizens in the community uh with this uh particular topic.

Uh I just have some clarification uh questions actually.

Uh I've heard it twice now on I can say I guess four times, so I definitely need clarification.

The spire itself, is it 140 and a half, or is it 95?

Spire is that for the building.

Yeah.

Uh thank you, Council President.

Uh councilman, I can get a uh graphic up on the screen if that helps.

But to be clear, the total height of the structure plus the spire is 140 and a half, but the building itself is about 39 feet.

The maximum building height allowed in the zone district is 45.

I think for ease of shorthand, staff has been counting the structure as going up to 45 and the spire as being everything above that between 45 and 140, which leaves you with 95.

Thank you for that clarification, because on several occasions I think there's been a little bit of misspeaking there.

The other question in regards to the lights, uh, and and maybe this might be a question for the appellate.

Uh, it's been mentioned a couple of times about lights illuminating at 4K.

But then there was a statement that that was not accurate that there was going to be a lower level of lighting.

So what level of light I think you're aiming that question for the appellant, but I'd request the opportunity to also answer it after he's done.

And just if you just look at their own fixtures that we had up on our time, they are going to use 4,000 K Kelvin light, the bright white light.

I don't think there's any dispute to that.

And I suspect Ms.

White can point you directly in the plan where it says they're not going to use 4,000 K white light.

But that's our understanding.

That's what I believe from reviewing the uh project plans.

And yeah, and I think that's inconsistent with the traditional 2700 K light that you have in neighborhoods.

Okay, thank you.

Can you respond to that?

Thank you again, Council President, Councilman.

So there are several different ways of measuring light, right?

We have the wattage.

We have the Kelvin, which was just talked about, and that refers to the cool or warm appearance of the color, right?

We also have the lumens, and we also have the foot candles.

So we've talked about a couple of different things.

Just sticking with the uh the claim that appellate made that we were using the brightest light possible was actually with respect to the wattage, not the Kelvins.

In the range of Kelvins, and we're talking about cool versus warm light, in appellants appeal to you, there is a reproduction of a graphic that comes from the IES that shows a range of like warmer color lights in the 2700 Kelvin range, up to 4,000, which is in fact the amount of Kelvins that is uh associated with the lights that we are proposing to use.

However, that's only half the graphic.

It actually goes up to about 8,000 or so is the range of potential sort of warm to cooler lights that one could use.

And yes, it is true that the lights that we are proposing to use are 4,000 Kelvin, but that is not the coldest color range of light available.

In fact, it's about right in the middle if one had the whole entire graphic in front of you.

Okay.

And last question, it uh can you expand upon the canopy?

Um, because that was mentioned several times about leveraging and using the canopy to redirect lighting downward.

Can you expand on that a little bit and provide a little bit more clarity for me?

Yes, and would you mind?

Could we have the slides back, please?

The one I'm looking for is number 28.

Okay, so on the left hand side that whoops.

On the left hand side, you see what looks like sort of a nighttime artist rendering of the upper portion of the structure.

And as you can see on the on the lowermost portion, which is like the building itself, you can see the top of the stained glass window there.

You can see some sort of horizontal lines, which are darker on the top, and you can see pretty clearly with respect to the building, how those are reflecting the light downward.

And then as you move up into the steeple, which is in that sort of matte gold color, you can also see some horizontal bars, which are a lighter color.

Those are the cornices or canopies that I'm referring to, and they are incorporated in the design, not only because they're aesthetically pleasing and good architecture, but also because they serve the function of um complying with the code in reflecting the light downward.

And remember, we talked a little bit about how the very narrow beam of light is being directed at this area with only eight degrees of range, so that it is shining specifically on that portion of the steeple, and then it's not going up into the sky past that portion.

That little cornice on each of those sections is reflecting it back downward as required by the code.

Thank you.

May I answer your question as well just to have that opportunity?

Madam President, don't you have yep, sure?

Thank you.

The code, if you can leave that back up if you'd like.

The code says that the canopy has to project the light back downwards.

I I'm not a mathematician by any means, and I'm not good at geometry, but what I do know is if you project light at that angle, that single cornet is not going to project the light back down.

And that's the question you have to decide is is the light going to be projected back down.

There was no analysis at all about this in the photo in the project statement or the photometric analysis.

