Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hi, this is a test to see if the interpreter can hear in this room. We're testing the audio. Thanks for giving a second to test the audio. Maybe.

Yeah, thank you. Okay.

Okay. I'm going to bring the um April 28th planning and zoning regular meeting to order. Um so th this meeting is also held via Zoom and people can dial in at 719359-4580. Um, and the ID is 8638055264. Um, let's start up with roll call. Uh, Chair Waller here, Commissioner Gman. Commissioner Hton here. Commissioner Conton. Commissioner Cochran here. Commissioner Jones. Um,

okay. One Yeah. One one thing we need to do is Kyle is an alternate, so he's we need to we need to seat Carl. So, I need a motion. Kyle.

Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to seat Commissioner Kyle Jones. Jones. Okay. Do I have a second? I'll second that. Okay. We'll just do a we'll just do a hand thing. All in favor? Hi, welcome Kyle. Welcome Kyle. Welcome everyone here tonight. Um, okay. Are there any comments from citizens appearing for items not on the agenda? We have one agenda item.

Okay. And there's none, we'll move on. Um, the new item tonight is planning file number 22-03, special use permit number 4-04, 100 Midland Avenue, Sweet 110 and 210 enforcement action for section 070.010.080. Um, okay Trent.

Okay. Good evening, commissioners. Trent Hyatt with Economic and Community Development here to present an enforcement action regarding planning file 22-03 or special use permanent 4-04. Section 7108A of the Glowwood Springs Municipal Code outlines the procedures to ensure compliance with the provisions of the code and how to address violations. Section 701080B um Section 7010 U 80 B subsection B outlines that activities inconsistent with the permit are a violation of the code and are punishable per section 701080e penalties and remedies. Section 701080e2B outlines that the planning and zoning commission shall have the power to deny, withhold, revoke, require corrective actions, or to direct city employees or agents of the city to enter onto the premises to take corrective actions. Uh just to address the location of this, uh we're discussing 100 Midland Avenue, suites 110 and 210. Um their property is zoned commercial CO. It was formerly zoned commercial C3. Uh it's located in the western part of our city just south of Interstate 70. Little bit of background on this case. In May 27th, 2003, this commission unanimously approved a special use permit um submitted by the United States General Services Administration for um a

detention center for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The condition of that special use permit was that all development shall be in accordance with approved plans and application materials. On December 14th, 2004, a final building inspection was conducted by the city. A temporary certificate of occupancy was issued for building group type B business and I3 for detention and correctional facilities earlier this year, January 29th, 2026, subject um of a Colorado open records request um informed the city that a full certific certificate of occupancy was never issued for that use. Um, I do want to point out that final inspections are only allowed or approved when all life safety and building related matters have been reviewed and approved by both the building official and the fire marshal. Um, however, in this instance, consideration of the final CO was transferred to other units in the building that were al also under construction. Based on the time of the year, we can only suspect or assume that there were other outside uh improvements that were necessary. That could be asphalt paving, that could be final landscaping, but there would not have been any occupancy of that space if there were any life safety issues unresolved at that time. February 18th, 2026, the city made contact with the tenants of that space um to ask questions um to tour the facility. On February 25th, the building, community development, and fire departments inspected the office/detention facility and did identify a few life safety issues that we wanted to have the tenant um and the property owner address. Um, I want to point out that those are listed here on the screen, but those are typical issues that any building of this age, multiple decades, 22 years old, would would be

the subject of at at this time after being occupied for that that amount of time. However, the city was not going to issue a CO for that use until these life safety issues were addressed by the applicant. On March 6, 2026, the city received information from a Freedom of Information Act request showing that the condition number one details related to the 12-hour maximum hold time had be been exceeded on at least 11 occurrences both in September and August of 2025. On March 25th, um due to those violations of that condition number one of the special use permit, the city issued a notice of violation to both the property owner and the tenants of the building. On April 1st, 2026, an additional foyer request was obtained by the city that showed additional exceedences of the 12-h hour hold time, and those were occurring in years 2022, 2025, as well as as recent as March of this year in 2026. Um, we are also aware of media reports um with dates of of hold times going back to 2012 that have shown additional exceedences of the 12-h hour maximum bolt time. On August 9th, 2026, our building official and fire marshall reinspected the property and determined that the previous identified issues had been corrected and the C certificate of occupancy was issued at that time. Section 701080E2C outlines the criteria that the commission shall consider um and and any action and any any enforcement action of a previously issued special use permit. Criteria number one that there has been a departure from the approved plan specifications, limitations or conditions as required by the entitlement. I think it's clear um with the exhibits that have been provided to the commission and outlined in the staff

report that there have been departures from the SUP that was approved back in 2004 but and requested by the applicant therefore a subsequent violation of SU condition number one. Two that the entitlement was established by false representation. The city does not have any evidence at this time that there was clear intent by the applicant that they were that they were going to exceed the 12-hour maximums required and agreed to back in 2004. Three, that the entitlement was issued an error. We have no reason to believe the original entitlement was issued an error. Um, that use was allowed via special review in the former C3 zone district. So it continues today as a legal non-conforming use. That hearing back in 2003, I I'm sorry, was duly noticed and it received unanimous 70 approval from this very commission. Therefore, this criteria is not applicable. Four, there's any other violation of this code. Staff is not aware of any other violation of this code at this time. So therefore, number four is also not applicable. The city published notice of this hearing in the Glowen Springs Post Independent on April 17th and um 24th of 2026. Apologize there. Um we have received many comments. We received comments prior to tonight's hearing um in advance of ever scheduling consideration of enforcement action against the the special use permit. um those are generally in opposition to um the use of agency operating in our community, our valley. The concerns also outline um issues with the exceedence of the 12-h hour hold times identified in the original SUP. We have also received comments that are in

support of the tenant or at least not in opposition to the tenant um from others that that occupy space at 100 Midland as well as 120 Midland. action alternatives and staff recommendations. Section 701080E2B again gives you the power to deny, withhold, revoke, require corrective measures or to direct agents of the city to enter the property to take corrective action. staff recommends um due to the applicability of criteria one in this enforcement action um we recommend that the applicant be required to take corrective actions to address the violation. There is a suggested motion here from staff as well as findings that support that motion and a suggested condition relating to the recommended corrective action. You also have motions provided to you tonight to deny the special use permit, to withhold the special use permit, to revoke the special use permit, to ask the city to take corrective actions, or to continue the hearing at the request of additional information. And I'll be happy to answer any questions, but our city attorney, Carl Halen, would also like to approach the the podium. You

guys want to ask questions or you want to have me talk? Um, up to you. Why don't I go and then you guys ask? We'll ask you questions as we go.

Good evening, uh, commissioners and everyone here. I appreciate you being here. Um, I I'm really here just to walk through um, a couple of things. One is to kind of remind you of the decision-making box that you are in. Um, and the other one which I think is incredibly important is to make sure you understand the limitations of what your decision here tonight will do. And I think it's important for the public to understand the limitations we have as well. Trent outlined that you have a number of action alternatives underneath our local code and zoning ordinances. Um, and all of those are incredibly important. And I think as we were putting this together, we felt it incredibly important that we hold this hearing and that we have this conversation and that you guys take action. I think what I need to do though is to frame up and set expectations for you and for the public and for frankly our my council um city council. Uh and and that really relates to the supremacy clause in the constitution and also federal law as it relates to federal agencies leasing or operating uh within a local jurisdiction. In 2003 when the General Services Administration applied for that SUP permit, that special use permit, um they did did that really underneath um 40 USCS 3312 and also the code of federal regulations that were in place at the time. which encourages federal agencies to ask for and cooperate with local jurisdictions regarding matters of building codes and zoning, but does not require them to do so. And so in 2003, while they did apply, they would not have had to have applied uh nor would they have to have accepted the terms of the SUP uh to go in and utilize that space. um in

I'm going to walk through 42 USC 3312 um which on its face and in different times is incredibly helpful um and important to local jurisdictions. It lays out that the GSA or the federal agency should comply with national standards andor local building codes to the extent feasible. It provides similarly that they should consider but are not required to conform to local zoning laws which is what this special use permit and use in this location is that they should cooperate to the extent feasible with the local officials and agencies regarding inspections of those premises. It also provides that local government officials may make recommendations for how the GSA or an agency should meet those local requirements. Uh which is incredibly important and I think is what we really saw in 2003 um in terms of that application process and what they walked through. Unfortunately, the crux for our purposes in enforcing taking any enforcement action against the federal government is that as you know underneath supremacy clause by and large um we can't enforce against the federal government unless there is a specific delegation to the local authority that an agency will comply with that local authority or be subject to. In this regard, 40 USC 3312 section F provides that an action may not be brought against the federal government and a fine or penalty may not be imposed against the government for failure to meet the requirements of this section.

Essentially meaning that they can ignore us. And so I don't want anybody's expectations to be that this facility will cease to operate tomorrow depending on what you do tonight or that we have a judicial remedy to force that to occur. Um I more than likely would be bounced out of federal court relatively quickly were I to try to enforce that based on the case laws that exist today. That having been said, it doesn't mean that this hearing isn't incredibly important. It doesn't mean that there is sufficient record information in the record as it stands even before the testimony from a ton of people who actually when I was looking around the room like a lot of them like me have been here for quite a while. And so it's cool to see everybody out uh and here and on this issue that you have more than enough evidence to revoke. But what I do not want is for anybody to be confused about the outcome of you taking that action. It's incredibly important for us as a community to make that statement. For me as the attorney for the city of Glennwood Springs, I have almost no options to enforce that outcome and I just don't want there to be any confusion about that. Happy to take any questions. Commissioner Hton,

this may be a Trent question, but um going through the alternate motions, the alternate actions from the staff recommendation, what's deny versus revoke. What's the difference there? That's that's actually a great question and I don't really know why it got drafted that way. My suggestion would be is you pick the one that says revoke and use that one tonight. Okay. And then maybe for Trent, this in the staff report, there's a mention of uh issues with a subcontractor leading to the violation of this 12-h hour uh limit. Is where did that come from? Is that from the permit holder? Is that assumption?

Uh that's from the tenant. That was their explanation for for some of the issues that they've had with exceedences. Thank you. Commissioner Conton. Um, thank you so much, Carl. Um, so if it was not revoke and if we put on a whole bunch of stipulations, is there more oversight to that area if that were the case?

Only if they choose to abide by them, honestly. And I think as Trent and I tried to work through, is there a way to get more transparency? Is there a way to get more information recognizing um and I you see a lot of the signs here um tonight, a lot of them related to other um temporary hold facilities that have exceeded these numbers significantly. um and the fact that it's been a number of uh lawsuits to get that foyer information that I'm relying on that were prosecuted by the deportation um information project out in California. Uh we're just trying to look for maybe a little bit more transparency recognizing that we had limited tools to work with.

Okay. Was that violation that happened in March after the Nov? I think it was right before the NOV. I think it was a March 5th violation. And we weren't actually aware of that until a new a new download of FOY information came out um through late in March. That was that was through about March 10th. So, we didn't we didn't know about it at the time of the NOV. I believe that um the NOV might have been issued after it or before it rather. I can't remember.

It it was issued after um on May 25th the notice of violation. Um but the information related to that exceedence was just provided to us last week.

Yeah. So, so the timing is off but yeah they they had violated again. I uh the other piece that I probably should have um provided information about is that in June of last year um the um DH Department of Homeland Security and ICE issued a new memo um saying that it was now acceptable to hold in temporary hold facilities for 72 hours versus the 12. Um obviously that creates a number of problems because these facilities aren't designed to do that. Um and you will see I think the most successful litigation around this has been underneath the 10th amendment for um conditions in those facilities. You see those lawsuits being brought in like Aurora. Um I think there was one in Chicago for the facility in the suburb of Chicago. Um I believe one in California and one in Oregon that I just off the top of my head. So that's usually where enforcement on that issue has come.

Um I I have a question. One thing I saw in the staff report, it talked about the difference between on the federal exemption between leased and owned buildings. So, this is a leased space, right?

Yeah. And I I was pretty hopeful on that one and I I chased a couple of legal theories there and the reality is there's a pretty much a case on point um relatively recently um where GSA was successful in saying that even on leased premises um while they uh endeavored to comply with local the local jurisdiction if it impaired their ability or their mission that they could ignore it. And I think that really goes to the re um the the um code of federal regulations that kind of fleshed some of this out was repealed in December of of this last year. And while I can't speculate as to the reason to that, I think we probably all know why um related to some of these lawsuits would be my best guess.

Commissioner Conton, um have they responded at all to the NOV? No. No response today. So, they're not present. Thank you. Okay. Um, you need to hold public needs to hold their comments. Thank you, Claire. Mr. Go. Um I was wondering in the um staff report there was a uh monitoring instrument that they had submitted back in 2003 about what they were going to monitor inside the jail or in the detention center.

Um started on maybe Trent can speak to that one. I think you're referring to one of the documents that outlined the operation procedures. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We have not received any any documentation of their operations inside other than what we've observed on site. Do we know the size of the holding cells? Exact size. Um I did not measure them when on site, but um I would say approximately 10 by 12. multiple cells, one for male and one for female. Two cells, one for male, one for female. Correct.

And then there's in the um I guess what they had submitted for application, there was a minimum size requirement per single cell and I saw on one day there was like up to six people held in a single cell. That is that or is that in two cells? Do we even know? I don't know how they were held internally. Can't speak. Yeah, I don't think the data the data that was released as part of the FOYA doesn't necessarily give. We'd have to make a best guess. Um, and most of it is redacted. So, names are are gone. So, it there is some male and female data, but we'd have to go back and look at that to try to nail down where all six of those men or women.

I feel like they were all male and it was one just one day. There was a lot of I think that was like the April of 2025. Same time. Yeah. I think it was um it was in May. May or May of 202. So does that mean I mean so I guess in addition to holding longer bench 12 hours they also violated their own policy an outline of how many I don't I don't think we have knowledge of how people were held inside the building. So it I mean I mean that could be an assumption but they could have been separated in various cells. We you know you said there's only two cells

that's correct about 10 by 12 right? Correct. Okay,

Commissioner Conton, this is for Trent. Trent, so um based on the data, would staff characterize the exceedences as isolated incidences or a recurring pattern over time? It is a recurring pattern over time, but I think they're also isolated. Um, you know, just from what I've, you know, the staff has expressed to me, it's never their intent to hold folks beyond the the 12-h hour maximum that was identified originally in the SUP.

Yeah. I guess what I would say is that you know we um based on the report and Elanor is in the room or in the next room um from Aspen public radio I think she was the one that that dug up the going back to 2012 we've seen some exceedences in almost every year um I think as a percentage of total um you know obviously there's a greater number of exceedences in 2025 when there was also a far greater number of people held and it seems to be running at around I don't know it's 10 to 15% Um, so again, I think on the terms of the special use permit, you have more than enough evidence to revoke if you would like to. Um, like I said, I think there's a clear pattern there.

Mr. D, under city code, who's ultimately responsible for violations? The permit holder? Is it the property? Where where does this land? I think on this one it lands on both the property owner and the and the applicant who applied for the special use permit. Um, federal agencies are a little weird because they lease property a lot and they generally do that through the GSA who then has whoever the actual tenant is in doing whatever they happen to be doing anything from the post office to ICE. So in this instance, if there was liability um to or responsibility to attach, it would be to GSA. Um case law also shows that you can't um sort of endun the provisions that I read to you and the supremacy clause by going just after the owner who has the lease with the federal government. Trust me, I tried to chase that one down, too. Um as another lever point.

Thank you. Commissioner Jones. Yeah, I was going to ask about the LEI as well. Um, but I kind of I think I know the answer to this, but assuming the supremacy clause, um, even if we were to amend that special use permit to try to make those more hospitable or better conditions in the case that, you know, they're still going to operate no matter what happens here, that can also be ignored.

Yeah. No, I think that's I think that's the takeaway. I mean, that that's why I said and I don't want us to get too hung up on whether or not, you know, I can I can enforce this decision tomorrow. I just didn't want anybody's expectations to be off as to what the likelihood that that could occur is. I think for your purposes and the decision-m box you have, did they violate? I think that's kind of a given at this point. What's the remedy, if any, under our code? And then to the extent that we can enforce, we will enforce. And to the extent we can't, we can't. But for you guys, it's really a two-step process. It's pretty straightforward. Even with the um recommendation from city staff, you know, it's what there's no stick that we can have to to require a quarterly report to

there's not I mean literally I mean trying to find a level of transparency if we could get somebody to cooperate with us, you know, is that an outcome that I would like to see and that's my preferred outcome? Absolutely not. Is it a you know for Trent and I I think we're just trying to find some way to get something better out of this than what we are afraid we will be left with. Thank you.

Good. Um, so you know, one thing that's kind of come up and and I don't think you talked about it too much trend just kind of cursorally, but but is the is you know, this is it's a commercial space and is is it the right use per code? Could you talk about that?

Yeah. Um, you know, just to be clear, um, the CO commercial zone district today, um, does not outline this use, um, as as one that would be allowed via, um, or by right or via special review. However, at the time of approval in 2003, it was identified as a special review use um, for this parcel um, that was annexed into the city into the mid 90s. Um and there were various other stipulations for for uses that were outlined but um it it would you know generally be allowed to continue as a legal nonconforming use. It does not conform to the code today but it was legally established at the time.

So we so it would be allowed because it was because at the time that was approved. Right. Okay. Correct. Um and and on Well, I'm sorry, Kyle. Commissioner Jones. Oh, you're good. Okay. I have a couple other questions. So, so the so the the data comes from the Freedom of Information Act. Is that where and and we don't have data from back to 2004 on. Is that right? I mean, I mean, does that data exist or

you know, it may I don't know. And I I will give credit to Aspen Public Radio for doing that research on I mean we're relying on um what was delivered as part of these spoil lawsuits. Um that was pretty much I think it's 22 on um from my standpoint it felt like that was the most relevant data in any case in terms of what is occurring today. Um, and certainly what has been I mean it's easier to look at it and go it was a one-off in 2012, but there was one exceedence of a certain number of hours versus there is a number of them into in 2025 um when the facility is is in much greater use. I think we really wanted to focus on that more recent data.

Okay, Commissioner Gman, this doesn't have to do with code, but going back to the original applicant, they talked a lot about how This would be really good for the city because um ICE was working with the police department and Trident and they were taking um undocumented um prisoners here and so it was helping the city. Do we have any idea if they're still bringing the undocumented people? Well, I mean a couple of things or are they um

where are they getting these people? Well, I through their enforcement operations recognizing in Colorado since 22, I believe, um it has been illegal to cooperate for local law enforcement to cooperate in immigration uh in any form. Um so from that point forward, there's never been an interaction where our police department would be picking somebody up on behalf of ICE or dealing with ICE in that way. that's just not something that we do and we're not allowed to do under state law. So I, you know, I don't know. Um 2003 was a long time ago and you've got to remember that this was about 18 months after 911. Um Department of Homeland Security was just being stood up. So I don't I don't know that anybody necessarily knew exactly how everything was going to work back then. Um and I don't know that I can't recall in my time on and off with the city as the attorney that we've ever engaged in immigration activities at all.

Well, this is what was in the application. Yeah. And I don't and and so I guess where I'm going with that is whether it was in the application or not, I don't think it was something that was a deciding factor for the planning commission back then um or how it would play out today.