Thank you.

Madam President, souncilman Williams.

Thank you.

Thank you all for coming here today on a Tuesday in February, and it's not snowing, so you made it all safely and make it all safely home.

Um, I've actually never represented District 2.

I did represent the entire city of Colorado Springs.

But I had the luxury of growing up on the flying horse ranch.

So I completely understand all of your love for it because my dad was a rancher, and that's where our cows spent the summers.

So I also got to spend the summers at the flying horse ranch.

So to say that planning takes a long time, it's a long time.

I mean, I'm 47 years old, so this has been in the process for quite some time.

And had I had 12 million dollars back in the day, I would have bought the flying horse ranch.

We wouldn't be having this conversation.

But that didn't happen when we are here today.

So as was mentioned by Councilmember Donison, he uh he made the motion and I seconded that, and I will turn it back over to our council president.

We do have a motion um from Councilman Donaldson and a second from Councilman Williams.

Um can Sarah, can you read that motion into the record?

B deny the appeals seeking reversal of the development plan approval but reverse city planning commission decision to add conditions of approval on the development plan on the development plan for the Colorado Springs Temple based on bindings that only the Temple appellate met the appeal criteria found in City Code Section 7.5.415.

And I'm sorry, but the front part of that is on the big screen.

I can't get the whole thing on the screen.

If I have no other comments from the dais or questions regarding this motion and second, um we'll vote.

Is it not showing on your screens?

We voted.

It's not showing on your screen.

Okay, it's Randy's fault.

And the motion passes eight to zero.

So that concludes our hearing for today.

We are going to take a 10 minute break to clear the room.

These guys we are back in um session for our one hour of citizens discussion for items not on today's agenda per city council rules.

Citizens will have three minutes to share their comments.

I have a list of those who have signed up.

When I call your name, please come forward, introduce yourself, and limit yourself to topics that are relevant and germane to city business.

And three minutes.

First up, we have Isaac Contreras.

I hope I said that right, Isaac.

Thank you.

Okay, there we go.

Okay.

When I chose my topic for being here, I stated that it was the disappointment with the mayor, but it's really not disappointment.

What I came here with rage.

Rage at our mayor, rage at the council here, rage at El Paso Commissioners, rage at the district attorney, rage at the governor, and rage at so many other elected officials across the USA.

Why?

Because we've come to the point where the constitution is getting raped by the president, and instead of every American taken to the streets of protest, we have Americans like our mayor, our county sheriff, and state governor who support this rape.

ICE is pillaging neighborhoods and communities, pretending that it somehow helps the people while raping their constitutional rights.

The Fourth Amendment gives people the right against illegal searches and seizures.

The fifth gives people the right to fair trial and the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

Ice pigs are illegally searching people and seizing them because they look like immigrants.

Ice pigs are illegally rendering anyone guilty of being illegal or immigrant without trial.

Ice pigs are illegally passing judgment when they are not the courts, and yet here we are.

I am enraged at the inaction by not just the council of the city.

I'm enraged by the mayor and so many others taking a step and not taking a step back to look at the actual issues with ice.

Our mayor, our sheriff, our governor, and many of our neighbors have chosen around to walk dickless and spineless, choosing instead to get fucked by Trump and ICE.

Why?

Because they can't see the shit for the ass.

So I came here to say to you with all the rage I can muster, fuck Trump, fuck ICE, and especially fuck the assholes who support ice.

There's my spine.

When will your when will you find your spine to stop ICE from wandering the streets of Colorado Springs?

When will you find your spine to stop the mayor from colluding with terrorists?

When will you find the spine to tell Trump to go fuck himself?

When will you find yours?

That is all I've been here to say.

Next up we have Taylor Gray.

Thank you.

You know, that's that's what's out there.

Uh people don't even know exactly what they're afraid of.

Not everyone can put it to words.

We're at the dawn of a new age uh in technology and in a need for new laws.

Uh you know, stomping the streets is not gonna change everything.

We need you guys everyone's support.

And when one civilian, one single person is allowed to have their rights stomped on, then we are all at risk.

Right now, they can literally call any one of you, any one of us a domestic terrorist, and then take away all our rights, disappear us with their police force that uh is untracked and unchecked.

And we can't just bury our heads in the sand and ignore that it's happening.

We can't just continue on talking about steeples and things.

We this is an emergency, and we have to stand up for our neighbors, and and that means every one of you working together because what we need to do to defend against division is we need unity.

We we need to unify the districts, we need everyone focused on that there is an emergency happening and working together with especially those of us who have a different opinion.

With the exact people that we have here, every single one of you wants to be safe in your community and to to live with your family, knowing that you you can't just be pointed at and then told you're a terrorist and then disappeared and no one knows, and maybe they disappeared your whole family.

And how long has this been going on, guys?

Who has been disappeared?

With the I mean with the Epstein file stuff, are we not gonna ignore that like they probably got rid of a whole bunch of those folks first?

Anyone who knows anything about that, all of the I don't know, but I need I don't know the laws.

I don't know what you guys can do.

I know that we need some executive orders.

I know that we need some laws and some announcements, and really when it comes down to it, uh we have to do what we can do here.

And not only do we need to unify, but we need to educate ourselves because the propaganda and the ridiculousness, the clickbait, like we all live in our own echo chamber of lies, and it's purposeful too.

There's nefarious business going on.

I mean, there's there's evil out there, and we are the check and balance to that.

You know, we have to stand up because if everybody doesn't stand up, that's how tyranny wins.

We by all standing up and putting a firm we stand with every other city and citizen, and we're not a racist country, then maybe when we all stand up, we won't have to fight because we're all stand up.

But when we don't stand up together, picked off.

Next up, we have Dustin Hanson.

Uh hello, my name is Dustin.

I live in an apartment complex in Council District 6, and I apologize.

I'm gonna be talking about building code and laws.

This time, no religious freedom, first amendment stuff, though.

So a little bit easier.

Um, yeah, I live in an apartment complex that currently has uh utility building system known as ratio billing.

That's where all of the utility is shared between each unit.

There's 105 units in our building, and my neighbors asked me to come today to discuss this with you in hopes that we can find some kind of solution.

Um, I understand that there's some a lot of a lot to do with state law, and and there might not be the power to do so.

I was hoping utilities would be here, but they're not, so that's fine.

We can take notes.

Um, HB 1091090, codified as CRS 61-737.

I'm paraphrasing, says that landlords cannot charge for services not directly related to the tenants unit.

Now, I understand that the attorney general uh issued a memorandum in November saying that you ratio billing systems were exempt.

I would like to put it on record that the tenants of the incline apartment complex disagree with the attorney general and um find it difficult to pay for utility billing.

Um I'd like to point out that my complex has uh folks that are on single payer, retirees, disabled veterans, single parents, and they find utility billing difficult because regardless of how much electricity they use, they're paying for their neighbors inherently.

Um that's a data point, and that's a hill I'll die on.

Um I like having solutions.

So I did go to the the front office of my um complex to ask to look at data on their end to see if they were uh for lack of a better term, screwing us over.

Um, they laughed me out of the room.

I did look into state law, I found that they're required to implement a proper proper record um of what utility billing happens within the complex, and then to perform a reconciliation process to confirm the sum of charges never exceeds the total utility amount from the providers.

I feel like as a tenant paying said bill, I should be able to see said paperwork.

Um currently, I I don't see any law within state code saying or city code saying that they have to show that, but I would like um to offer solution to change utility code or possibly city code, requiring the complex to show me the data on their end um as a form of transparency.

Um outside of that, uh the current the law currently says that overbilling is not required, unless I know what they're being charged on their end and how they divide that to me, I can't know if they're overbilling me.

Now, there is an algorithm, an algorithm that that breaks down the bill down to each unit, but it breaks it down by tenant.

And the problem is a newborn baby is a tenant, so is a retiree that stays at home all day.

One of those uses a lot more electricity.

Um, and that's why it's it's unequal, it's unequitable.

Um, and I would just like to bring that to the attention of the council, um, the utilities and city attorney.

Um, the final request.

I know that um CRS 6-1-737 is going to come under review.

Um, and I would ask that you advocate for us at the state level.

Um, thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Rainey.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh, I just want to thank the uh thank Mr.

Hanson for being here today.

Uh he did uh bring this to matter to my attention.