Thank you. Um, another question I think you talked this Trent was that the So there was a TCO that was done and and may maybe one thing to just talk about would be so how did that happen? I mean I mean you know a TCO and then you know until there was a core request did we find that out? So I mean what any any insights on that or lessons to be learned for other places? Uh well this type of situation uh would be prevented today uh because of our our permitting software and how we evaluate um temporary certificates of occupancy on a weekly basis. Um, you know, I I think at the time, um, based on the time of year, you know, we can just really only assume that it was an oversight. You know, many times um especially during the winter months like December, temporary certificates of occupancy are issued because there are other things that need to be accomplished outside of the building that it's not a good time of year to do in terms of installing landscaping, asphalt paving, confirming that parking requirements are being met. And in this instance, there were other suites within the building being completed as well. So the responsibility for the closing out of that temporary certificate of occupancy, converting that to a full certific certificate of occupancy were transferred to other units in that building that were still under construction. So I I think it was just mainly an oversight um when it came time for certificates of occupancy for those units.

Yeah. With it being a condominium versus a single family. Um and then and then like a follow up on that and I know you kind of talked about this but I know there's a lot of questions in the in the questions we got or comments we got from the public but um so all of the I mean there so so a CO was issued so all of the physical building issues have been dealt with. Is that correct?

Yeah, that's correct. Um, you know, I again I want to reiterate there's no reason in 2004 that we would have issued a final inspection approval of that building if any life safety issues remained. We would not have allowed anyone to enter and occupy and use that space. Um in terms of the issuance today, we were allowed to inspect that facility and we identified some um life safety issues, other um smaller concerns that we asked the applicant to address in order to obtain that certificate of occupancy. They did um address those issues. Uh but again in terms of characterizing those issues, you know, while they may have been life safety related, they are very typical for a 20 plus year old facility to to have those types of issues pop up.

You may want to address I think wasn't the primary one the sprinkler system. Yeah. That was building wide. Yeah. And one of those issues was was compliance with um National Fire Protection Act or agency requirements for sprinkler maintenance. Um again, that's supposed to occur after a building has been utilized or that space has been used for 20 years. You have to confirm that those are still operational. Um, again, that was a an issue buildingwide. Um, unspecific to this tenant in this suite and all of those were fine though. I mean, as you as you from your findings?

Yeah. Um, a licensed contractor was hired um by the the HOA to evaluate a certain number of sprinklers in in the building, random from through for throughout the building to confirm that they were still operational. That test was passed um and therefore there was a reinspection of of that um the reports um and the building itself to issue a full CO. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Gman, can you also talk about the evacuation?

Yeah, an evacuation plan was also a requirement by the fire marshall back in 2004. Um, they provided that evacuation plan to us and made sure that it was posted in prominent locations within the space. And it's specific for detained individuals.

Yeah, correct. And that's the sensitivity there, right? as you have folks locked in a building that's on fire, who's responsible for for removing those folks from the facility? And yes, that was provided. Um, another question I have is and and I probably know the answer, but is the so in exhibit B that you went through and there that was quite lengthy. Um, Commissioner Gman kind of talked at that a little bit, but is is there was um descriptions for how how the facility is set up, how the whole facility is set up. And I I guess my question is is that you know there was 12 hours and then there was the memo that came out June 25th or June whatever it was of 2025 that bumped it up to 72 hours kind of thing. So, is is that is there anything that that that relates to how how we would um hold prisoners here if they're up to that that makes changes or is is is that a question for the applicant more or

Yeah. I mean, if they were here, I guess I would love to hear their answer to that. I do think that the issue with that and the issue with that memo and why it has been um created so many problems and like I said you you see some of the signs um you know I think 39 days um is these facilities were never designed um particularly these facilities right like I I know there's been a lot of um other facilities rented or built or whatever by ICE and I can't speak to those but for these types of facilities that were permitted uh and built underneath those regul populations at time. They're not designed for people to be there longer than 12 hours. They're not designed as overhead or overnight facilities necessarily. Um so absolutely that creates an issue. Um that certainly is part of the reason why you're, you know, it's in front of you to the extent that we can enforce why we're here talking about it

without changing that design. Yeah. Great. Um could could you talk at that memo just a just a touch and I mean I mean is that I mean

well yeah I mean I think it's I think it's reflective of what I talked about in terms of you know ultimately the federal government in this space um in the context of immigration fully occupies the space if you will in terms of the supremacy clause in terms of how they uh how we would evaluate um you know underneath the the USC statute that I cited on cooperation to the extent feasible. You know, they were careful in that memo to to couch it in terms of the necessity of doing that. Uh I think they might have even thrown in national security. I can't remember because that's one of the the big sort of like no rules apply if it's um because of national security reasons. And so, you know, that's an internal change in policy for them. um that in terms of our approval back in 2003 um limiting it to 12 hours, it doesn't, you know, from our standpoint, it doesn't matter what that memo says in terms of what the special use permit was issued. Is it evidence for them to say, "Look, we never exceeded 72 hours and we've made a self-determination that that's that's what the limit is now." Probably. I mean, these are these are the things that make this stuff really hard to enforce against um against the federal government and against this agency,

right? Yeah. I just on for me on reading the memo was that it said from that date it was a one-year it was a one year one time.

We'll see. I you know I think it's interesting like I said I think some of the most successful lawsuits in this space and I digress a little bit have been really brought on the actual conditions and on behalf of classes of people or individuals that were held and asserting their rights under particularly the fifth and the 10th amendments um regarding imprisonment and I think that those are the spaces that have been successful. Uh it is not local land use regulation that has been successful in in in any of this. it's been relying on those constitutional claims on behalf of particular inmates. Okay. Or classes of inmates.

Um I have another question um on on the um this is kind of a nuance question maybe but um on the 12 hours I think one thing that was in the staff report it talked about transportation issues or that and to me it's 12 hours is 12 hours. I mean the transportation is like who knows whether that's true or not or or what's your take on that on

again you know this is just uh in terms of how it was explained to me u but as you can imagine this agency has had some um increased activity um over the last 12 18 months um so transportation to the facility in Aurora has been delayed in certain inst instances and therefore leading to um exceedences of the 12-h hour. You know, my um experience with the conversations with our our our local um agency um you know, agents is that, you know, they're they're folks that that live and work in our communities and want to get home, too. Um and and they've also had to to sit around and wait for that transportation to the the facility in Aurora.

Okay. Thank you. Um any other questions from Oh, Commissioner G.

So whether we um motion to revoke or not, is that solely based on the 12hour time or is there other conditions that they have not met for safety? Uh there's um specifically they talk about how um there's supposed to be, you know, sufficient seating for for um detaininees. They're supposed to log whether they give them meals. They're supposed to log who's like keeping an eye on these detaininees and how often they're checked on. um how many officers are there, where they're sitting, do we have any of this information? And the fact that we don't, isn't that another reason that we would be able to revoke?

I mean, I think two things there. Um yes, if you guys um made that finding, I I think it would be I think that um you know, that represents an internal policy document. I don't know that it was a representation that they would deliver that information to us. what we do have that I view as a defensible set of information as this would work through say an appeals process and the normal the normal process um under state law right which would be you guys would make a decision potentially they would appeal it to the city council city council would make a decision that would go to the state court under what's called a 106 um I would have to be able to defend that we had competent evidence in the record to support the decision that you made and what we do have is their information that they have provided in response to a foyer foyer request and a lawsuit that demonstrates they have exceeded 12 hours on multiple occasions. From my perspective, that is the most defensible information we have and more than sufficient to support any decision you make uh up to and including revocation. And so that's really where I'm I think when we delivered that to you guys, that's the most defensible information. The rest of it is more supposition about what's going on or not going on. Um, but that stuff is their own records that they provided said that they violated the terms of this SUP. So that's kind of why we were relying on that. And Connie, just to to speak to your specific question, our or issues, um, you know, I I observe that they do have food um that is available for folks there. They do have water that is available for folks that are there. They do have uh seating areas for folks that that are held there. So, I I you know, I just want to be careful and making any

assumptions about things that we don't necessarily have evidence for. You done or you have another Okay, you commissioner got I turned you off. I just think it would have been nice if they would have come and they could have provided this information. Well, they're next. We'll see. Commissioner Held,

I mean, I guess closely following up in in your observations, are there more than five employees working at this facility, which I know was specifically called out in the application and the staff report at the time of the special use permit issuance? I did not observe more than five. Is that the question? Sorry. Yeah. So, you observe five? Uh, I did not observe five either. I did not observe five. I did not observe more than five. I observed less than Thank you.

And you know a follow-up question maybe and I I'll just try to answer it. There were there were no detainees there when I was there on two occasions. And sorry Connie, I just did want to follow up. Um it was explained to me um that you know when someone is booked when a detainee is booked at this hold facility that they are under constant observation by at least one agent.

Commissioner Jones. Uh Carl, going back to something you said about some of the most successful cases you've seen have to do I can't remember the terminology used but around conditions.

Yeah. I mean, if you if you look at um the lawsuits that have been successful in in sort of changing um uh and that we've seen some court rulings u favorable to detaineees um those have really been brought on behalf of specific detainees or classes of detainees. I think there's an ongoing one with the Aurora facility which like I said I know there's a couple of signs in the room um is sort of notorious for the long the overly long hold times uh beyond the 72 hours even. Uh I think there's a New Jersey case that is similar to that where uh an injunction was issued about the hold time same issue because they exceeded even their own internal policies and the conditions were not um of a nature to be able to hold people for that length of time. So those are all things that are brought um on behalf of individual detainees by typically you know ACLU or somebody like that as a separate lawsuit. They're not um they're not local, you know, a local government trying to enforce its zoning laws, I guess, is where I was going with that. I was trying to distinguish between those two types of uh actions that have been successful and not successful.

So, in pursuit of us seeking compliance and safety within our zoning, you don't see a path in that direction for the city to be successful? I I you know that I I I don't see a likely successful path. Um and and I'll be honest with you, if I were talking about the BLM uh violating local zoning laws, I'd probably see a better path than one that is um has multiple executive orders regarding the importance of it, the national security aspects of it, all of those kinds of things. Um, I think that in combination with the plain language of the statute that I read to you and the case law that our likelihood of success is almost zero on trying to enforce this to to have a particular outcome on the ice facility. Um, and that I guess what I'm looking to is that you know where where that could be successful is I know there are a number of attorneys in TAM, several of them who have written to you. My hope would be that maybe they would take up that cause um on behalf of those actual detainees regarding conditions there and I think that would be the most successful path as opposed to the one that I have available to me. Um I one maybe it's it's a procedural question. Um we received three um community comments right as we sat down. One of them is very thorough um Miss Noon. Um and so so I guess my my question is is should we and I was just kind of glancing at it. You know, it's very very well written. And so should we um take a few minutes as as a group to read through that or and I don't know cla I mean you're down for public comment coming up a little bit later but

um you know I I think what what what we would need to do would be to read through it to kind of go through Yeah. I think um I think that's your your call on how you want to handle that. I mean that comment did come in uh relatively I mean it came in today. It's always tough for the the commission to to you know digest things that are multiple pages day of um certainly we always accept them. So I think it's up to you if you want to you know take a short break and do that. I don't know if you want to um take public comment and then take the time to do that. I think it's your call.

Yeah. I mean, the only reason I was thinking of it, you know, there might be something that comes out that leads us to ask some questions that that um Claire has in here. And um I mean, we're going to have I mean, how the process goes is I don't know if the applicant's here or not, but we'll next hear from the applicant if they are here. We'll have questions of the applicant and then we have public comment and then it comes back to us as well. So, we could do it at a different time. I don't know if Claire if you have a I mean I am I am happy to um kind of talk through the the um kind of additional um factual and legal um basis that I thought was important for the

thing is you'll have three minutes though. I I I was going to say before we and I maybe not to get in I know we know all each other but I'm going to suggest back and forth if you open up to Miss Noon you probably need to open it up to everybody in the room on on how you're going to do that. Can I make the suggestion is that you have a lot of people here who want to comment. You take those public comments and then if you want to take a short break after that to read through the documents that you got before you come back together. Yeah. Um and make a motion. I think that might be the most efficient thing and respectful for everybody's time. And I'm good with that because because we'll be able to have that in our conversation at the end as well.

Okay. Um, any other questions for from from for Trent or Carl? Okay, thank you very much. Um, okay. And next is the applicant. I don't know if the applicant is online or in the room. I see no hands being raised online. I see no one reaching up. So assuming the applicant is not present. Um so now we'll take public comment and and um so so what what here here's kind of how how the public comment will go is people have three minutes. We have people online. We'll look for hands being raised online if they want to speak.

Um, we do have interpretation services being provided. Our interpreter is asking for a short break just because she's been on for a very long time. So, could I suggest we take maybe a fivem minute break before we start public comment? If you want to finish your how it's going to go, but just we want to make sure that um she has a break. Okay. And everybody everybody heard that that there is an interpreter. Okay. Zri, are you the Okay, so we'll be back on at um seven. Well, let's say five after seven. Thank you.

start the um the public hearing. Um so so do we have the uh the interpreter? Bri, are you the on let's make sure we're online. Somebody separate is working on the Zoom for us. Okay. It's not Bri, but Okay. Make sure everything is set up and ready to go here. Just give us a second. Yeah. And I had a comment of us not speaking into the mics, I think, enough. So, we need to make sure for us as we're working so people can That would be you.

That would be me. I'm so short. What's the problem? Okay. Um, okay. So, for the for the public comment, there's a signup sheet and and and if people didn't sign up, when we get to the end, people can still speak. So, we'll we'll bring them up. Um, people have three minutes each when you come up, when we call you up, give your name and and uh do you reside in the city limits or not? um for people online and we so we have some people online. You need to make sure that you raise your hand so that so that we know to uh to call you or not. Um and there and there's there there's no presentations at this time. So I mean if if so there's no presentations from the podium, but if you do have something that you want to hand to us that you've done, you can go on and give that to us. Just for clarification, there's no electronic presentation. It just takes too long to get it hooked up to like pull something up on screen, right? And everybody's

And then there's there's there's no combined um combining times. We're just doing three minutes each with the size size of the group that we have as well. Um okay. So, I'm how how I'm going to do this and we'll see. I see no hands raised online. So, there was a signup sheet that that I'm going to start from and and um I'll just go through and and I appreciate it very much. Um so, the first one is Claire Noon.

I'll do some poetry. Okay. May I just speak into this microphone? Yeah, I think that's the press's mic. Oh, wearing it. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Hello, my name is Claire Nune. I uh was born and raised in Glennwood Springs. Um am a local attorney here and um this matters greatly to me. I am a child of this community and I'm a mother of this community. Um I would like of course to uh reference the um legal analysis of the special use permit that I provided um to the city clerk today and he um assured that it was passed on to you and made part of the official administrative record. Um this uh is a matter of you know grave concern to um the life, health and safety of our community. Um the facts here presented inside the illegal analysis are presented as as best as I could without the um without any sort of um bias or spin but literally just looking at the law looking at the facts and applying them appropriately in a manner that I do not think that you were given in the staff report. Um specifically speaking I I wanted to address very clearly the burden of proof here. It is not a a matter of a lack of an evidence, a lack of a record can be presumed to be a good faith effort. We are not considering intent of the occupiers at this point into how they make violations or why they make violations. What we are looking at here is what is of record which there is ample record thanks to lots of diligent um open records requesting by the people here. There's ample evidence um present to um be for wide reaching investigation and review of this special use permit. But because we are here on the 12-hour hold period, um I think that we need to focus on the 12-h hour hold period. Um just for your knowledge, um I do immigration um law and did a lot of detention work um

specifically in the first Trump administration. The 12-hour period is not arbitrary. It is the del line of delineation between um a temporary space and a permanent space. In a temporary space, you have no beds, no right to an attorney, you have no right to make phone calls to family members, you have no medical or mental health screening, you have at best a meal after six hours. Um you have no um hygiene, no showers, and no beds. past 12 hours. The 12-h hour plus facility provides all of those things. You have the rights that are awarded and like given to people in detention spaces in the United States.

20 sec 20 seconds. Claire, uh um this is if we look just at the fire code, just at the life safety, we know that fire happens in that location. That is within the burn scar of the Colam fire. I know many of us remember that. Right now, we do not have on the record evidence that proves that if a fire were to happen there right now where we're all in here, that those people can get out.

Thank you very much, Claire. Um, the next one is Ashley Okay.

Good evening. My name is Ashley Stall and I'm a homeowner here in Glenwood Springs. You'll forget almost every vote you cast on this commission. The variances, the setbacks, the design reviews, but you will never forget tonight. This is a decision that will define you as a human. You've just heard staff recommend that you uphold this permit. Let me be clear. You're being asked to trust the same people who allowed this facility to operate illegally for 23 years, who never required a certificate of occupancy, who never demanded inspections, who looked away while our most marginalized community members were separated from their families and held in unsafe conditions. They failed this community for two decades, and now they're asking you to protect them from accountability. Don't do it. 23 years ago, Carbondale said no to this facility, so it came here. And this is what 23 years looks like. A seven-year-old girl comes home from school. Her father is gone, deported, packed, picked up for a broken tail light with no criminal charges, just gone. She doesn't understand. How could she? She's seven. That's one story. And there's over a hundred more from just last year. More than a 100 families destroyed, spouses gone, children left without parents. And that's just deportations. This facility's officers have followed us in their vehicles, inches from our bumper, rev revving their engines and flashing their brights while our children were in the car. They showed up at our home to intimidate us. The HOA and Midland Fitness slandered me and threatened to sue me into silence. Cora requests prove that they surveil residents who challenge them. If you vote yes tonight, you own it. Every child who comes home to find their parent gone, every family ripped apart, every citizen harassed, that becomes yours. Now listen, the law is on your side. This facility violated its permit for 23 years. Your conscience is on your side. What's happening here

is wrong, and you know it. The community is on your side. Look at how many people are here. The overflow room is overflowing. You just need courage. History will remember your names. This community will not forget what you chose tonight. You cannot say you were just following orders. You cannot hide behind their recommendations. This is your choice, your vote, your conscience. 23 years ago, Carbondale had that courage. And tonight, you can finish what they started. Your children are watching. Your grandchildren will ask. Someday you will look back at tonight and you will know whether you had the courage you needed when it mattered. A seven-year-old girl came home and her father was gone. That's as simple as it gets.

You have the power to stop it. Revoke this permit. Thank you.

Thank you, Ashley. Um, Aaron. Yeah.

Hi, my name is Aaron Anderson. I use they them pronouns and I'm a Glenwood Springs resident. There are brilliant people here willing to speak to y'all tonight. I hope you listen to them. people who have much more technical analysis of the building codes and fire inspections. I I second all of it. They have done their homework and they have documentation for everything being said here. If you find yourself wanting proof or evidence, ask for it. It will be happily provided. What I want to speak to personally is what it means to be a mom in a small town with small town government watching this horror play out in our tiny spaces. I grew up here and now have the privilege of raising my babies here. I know that the people who choose to sit on small community boards, especially in small towns, are doing so because we want to be good neighbors. This isn't usually a high stakes political decision-making body. Has anyone ever seen this sort of response at planning and zoning meeting? That is because the response from our community government around this has been frankly horrifying. I've previously talked about some of the families who've consented to me sharing their stories. And one of the last public meetings, the Glenwood police and city government was unsure if those stories were real or couldn't find records. This is not a small, loud minority making these things up. These are children who were part of our classrooms. And I want you to see what they what we are saying. A mom who called 911 hoping that Glenwood Springs police would help her find her 13-year-old daughter who ran away after a fight the two of them had. Glenwood Springs police showed up. That mom was arrested and handed over to ICE while she was still inside the Garfield County Dale. She was taken to the Midland Center and then into Gio and Aurora before deport deportation at Mexico. The friend who was watching her kids posted bond and sat in the parking lot and waited and waited, but the mom never came out of the jail. Her 2-year-old is medically dependent and the 13-year-old will have a lifetime of working through the guilt for the impact this has had on her family. I got notice on Thanksgiving that she was back in Mexico. Another family, these little girls daddy was taken after he dropped them off at one of the Glenwood Springs elementary

schools. windows smashed out of his car, pulled out, handcuffed, taken to Midland Avenue, transferred to Aurora, where he was held for almost a year in Gio before his deportation back to Mexico last month. This is them holding each other in Mexico for the first time last month after being separated for almost a year. As recent as this past Friday, there is a mom who had the police show up because neighbors had called the cops for a suspected argument. Despite all the family members and mother asserting that everything was okay, the dad was taken into custody. Mom and kids go post bond at the Garfield County Jail go and wait outside the jail where they saw their dad being taken by ice from the alley just outside the back doors of the jail. They saw it happening. Quote, "I just couldn't run fast enough." The mom's sobbing guilt that I hope haunts y'all the way it does me. Can you imagine driving around the Midland Center loop that night with sobbing kids looking for their dad, hoping it was all a mistake and he got released? How do we fix the massive federal dysfunction advice? I have no idea. But today, it looks like we have the opportunity to simply demand that they have to follow the same process you and I would. These are our neighbors. These are kids who go to school with your kids. Don't give preferential treatment to ICE because you're scared. This has been scary for all of us, but it's safer when we all stand up and do the right thing together. Okay, thank you, Erin. Um, Sally Sally Bowen.