We spent some time in my office uh discussing this uh maybe even maybe two weeks ago now.

Um, and I have been in contact with uh CSU uh planning uh office and some other stakeholders to at least do a deep dive to hopefully bring about, if not a resolution or at least a next path for for an individual.

So thank you very much for being here.

Thank you.

Um next uh Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thanks, uh madam president.

And I I think the thing here is it's not really CSU in a way doesn't have a dog in the flight, it's how many meters get installed at the apartment complex.

We're just providing the gas or the electricity, and then it's how is your apartment complex billing each apartment for it?

And if you could just want to be sure I understand something.

Are you saying that they divide the uh total bill by the number of units or by the number of people?

So they have an algorithm.

And I apologize, I didn't know.

Okay, come on, sorry.

They have an algorithm.

I apologize.

I didn't bring it.

They divide it by the number, the square footage of your unit and then the number of people in said unit.

Wow, so you can go into how many people are in each unit.

The problem is people use different amounts of electricity.

Yeah, yeah.

So you know, I'll let uh councilman Rainey work with you on this, but it sounds like a pretty complex uh situation.

So um, you know, good luck, uh rollant.

Next up we have Steve Whitefoot.

Good afternoon, counsel.

I'm the guy that has the John Lennon murder ban, uh, Lennon Murder Truth.com website.

Uh you guys are on my website as being corrupt, trying to saddle me with the red light camera ticket I don't deserve.

In California, they pulled this with me.

They uh they tried to give me these tickets that I didn't deserve to make me look like I'm a bad driver.

And then what do you know?

Uh somebody hits me at 60 miles an hour in the in an intersection sideways.

And uh everyone saw her run the red light and she never got a ticket.

Then the intersection was paved over the next day, so I moved to Southern California where I send in San Diego on a freeway uh Navy cadet uniformed uh tried to roll my Toyota van, slamming his truck into me as hard as he could.

He never got a ticket.

He admitted he was going 75, which is over the speed limit.

So the government was trying to kill me in California, using red lights as their vehicle to show the world after.

Oh, well, he had to come and look at his record.

Well, anyway, the same thing's happening here, and now I have lost faith in your integrity.

I think you guys are blocking me out on your TV camera.

I think nobody's being shown on the TV camera because of me and because of me alone.

That that's how corrupt you are.

You're just like all the other city councils, you get half of your income from kickbacks and under the table stuff.

I know.

But uh, now that I've come to town with some hard evidence that really is gonna rock the world.

Oh my god, Stephen King killed John Lennon.

Oh God, no, please tell us it's not true.

It's true, folks.

Nixon and Reagan really screwed you over.

That's why nobody saw trial for Mark David Chapman.

The reason nobody complained that there was no trial for Mark David Chapman is because they've castrated us and decapitated us and we're weak.

A guy like me comes along, oh my God, he's got his spine.

What are we gonna do?

Well, we're gonna we're gonna kill him just like uh California tried to.

We're gonna set him up with a ticket.

Well, the ticket I'm fighting now has got all the earmarks of corruption.

Nine degree downgrade red light with a four-second yellow.

It's too short.

Half of this city's been through that.

Now they're all going 30 miles an hour through the 40 mile an hour speed limit because they know it's a trick light.

But it's not just that innocent folks.

Uh the referee admitted she couldn't tell who the person in the in the car was by the photo.

Should have been dismissed, but she referred me to someone else.

And he uh continued the case when the witness against me didn't show up.

Normally that's a dismissal, but no, no, he's he's gonna, and he wouldn't let me make my argument until after he had ruled.

Then I'm trying to get this guy recused, and it's an automatic uh uh what's the word uh peremptory challenge?

It's automatic.

He has to be dismissed.

But this other judge wouldn't do that.

No, she goes, no, he's gonna stay in.

And the minute I said one syllable at that uh at that meeting, she goes, one more word out of you, and you're gonna be cited for contempt of court.

So they're trying to use this venue as an entrapment, like the ticket on the red light downhill with an entrapment.

They're trying to entrap me in something else.

Read my website, everybody, Lennon Murder Truth.com.

It's all about it right on my up uh new developments and footnotes, Paige.

Next up we have Laurel Um Ba.

Did I say that right?

Bay my name is Laurel Bay.