Hi, my name is Sally Boutton. I don't live in Glennwood, but my daughter goes to school here, and uh this impacts this issue impacts our entire region. The city staff have not set you up for success tonight. They've given you a report that contains incomplete information. They're suggesting you upload the special use permit with a toothless monitoring plan that will allow for continued violation of the original SUP. They are asking you to ignore the building's non-compliance with I3 building code and allow unsafe federal detention activities to continue putting people's lives at risk in our community. They are presenting you with a brand new certificate of occupancy with no evidence that they complied with the proper process to issue it. This building has been unsafe for detention purposes since the day it opened and it remains so to this day. Back in February, the city was made aware of the fact that the unit does not meet building code for I3 detention use. This is the fire restrictions that that Claire was talking about. The co this code I3 detention code is designed to save the lives of those who are locked up and who are unable to self-rescue in an emergency. The city chose to ignore that fact and instead passed inspection on April 9th based on group B occupancy which is insufficient life safety protection for those who are detained. This means that the building is currently a danger to the people who are locked inside the detention cell. Do you know what their approved emergency plan is for an active shooter incident? It's three words long. Run, hide, fight. How are you supposed to do that if you're locked in a cell? A business owner wrote that activity at the unit has been very low. While I wish that were true, that is not what the data shows. In 2025 alone, there were at least 100 people who went through the facility. In addition to the six people you saw who were held at one time, on May 22nd, there were eight people held at one time. Uh the most recent violation, which has been brought up tonight, was May 5th where a man was held overnight for more than 22 hours. These repeated

violations are not exceptions. This is a pattern and it is escalating. ICE has been violating laws all over this country. ICE agents have murdered. They have abused children in detention. They have robbed families of loved ones. They have systematically disregarded the United States Constitution. There is absolutely no reason to believe they will comply in good faith with any requirements or conditions you put on their special use permit. The choice is clear. The answer is to revoke. They need to go. Thank you.

Hey, thank you, Sally. Um, Alex Kellof. My name is Alex Kellof. I live up valet, so not in the city limits. However, as someone running for Congress in our third congressional district, I urge you, the commission, to explore all personal avenues to phase out this ICE detention facility and prioritize solutions that are transparent and aligned with our community's values. I believe that ICE should have its special use permit revoked. More importantly though, we the people need to hold this lawless administration accountable, especially as it respects a continuous pattern of hold times in excess of 12 hours. We've heard a lot of that here this evening based on their own records in clear violation of the constitutional rights of the detainees. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Alex. Um Katie Langan

Langenheisen. Hello. Um I'm Katie Langenheisen. I've lived here for over two decades. Know quite a few of you. Thanks for volunteering on this committee and being an active part of our community. Um, you've heard about the way that the, uh, facility has been for 23 years, and it can be tempting to just let it stay that way. Uh, but a lot has changed since 2003. Uh, passively ignoring what has changed in the last year alone, or what has been done incorrectly this whole time isn't an option for those of you on this committee tonight. Unfortunately, you can't claim you're unaware anymore, as we all have been informing you. Um, we're asking you to make a hard but correct decision in your role on PNZ for the facts that we have today in 2026. Carl Hanland himself said twice tonight that you have plenty of evidence to revoke the special use permit. And that's what we're asking you to do. The question is, will you act on behalf of our community safety and uphold your own codes or will you ignore a situation that is increasingly dangerous to the most vulnerable in our community? Much of this is out of your control. We've established that very clearly tonight. But revoking the special use permit is well within your control and it's the one decision you can do tonight. That's what we would like from you. The facility in question should be using international building code I3 as a detention center and should have been inspected that way. Uh the difference in safety between a regular commercial space and a detention facility is crucial here. It may be grandfathered in legally as they mentioned tonight, but none of us here think it should be grandfathered in morally. We have been lucky for 23 years, but the odds are no longer in our favor. You should know that ICE is changing the way they are using the facility, and so our response needs to change as well. Their behaviors continue to increase the odds of something going catastrophically wrong.

In 2024, 10 people went through the facility. In 2025, 100 people did. Trent shared that the agents themselves know that they will violate more frequently because of the domino effect of more people being herded through causing more backups in transportation was what we spoke about tonight is just one example. So the violations are going to continue at a higher rate. If there is an emergency there could be a mass casualty event. In the staff recommendation they subjectively state that the last violation less than eight weeks ago um in our beloved town was not intended by local federal agents. But the truth of the matter is, regardless of how or what the federal agents intention is, violating our codes should matter to this committee. That's your job. Tonight, we are here to plead with you to recognize the incorrect use of zoning in our community and to do exactly what this committee is designed to do. Uphold our zoning codes and revoke the special use permit. We know it may not feel like the easy decision, but it is the right decision, and we are all standing here tonight with you on the behalf of the community we love to do so. Thank you. Thank you, Katie. Um, May Cray.

Hi, my name is May Gray and I live in Carbondale and um, as many know, I am the chair of the Democrat party. However, tonight is not about party lines. This is about civil rights and human dignity. I'm not here to represent the Garfield County Democrats. I'm here to represent myself. They can they can ignore us and only if they choose to abide by them. And as seen, they are going to ignore us. They are not here to even appeal their own case. ICE and DHS are not even present. What does that speak about them? And how much do they care about this community? But we're all here. How much do we care about our own community? A lot. Because there are many people here who have who have spent their time who could been here with their families and instead they're here to protect other people's families. And we are asking you to do the same. That is your job as an elected official. More than enough evidence to revoke, says your lawyer. More than enough evidence. That's exactly why you should. Your lawyer is on your side. Your community is on your side. And is absolutely unheard of that you guys would not revoke this permit. They're not giving you a response, ICE, because they're not taking this county or you seriously. they are operating by their own law instead of by the actual law. Trent said that this is most likely an oversight. Well, now you have a chance to correct that today. There is absolutely no oversight that can be said nor done. They've hidden their faces from protesters. And if they've got

nothing to hide, then why are they hiding? And that includes tonight. I didn't see them. I didn't hear them. They're not here to speak on their own behalf, but we're all here to speak on ours. And for the community, we ask that you please revoke this permit. You have more than enough evidence. You have more than enough people standing behind you. And again, this isn't about party lines. This is about human rights. This is about making sure that humans are taken care of. This is about making sure that families stop disappearing from this community. This is about making sure that you hold the line that we draw the line tonight that people in this community, no matter what race or what background or where they come from, matter. Everyone matters. And only you can say that loud and proud for each and every single last one of us tonight. Thank you. Okay, thank you. May um Hannah Sago sago.

Hi, my name is Hannah Sago. I live in Glenwood Springs and I want to thank you for your time and careful attention to this matter and listening to all of the public comment. Uh, I'm going to echo a lot of what others have already said and urge the commissioners to revoke the special use permits. The facility at 100 Midland Avenue is a jail. It's a in a commercial plaza and it's holding people there against their will. The city clearly recognizes that the facility has violated its own special use permit by holding people for longer than 12 hours. And there's good reason for this limit. As others have already mentioned, it's an inhospitable room. It's cold. It has concrete benches. It doesn't have beds. People aren't meant to stay there long. Yet, there have been 11 documented vi violations of this requirement, including people held there for 24 hours, 22 hours. It doesn't matter if it was intentional or not. A violation is a violation, and this is not only a violation, it's cruel, and it goes against what our community stands for. Given all of that evidence, I'm incredibly troubled by the staff's recommendation to uphold the permit in light of clear violations and ongoing non-compliance. The city should enforce its own rules and not give special treatment to this tenant or give them a break because the violations were quote not intentional. Regardless of intent, the I'm concerned that the commissioners may act out of fear of federal backlash. Don't comply in advance with an administration that clearly has no regard for the law. Commissioners, please do your job and uphold your own regulations. We've seen documented evidence across this country of ICE using intimidation, killing people, violating the law, and basic human rights. This is a tenant that cannot be trusted not to violate the terms of its permit in the future. Nor can it be trusted to abide by corrective measures. The absolute bare minimum that we owe this community is that this agency must operate legally and be held accountable when they do not. It is clear from the evidence that you have grounds to revoke the permit and I urge

you to do so in order to make a clear statement about what we do and don't allow in this community. If I were sitting where you're sitting tonight, I would be focused on making the right decision for this community now based on the evidence in front of you and the community comments that you've heard. I would be worried about the legacy that you're leaving and the impact that continuing to allow this facility to operate without accountability will have on our community. Please don't bend your own rules to avoid backlash or whatever it may be. Do your jobs and revoke ISIS special use permit immediately. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Hannah. Um the next one I have there's two people on the same line, so I don't know. I E I E I E I E I E I E I E I E I E I E I E I E I E I E I E I E I E I E I E I E I and Eileen and Sophie. Oh maybe there's four, right? Grannies. You're the raging granny's. Good. Robin, Jamie Loward.