I moved to Colorado Springs 46 years ago in 19 in 1980.

I'm here to tell you that the minutes of the January 13th, 2026 meeting of the city council are not in compliance with the Colorado Open Records Act and Sunshine Laws.

I'm telling you that they need to be amended to be correct and to meet the standards of the Colorado statutes and the interpretations of those statutes.

The meetings of uh the minutes of city council meetings are the official records of proceedings at those meetings.

The minutes of a city council meeting form the rec legal record of the council's actions.

The best practices for recording city council record meetings or meeting minutes.

Note that uh they require an attendance role.

And the uh best practices note that minute takers should also note the time of any council members' departures as part of the attendance record, which is required by the open records act.

Two actions occurred at the January 13th meeting.

A council member left the meeting, and a commemorative photo was taken.

Neither neither of those actions is recorded in the minutes.

The minutes read Councilmember Donaldson stated he fully supports ICE and their activities to enforce immigration laws.

And the next statement is in the minutes.

Councilmember Gold encouraged everyone to continue Dr.

King's legacy of promoting change.

And she goes on.

Um in between those two statements, council member Donaldson left the meeting.

Um it doesn't matter which council member departed the meeting.

Um but the minutes do not reflect that departure.

They do not state that a council member stated he would not participate in a picture, referring to the Martin Luther King proclamation photograph, and that he departed the meeting.

The minutes also do not state that a photo was taken.

These two actions should be in the official record of the proceedings of the city council meeting on January 13th, 2026.

It doesn't matter which council member departed or whether they should have departed.

As our city clerk explained at the January 27th meeting, the summary of the minutes should reflect what happened at the meeting.

They do not.

Next step, we have Derek Shetron.

This is one of your tickets.

Thank you very much.

I love that we're using our tax dollars to rip off the citizens of our community.

This light was a full second shorter than it should be.

I'm not gonna pay.

I'm not you guys are cheating.

That AI is cheating.

I did prepare a speech I'd like to actually say, but I'm gonna skip to the end, seeing as how time is of the essence here.

To quote the U.S.

Department of Labor, one homeland, one people, one heritage.

That sounds familiar.

We we Hitler now.

Like, can I sign up here?

Like, where do I get my badge at?

Because I got badges.

Can I add that badge?

You don't think?

No.

I'm Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer, Sieghail Peter Thiel, and AI Wolf Hitler.

Ein AI Z Ala Zu Bahesin.

I don't know what I just said, but it was in German.

What are you doing to protect our data from bad actors and block cameras?

That's what I want to know.

Thank you.

Uh I did email you guys if you could play a clip.

Um Sam had that.

Did you get that?

No, it's fine.

I'll I'll hold my time here and wait for you guys' answers.

It's okay, you don't have to watch the video, but there is a picture of Tim Hoffman.

Uh he's lying outright about what uh Flock Safety is doing.

And I don't know if you're aware, but I made you aware last month ago when you accelerated the whole conversation last week, two weeks ago that I didn't get to attend.

So it frustrates me that you guys didn't get my email for yet again about Tim Hoffman, because it's a little meme, as well as Lewis Rossman, who's a 44-second clip of Lewis Rossman talking about AI and how Google was used to delete his platform and his advertising mediums.

And you know, he was making a really good point, and I would have loved to have him make that statement rather than myself, of course.

So if you're able to find it, it'd be under Derek Shetron 2 at Gmail, all city council.

Oh it's fine, I'll bring it back in two weeks.

But I would like to know how are you guys protecting our data?

I need an answer on it.

I think all of these good people decide to.

I don't consent to the biometrics of my face being taken from me when I'm walking the streets.

I'm responsible for what I've checked marked in my phone.

But I walk into the streets and my personal identifying information, my geometric location, my biometrics, they're being harvested with the help of the city and then used by private companies to subvert the judicial branch and not get judicial warrants.

Is this serious?

We need to stop what we're doing with that.

What do we do?

Who owns those cameras?

Who's getting all that money?

Because it my biometric data is priceless, and I do not consent.

These guys are on the cameras, not us.

Our data isn't under our control.

I don't care what your contract says.

And that concludes citizens' comments and city council meeting for today.

We are adjourned.

Lovely.

The children run away to a recess yet again.

I'll see a guy.