We have a song for you that speaks to what ICE has come to mean in this country. We all stand for the That's why we are not standing for social justice. Masks are so laust. people now secret police designed by Steven Miller. These guys were to create a military state to intate and terrify us all. Laand this group of terrorists. Trump's own KK. Restore our civil rights to process and let's fight magazing granny's Um,

okay. Will Will Will Hodgeges?

Hi there. Um, Will Hodes. I live just outside of Carbondale in Garfield County. I want to thank you all for giving us the opportunity to comment and for your for your service. Um, if anything is plainly clear in the last year, it is that ICE is a lawless agency and an instrument to attack and terrorize not only undocumented families, but families of residents and citizens, too. This facility has violated local ordinances for 23 years and held around 100 people in 2025. ICE has not responded to the city's concerns. Mr. Hyatt is vague about what aspects of the facility were out of compliance and have been brought back into compliance except to say that the building association hired a contractor to check that some of the sprinklers in the entire building were checked for functional. We still do not know if the fire sprinklers in the unit in question work. We heard Mr. Hanland say that you have grounds to revoke the permit. Furthermore, Mr. Hanland stated he doesn't expect ICE to comply with whatever decision you make here tonight. He also said not to get hung up on whether or not ICE is likely to comply in your with your decision. I don't know how you hear that ICE is likely to ignore whatever you decide and then issue a permit with additional conditions and oversight. I urge you not to cooperate with a rogue lawless agency, but to revoke their permit. Take a step to protect your citizens and residents. and then let it be on the record to this community that our federal government makes up its own rules and flaunts the rule of law. Thanks so much. Okay, thank you, Will. Um, EB, I have that right? Looks like EB.

Okay, EBV or something like that. Okay, we'll move on to Zodia. And we may have a delay issue with across in the because they're watching on YouTube, so it's a few second delay. So, we may just want to see if we can get Bri to check in and see if any of those folks are over in the next. Okay. What is it?

EB and Zodie. Zod, welcome Zodie.

Thank you. My name is Zod Woolsey and I live in Glenwood Springs. Sorry, I'm a little excited. So, first of all, I wanted to start off by I think it's quite strange that you don't have record of the building code when we have the literal floor layout right here. And I 3D printed a model for you. Not only did I do that, but I also zoomed in the section that includes the holding cells for both the women and the men, as well as standardsized male figurines to go inside, so you would know exactly how much space they take up. If you would like this later, please let me know. Um, we know a lot of information about this building, and I think that it's been pretty obvious that they haven't been very ethical about how they treated these people. First of all, this entire section of the building is underground and there's only one vent per each of these rooms as this documentation that was approved by the city in 2003. So, the city knew that this would be the case. They knew that these rooms would be small. They knew that these rooms would only have one vent per room. And instead, they still approved it. No windows, no beds. The only thing they get is a 1 foot by six a 1 foot 6 inch long bench. A metal bench. That's all they get. If they're in there for 12 plus hours, I think I would like a nap. Wouldn't you? Are you going to nap on a 12 on a 12-in bench? I don't think so. I also would like to ask if all of you think that your jobs are hard. You two. Because I would like to know if it's as hard as a seven-year-old coming home to without not having a father anymore. That's a very important situation that you need to understand the magnitude of. And whether or not you believe that you don't have the right to kick these people out of our community, you do. You people manage our community. You are the people who make the decisions. Decide to remove these Nazis who abduct children and parents from our community and remove them so that they stop abusing

and harassing the people who live here and who work hard to make this community a good place. These people come here for good reason to be good citizens. People don't come here to cause harm and start gangs like Lou says or whatever. Lou oversaw these things. First of all, he also knows, for example, that these people were abducted from the prison or from the jail cells, which is, as uh Carl covered earlier, is a crime. Blue should be in prison for this. That would be the normal situation, but it's not. Instead, they keep getting passes and passes over and over again for some reason. Is it fear? I don't know. But I can tell you right now that it's pretty scary to exist out there knowing that especially as a trans person or a person of color or any other type of minority that you might literally just get abducted and disappeared and no one none of your family would ever know. And that's not cool. So please, please do something about this. Remove these Nazis who attack and harass our community from this area and do not let them come back. These people are monsters. They put rooms underground with no windows and they put people in these rooms and keep them there for days. That's insane. They

Hey, thank you Zodie. Um, McKenzie, you guys want this? Sure. Thank you very much, sir. McKenzie, and also Molly, if Molly's over there. Oh, is Molly here? We'll wait till Mackenzie, but we know you're here. No, McKenzie. Okay. Uh, Molly, you're on. here.

Um, my name is Molly Hamilton and I live in the city limits. Um, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm here to express my strong opposition for the renewal of the special use permit for the Midland Center ICE facility. A special use permit is conditional and must be denied when its criteria are no longer met. The available evidence demonstrates clear non-compliance, expanded use beyond approval, and unresolved safety concerns. The 12-hour limit, which this permit was granted, has been violated on multiple occasions with a 22-hour hold being just last month. There are serious and unresolved life safety concerns about building classification and safety compliance. It has never been properly evaluated under applicable building and fire codes as it meets the um as it meets the criteria for a group I3 classification. The facility simply does not meet the required life safety and emergency standards raising risk for detainees, staff, and first responders. I'm aware of the city staff's recommendation to approve the permit and allow operations to continue citing the supremacy clause. I question this recommendation as there are gray areas. These include the fact it isn't on federal property. There are no known conflicts or local laws interfering with the federal operation and this doesn't exempt the federal government from maintaining life-saving health codes. The local government still has the right to ensure public safety requirements are being followed. Courts have shown situations where a government agency has been non-compliant non-compliant for 23 years, is not adhering with fire and safety codes, and has not engaged with our local municipality after multiple for formal attempts. Our local government has the right to revoke the permit. Finally, this decision has broader implications

for the integrity of the permitting process. Special use permits are intended to ensure accountability. If repeated violations, expanded use beyond approval, and failure to communicate or comply with a city are not grounds for denial, then the conditions of approval lose their meaning. Therefore, I'm urging you, the planning and zoning committee, to revoke the renewal for the special use permit. This not only comes down to the life safety of individuals inside the Midland Center uh ICE facility, but also the integrity of our town's autonomy and standards. Thank you.

Hey, thank you Molly. Um, other bird. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight and to all those who have come, especially in solidarity of our immigrant brothers and sisters. Uh, I'm a retired priest of the arch dascis of Denver, Catholic priest and past pastor of St. Steven Catholic Church here in Glenwood Springs and now live in no name or non Nami and 10 years ago I received a call from one of my parishioners asking me to attend one of her bianual meetings with ICE in their facility. And so for several years, twice a year, I would go with her and uh was invited in to to support her and talk about her being here for following rules and regulations. And then COVID hit. She got a call cancelling her next appointment. And then two weeks later, she was called again and said, "Guess what? We have an opening. Come on in." She didn't call me. She went in. She was immediately detained. sent to Aurora and deported in a very short period of time. She has two children, her husband devastated as well as myself and many people in our community. Her daughters, in the meantime, one is now in high school. The other graduated number one in her class and got a full ride to college. Her husband just recently got his permanent residency and saw his wife for the first time in six years. Um, we don't need ICE to monitor our community. We're a close community. Our immigrants, and I deal mostly with Latinos and Polish immigrants, have been members of our community for over a generation. They

have built literally this community. And our institutions, our schools, our churches, our law enforcement, we take care of each other in a good way. And uh, let's continue to do that. But I don't think we need nice ice to do it for us. Thank you.

Thank you, Father Bert. Um Sarah, see if Sarah's next door. We have Michelle and Michelle and Casey. Are are Michelle and Casey in this room? They must be in the other rooms. Hi, thank you. Uh my name is Sarah Clingal Habver. I'm a resident of Garfield County. Um and I want to thank uh the Glen Spring City Council. I sent a letter in on March 18th hoping that um this um uh public hearing would happen. And so I'm so happy that we're all here and um I've been greatly moved by uh everyone that's stood up here um and agree with everything that everyone said um the care and the intelligence um that has been at this podium podium has been really moving. So thank you. Um I've never done this so I'm a little nervous. Um, so, uh, thank you to all of you in the planning and zoning commission for holding this public hearing to consider the corrective measures required by your authority. Um, the cost of the violator, the United States General Services Administration. Um, I just was reading through everything today and I just wanted to point out um, two things that

stood out to me. um in exhibit B, which is the um April 25th, 2003 letter, um what stood out to me is that uh the GSA really downplayed the uh detention uh facility part of um this building. Um although they did say it's an important part of their job um you know they said about approximately 60% of a typical day is spent preparing and completing paperwork filing organizing. Um, and so in that downplaying of the detention, um, they also stated, and this kind of goes to what's been said here about, um, you know, sometimes the 12-hour whole couldn't work because they were awaiting transportation. Um, that's something that I heard said, um, tonight. And um the GSA says in this letter in exhibit B um uh that you know really it's just for processing and they quote said um the holding rooms to be constructed in the proposed QRT office are designed for holding persons for not more than 12 hours during processing and awaiting transportation elsewhere. So, I think that's very clear and that's their words. Um, I also just uh want to point out um uh the town attorneys stated the uh the clause about um maybe not having jurisdiction uh over the federal government. And um I just wanted to say I think the the primary jurisdiction that we all uh hold to is the Constitution. in the constitution we all agree to and we agree that there

should be no cruel or unusual punishment for anyone.

Um so that's your three minutes. That's your three minutes. Oh, is that it? Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Um, so was was your name Erica? No, I'm Michelle.

You're okay. Sarah was okay. I'm okay. Um, Michelle. My name is Michelle. I don't reside in the city limits, but I have family who does. and I didn't feel it appropriate to ask them to be here so that we can avoid putting a larger target pe on people of color than there already is. I'm white passing. I'm here for them and others who hold less privilege. I was born and raised in this valley. I'm a contributing member of the community like so many immigrants who live here. As an introvert with social anxiety, I don't like public speaking. But I feel a responsibility to stand here today for those who no longer have a voice. For our community members who have been terrorized and people who are trying to just survive dayto-day. The horrible people in power have given legal permission for ICE to racially profile people. ICE cannot be trusted and they should not be given any more power. They've shown us just how inhumane they can be in front of the whole world. Just how do you think that they treat people behind closed doors? Have the courage to do the right thing? Thank you.

Hey, thank you, Michelle. Um, Kase Hi, my name is Casey Deferredes. I'm a resident of Glennwood Springs. Uh, thanks to the commission for hearing us all out. Um, I'll keep it short and sweet, but I think dozens of people have said it better than I can. Um, but I feel like I should say it again. The evidence is present and it's abundant and the trend is that things are escalating. Um, I love this town. I've lived here for over 10 years and lived in the valley for 20 and I can't say how absolutely proud I am to see all the people in this room today and to see everyone show up and stand up for what's right in this community. Um, and it makes me excited to stay here for even longer. So, I'll just say it again. It's all about accountability and the evidence is there to revoke and so it's our time to make the right decision. Thank you. Hey, thank you, Casey. Um, we have

here you can bring that on up. Brie,

thank you very much. Okay, Julie.

Hi, good evening. Uh, my name is Julie Bombersbach and I, uh, do not reside in Glennwood Springs, though I've lived in the neighboring town of Carbondale for the better part of the last 22 years. So, I consider myself a part of this community. This issue impacts our community greatly, our entire region greatly. Um, thank you so much for your service on this commission. Thank you so much for your time this evening. This issue is um obviously of the utmost importance to many in our community to um uh and this issue is um it's really a matter of public safety, public accountability and the integrity integrity of local authority who serve the public. Um as we know um as has been documented thoroughly, the detention facility has repeatedly violated its special use permit granted in 2003. This includes not only the many documented violations of the 12-h hour hold rule, um has been increasing in frequency over the last 12 months, um longer than that. Um and beyond this, the facility also has life safety standards that do not match as as has been stated, but that do not match the I3 detention facility type. Um an outstanding violation that has seemingly continued to be ignored at at all levels of inspection. Um and although there is ample evidence of documented violations, there has been no accountability um on account of the building owners, on account of the tenants, and the recommendation by city staff has been disappointing to many in our community. Um, so as you consider everything in tonight's hearing and make your decisions, I think it's important to note that there is existing congressional law that upholds city um, city local safety and zoning laws over federal laws applying specifically to leased spaces. The federal government does not own 100 Milan Avenue. They lease two units within it. Um so the bottom line here is that local codes

still apply to this building and local codes should be upheld um as a matter of community community voice but also as a matter of city law. Um so um sorry the city admits to the violations and um and states that they cannot be fixed. Um yet they propose monitoring the facility or requesting that DHS and ICE uh self-report on a quarterly basis in place of enforcement of city laws and revoking the special use permit. We have seen over the past year that this agency um does its best to obfuscate and distort information regarding its actions and activities. Um, commissioners, as a community, we cannot trust or rely on this agency to to self-report in a transparent manner um that upholds the public safety of our community. Um, they have not shown this in the past and they more than likely will not show it going forward. Um, recent inspections have not treated this as um Oh, sorry. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much, Julie. Um, Mr. God.

Hi, good evening, uh, commissioners. My name is Jonathan Godis, uh, former mayor, city councelor. I've sat in a number of your seats over the last eight years. U, thank you for what you do. Um, you know, I'm going to talk a little bit about code because that's what you're here tonight. I think the stories that we're hearing from the public about the tragedies that are happening in our communities are absolutely worthy. But that's not your job. Your job is to enforce the code as it's written in our code. And if it's discovered that Lowe's for the last 20 years had too few fire extinguishers or they weren't in the correct spots, they should be held in violation. But we wouldn't shut them down right away. We'd give them a notice of non-compliance and give them an opportunity to rectify that situation. We would work with them. We'd give them allowances because we'd be working in good faith. They would be working in good faith. We would assume, you know, I guess what staff is trying to do with their recommendations to you tonight. They're trying to not have perfect be the enemy of good. If we can get in there, if the city can get in there and do some inspections, that's a great half measure to make a really crappy situation a little bit better. But they're, make no mistake, ICE is not working and this administration is not working in good faith. They never have. They've not worked in this community in good faith. They've not worked with this nation in good faith. Um, this has been demonstrated by the fact that they're not here tonight. They didn't show up to even uh phone in remotely. They've ignored all the city's correspondence and demands. You know, the supremacy clause means that a normal a normal administration wouldn't have to comply with the revocation of this permit that we hope you do tonight. This administration doesn't care. They don't have they have a leg to stand on, but they won't comply even with a half measure. So, don't do that half measure. Please don't accept half measures and renew the permit. You should stand on the legal grounds in our code. You should stand on the right side of history and stand with the people of the

community against this tyranny. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks, Jonathan. If we could take another short break, just our interpreter is um give her a break. Okay. I I was just Well, I was just going to ask if there's anyone else out there that did not fill out a form that would like to Yes. Yeah. Well, no, that's okay. Um, can we make it through two more or is All right.

I mean, if we only we're trying to make sure our interpreter doesn't like run out of steam. So, she said she's okay for two. Two was okay, but then we're gonna take a break. Thanks, Tess. And I'm sorry to add because I actually didn't come here to speak tonight. Uh I'm Claire Graph. I do live in Linewood. Um and you can see by my notes, um I did not prepare a speech, but I've been compelled by what I've heard tonight because there have been some points that have really concerned me. Um I'm concerned that the city included in its report the reasons, the speculations of why there might be violations to the 12-hour law. um that's not relevant. If anything, they make it clear that this tenant is unable to manage their process safely.

Um and there's far too many questions, it seems to me, about uh the legal application of this 41 CFR 80 um 85 um that that Mr. Hanland mentioned. I noticed when I looked it up really quickly that there's actually a congressional law that has not changed. So, even if the GSA repealed their own rule book, which is 41 CFR, um the congressional law 40USC, United States Code 3312, has not been changed. And there's even other laws um that I noticed online that haven't even been mentioned, like the GSA M552278-8. Uh that's the clause that goes into every lease agreement that the GSA does. So, I think um a I don't know why that was brought up, but b we didn't bring it up thoroughly. Uh, next, it's clear we have a property owner who is benefiting massively from the rent amounts or like more than $300,000 a year in a 2024 sales listing that I saw. Um, tax breaks. Uh, and then we have a tenant, oh, by the way, that person lived in Florida and has changed LLC's multiple times. Um, we also have a tenant in blatant disregard for compliance with the actual code that applies to an in custody or a supervisory situation in a building. This is not a commercial office if it's holding people against their will. I3 uh life and safety requirements. I have not seen or heard tonight that those have been met and that's what matters, not the other ones. So, we've got a property owner who doesn't seem to care and we have a tenant who doesn't follow our laws and is in clear violation in a pattern. Um, I also was really concerned that the city even mentioned or referenced in the record public comment from other tenants in the building. Uh, I read those and they talked about how uh ICE has been a quiet neighbor and that they're the salt

of the earth. Um, why are we talking about that? That's not at issue here. if these individuals are the salt of the earth or if they make a lot of noise. So I'm just concerned that these things demonstrate sort of a lack of understanding or at least a distraction from the point which is I3. Okay. Um so I I don't necessarily think that this is a sign of mal intent or incompetence um but at least a lack of uh cooperation and information given to the city and transparency from the applicant. So, I see actions of owner and tenant, disregard for our city laws, our community, uh, and I don't see how we would keep working with this application.

Okay, thanks, CL. Okay. Was there one more?

My name is Jacob Richards. Um, I'm not from this area, but I was born here. I was raised in Lauring Fork Valley. I've spent my entire 45 year life here in western Colorado. And as an outsider, I think that's the perspective the city really needs on this. Um, I find it unlikely that this was just a clerical error. If it was a clerical error, the first thing you would do would be a natural investigation to see why this happened, not just make assumptions and just assume it was that time of year. Um, the other thing you would do is launch an audit to see what what other properties fell through the cracks. Um, I think the whole city's process since this has come to light has been disingenuous at best. And the best thing to do would bring bring in outside counsel because right now we have a situation where the people that made the mess are sweeping it under the rug. Um, people have addressed the main point of this and that is that we're giving it fire inspections for a retail shop. Holding people in a prison in cuffs is not the same as selling kayaks and cannabis, guys. It is just not the same thing. And I'm gonna correct just one more simple thing. I do think the city needs to look at getting outside counsel. Um Hamlin told you you guys can pass this, but you're not going to be able to evict ICE. Let me break down the math for you. Under international building code, when a building is um condominiumized like that, where there's lots of different units, the strictest building code standing in the structure needs to be applied to the whole building. That remodel cost to bring that entire building up to the zoning code standards of a detention center would be so cost prohibitive they would lose their landlord. So, here is how you can do the right thing and make it happen. You're welcome. Thank you for hearing us. Okay. Okay. Um um we're going to take a break and if there's more people,

we have a couple people online and I apologize. They're just going to have to our interpreter needs a break. So, okay, we can take 10 minutes. Okay. So, we'll come back on at 8:15. Bingo.

We we'll we'll restart the public hearing. Uh we have two people online with their hands raised. Uh Christina, if you want to looks like up your speaker's onep and pass and pause. Christina.

Okay. Okay. Okay, I appreciate the time you're giving you and to take this and to hire an interpreter for my talk. Can you repeat? Sorry. Okay. She's saying that uh there's a I've been violating the rules, you know, for uh getting a people Trajecto.

Yeah.

Okay. She's saying that uh uh what uh the lawy the lawyer from the city said that it might be that ICE won't follow the rules uh because of of the Okay. Okay. Hey, it's kind of hard to see.

Okay, please.

Okay. particip I'd like to make is that I understand the contributions that the rest of my fellow citizens have also contributed to the these conversations. If we were to enter into litigation with with the federal government, um even if there is not a hope of us winning, at least we'll be participating in the conversation. Midland Center. So, as as everybody has also said, this conversation that everybody has also contributed to, um, everything is based on this whole like national security, quote unquote, of what they're going to use to sort of justify it. But what they're not telling you is that only 17% of those that have been detained at the Midland Center ever had any sort of a criminal record. So, under this guise, is this national security

Thank you for for interpreting. And I think that right now I think that we can just come to an an understanding of what it is that that we're going to continue forward doing. and I will I will um surrender the rest of my time.

Okay, thank you very much, Christina. Um Marcela.

Marcela. Yes. Good evening. Can you hear me? She she is very happy. The interp the translator ran away. Are you ready to Sorry. One second. Give us one more second to reset up the Spanish translation. One sec.

Bri, are we good? Listen, we we have to reset the way translation is being done after we do it live to back on the Zoom so that everybody Okay. Okay. Um Marcela, you're good. You you you can go forward.

Thank you. So, my name is Marcela Shefflin. I'm a disability, human, and civil rights advocate and policy specialist. I relocated just months ago from the western slope to Metro Denver. I'm here because what happens in Glenwood Springs is part of a statewide reckoning. Aurora just canled its ICE detention last week. Rural and urban communities across Colorado are facing the same question. Can local governments enforce their own land use rules when federal operations violate them? Your decision sets precedent. The city faces a simple choice. Enforce the permit conditions you already established or accept legal and financial liability for knowingly allowing ongoing violations. The facts are established. The facility has repeatedly vi violated the 12-hour detention limit holding individuals for days and weeks. This is a material breach of the core conditions that justify the permit's approval. The facility operates without a final certificate of occupancy after two decades. contradicts your comprehensive plan and creates documented adverse impacts on community health and welfare. By continuing to allow these violations, the city is choosing to expose taxpayer resources to lawsuits you can see coming. You will be asked to defend why you failed to enforce your own permit conditions. You will be asked why you allowed a facility to operate outside its legal scope when you had the authority and obligation to act. You will face claims from detained individuals, community members, and property owners harmed by operations you permitted to continue despite knowing they violated city code. This is not a policy debate. The permit conditions exist. The violations are documented. The legal exposure is foreseeable. Continuing to allow this facility to operate as it is have been as is known in decision to assume liability the city

can avoid by simply enforcing the rules you already made. Revoke the permit. Enforce compliance. Protect city resources by acting on facts already in evidence. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much, Marcela. Um, okay. That that's everyone we have written down to uh to speak from the community. Does is anyone else? Okay. Yes. My name is George Wear and uh I currently live in Carbondale. Uh, but I first moved to Glenwood Springs in 1974. Um, I'm very proud of everybody's comments tonight and I support all the comments. Um, I used to serve on the PNZ when I lived in Glenwood and we never had any important uh, decisions like this one when I was on the PNZ. So, I know how I would vote if I was up there and I urge you to revoke. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much, George. Um, going once, going twice. Okay, the the public portion is closed. Uh, the public hearing is closed. Um, so no further comment. So now now how how the process goes is we bring it back to the commission for a motion and then then we'll have conversation on that um from there. Commissioner Conton. Uh so thanks everybody for coming tonight. It's been really really um it means a lot to us and how much you care about our community. Our role really isn't to make decisions about immigration, but um I move to revoke special use permit permit.

Um uh I'd like to repeat that. I move to revoke the special use permit number 4-04 planning file number 22 through 03. Um because C 070.010 010.08 0 E 2C uh due to 11 occurrences um of um um uh the violation of over 12 hours and um and um potential non-compliance after the NOB.

Mr. Hen, I'll second that motion. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Conton and a second by Commissioner Hton on a on revoking. Um, okay. Let's open it for conversation. Commissioner Conton,

I mean, I would like to add one thing, not to my motion, but just in general. um you know, it really doesn't align with our comprehensive plan um protecting um public health and safety. Um but I do not want to add that to my motion, but I just wanted to mention that. Okay. Thank you. Other comments or

Yeah. I mean, you know, I totally support it. I mean to me it's back in 2003 even GSA several times in all of their conversations said you know repeatedly the 12-hour thing. So it was it's not like a nuance thing that came up. It was very very implicit from the get-go. Um Commissioner Jones.

Yeah. I think it's just important to say that we're going to treat everybody to abide by the rules and this is no different than any other business and it signals that we are a fair place to do business. And so I also support this motion. Commissioner Gman,

I I would like to ask um Trent again about the fire safety. There seems to be a lot of um public comments about the um I3 and concerns about the life safety of the detainees. And so I just would like to hear more about the type of um inspection that was performed and wasn't performed to the level of detainees being able to evacuate.

Yeah. I I just want to reiterate that the building is currently um has a certificate of occupancy for two types B business and I3 for a detention facility. it has a certificate of occupancy for the uses that occur at that site. And in regards to considerations for what standard it was approved to, um all inspections occurred in association with that use in in 2004. There's no documentation that um there there was any attempt to um you know be outside of the requirements associated with that use.

Uh I also wanted to leave comments that I am in support of this motion. Um I there I have other additional concerns um as far as other um promises they made at the time in 2003 per the staff report of what they said they were going to do um for humane reasons how to care for a detaineees to make sure they're fed and that they're have space and we don't have any evidence of that and I would like to hear from um somebody from the detention center, from the government and be able to have more evidence that they are caring for our um fellow citizens in a humane way. Uh, Commissioner Hton,

I just wanted to follow uh Commissioner Gman's and Trent's comments on um the the building code compliance portion of this. Uh I'm a building safety professional. I work with building codes day in and day out. Um, I haven't personally inspected this building, but I have no reason to believe that um, the city staff uh, would issue a CFO were it not in compliance with the building code. And to be clear, that would be the 1997 uniform building code, which is what this structure was permitted in under. Um, the B and I3 are listed on the TCO. They're listed on the cover sheet of the permit set. I think it's clear that um the eyes are dotted and the te's are crossed on a um buyer safety point from construction and then um the items identified prior to issuing a final CFO. Um again, without the full information, I have no reason to believe that the fire marshall or the building official are acting in in bad faith um in issuing this Thank you, John. Okay, other comments. Um, yeah, I have a couple. I guess one for me with the memo of 72 hours that that I really struggle with that from the from the way the center is set up and even for 12 hours as people talked about is difficult but holy moly you throw 72 hours and not having a bed or all of these other type of amenities is um very very very difficult for me. something I struggle with and not being able to talk to the applicant to hear their comments on that. But that's that's something I struggle with and and and I guess one other thing it would be Trent and I don't know maybe this is a

future conversation for us but with the special use permits you know I mean typically there it's just a code thing and this is like a behavioral thing as well. So, I don't know how we maybe have a conversation at a future meeting about followup on um on on special use permits that when they come out there. Maybe that's when they come through. I don't know, but that's probably a future conversation, but um okay, any other Okay, I'll uh let's call the question. So, so yes is your supporting the revocation. Yes. Yes, Commissioner Conton. Yes, Commissioner Gman. Yes, Commissioner Hton. Yes, Commissioner Jones. No, Commissioner Cocheran. Uh, yes, uh, Chair Waller. It passes for 51.

Okay. Um, thank you very much. Um, and thanks to the community for coming out here. We appreciate your comments very much and your support. So, um, I think we'll move on to our next item. Are you welcome to stay?

Okay. just like correct.

Thank you, Victor. Victor translation.

Yeah. Okay. Um Where are we? Okay, it's time for commissioner comments. Um, Kyle, just say no. You can don't listen to him. Just going to say I think you know it's understanding that this is probably going to run into supremacy clause issues and everything like that. It's I'm not going to talk about what you just did because you just made a decision and we're not going to talk about it. Okay. Sorry. Sounds good. I think it's the right decision to Yeah. Enforcement.

Welcome to meeting your attorney. Not going to let you talk about a decision that's already been made. Again, no, I I'm fine. You know, people have said everything they had to say. Mike, sorry. Again, we're not going to talk about the decision I was just made. I have nothing to say. I would like to thank the staff and Wait, wait, wait. Turn yourself on again.

This was a big night. I want to thank all of you guys and the staff. This was great. What a great showing. I mean, it was amazing to have so many people interested in such a, you know, a hot button issue, but still. And to Trent, that was You guys did a great job, I think, on the report. I mean, I'm sure it was hard. I'm not going to keep talking about N. And I'm just saying I'm just saying I You guys did a great job and I really appreciate it. Um, I'm just going to say that I love the song and that's all I'm going to say about it. No, I mean, you guys are killing me.

No, no, no. That's it. But the the the um Okay, I'm not gonna talk about it because I already mentioned it on something else. Okay, I'm good. Well, no, I do have one thing. So, afterwards, John and I are going to go have a beer down at um at Springs if anyone Springs is closed. Springs is closed. So, what's open? Where do we go? Docs. Okay, we go to docks. Docs. Docs. Okay, we'll go to Docks. So, anyway. All right. I gotta go talk to the press in the mall. Oh, good luck. Don't talk about it anymore. Yes, that's my that's my rule. I just want to reiterate that. Thanks, whatever we want now. He's out of here.

I wanted to reiterate that that the city staff has my full support. Commissioner G. I just wish there are this many people here when we talked about allowing people to paint their house white again. Or the sign. Or the sign. What about the but it was nice to see community involvement. That was great. I thought I'd say thank you Con.

Okay. Uh Trent, not too much from me. Um next month we'll be back to regular business with some uh text amendments that that we're bringing forward. Um again, thank you all for your kind comments. Um, this is a a thankless job most months. Um, but I do appreciate your service to the city. It's really important. Thank you. Thank you.