March 5, 2025 — Beverage Licensing Authority Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:02] And recording started. Great call to order the beverages or the special hearing of the beverages. License authority for Wednesday, March 5, th 2,025 5 Pm. Thank you so much. I'm gonna start off with our rules of decorum. So I'm just gonna go ahead and share my screen. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. More about this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found on our website. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person.

[1:15] Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, participants are required to sign up to speak, using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently only audio testimony is permitted online. The chat function, which is called Q, and A in this case is to only be used for technical questions to staff, and it should not be used for public comment. Alright, and then quickly, I will go ahead and do a roll call. If you'll just speak your presence aloud. Share. Mount Califano. Your telephone. I'm present. Thank you. Mike Absalom.

[2:01] Member Absalom Present. Thank you. Member Roberts. Member Roberts, present. Thank you. And Brendan Haggerty. Emma Haggerty, present. Thank you. And a member car is absent today. Okay? And we have one item on our agenda. And that is agenda. Item, one show cause hearing concerning alleged violation, and whether the hotel restaurant type, liquor license held by Panko Corporation, Dba chicken on the hill, 1 1 9 13th Street, boulder, Colorado, 8, 0 3, 0 2 should be suspended or revoked. If you are here to appear for this matter as a licensee or legal counsel, please go ahead and raise your hand, and I'll promote you

[3:03] alright. And they are being promoted to panelists once again. just giving them a minute to turn their camera on perfect. Okay. Hi! Miss Becchio! Hi! How are you? Good. Thank you. Okay. Would. Chair. Would you like me to do the swearing in of everyone first.st No, we can do that during testimonies. Okay. Sounds good. Ms. Kellogg, before we proceed today. I do know that Miss Becchio filed a motion to continue on behalf of her clients, so I do think that should be addressed first.st

[4:08] Great, and that is in the bla packet. I'll go ahead and open up the hearing for that. Thank you, Maya, for bringing that up. I'm sorry. Thank you, mia, I apologize. I've done that now twice. Veronica Vecchio from Clark Hill, representing Penco Corporation chicken on the hill bar number 3, 7, 2, 2, 5, and I have conferred with my client, and we have made the decision to withdraw our motion to continue and to proceed today. Well, that that takes a lot off my plate to read. And Caitlin, the only other kind of side issue I wanted to address. I sent an email to you, and I copied Mia and Chris as well.

[5:02] One of the Pdfs we uploaded came empty, which has happened in the past. I think it's a it's an adobe issue. But I resent it by email. It's our exhibit, a our training log. So if, mia, you don't have an objection. perhaps we can just include include that in the packet as well, even though it's technically late. Thank you for bringing that up. I sent that out as an exhibit. At. Let's see 41, 42, yeah. Oh, okay, perfect. So I haven't had a chance to hop on my email. So. That's okay. It's likely not on the public website. But it will be as soon as our Central Records department is able to do that. All right, so we can proceed with the hearing. Then, Miss Vecchio. since you're representing his counsel, I'd ask if he'd be willing to waive the reading of the procedures into the record.

[6:02] Yes, we are willing to waive those procedures great right into the record. And is there any conflict of interest or ex parte communication from the Board? Member Califano? Now. Remember Absalom, no. Member Haggerty, no. Member Roberts, No. Great and me. I don't believe we have a stipulation correct. We do not. Okay. So at this point, Miss Vecchio, are you willing? Are you ready to proceed. We are ready to proceed. Yes. Great I let me double check here. so we'll start with the prosecution to present any evidence that they may have, and any witnesses.

[7:01] All right. Thank you, Mister Califano. Other people would like to call Officer Stevens to testify first.st And Officer Stevens, before you give your testimony. I'm just gonna have swear you in really quickly. if you will. Oh, I don't know if we can hear you, but if you'll say your name and spell your name and give your position for the record shoot, we can't hear you. We can see you talking, and it looks like you're unmuted, but we can't hear you. No worries. Alright. Is that better? Can you hear me? Okay. Sorry. Officer Eric Stevens, STEP. HENS. May, police officer with the city of Boulder. Thank you.

[8:00] All right, Miss Kellogg. Am I okay? To proceed. Yes. Okay, great. Thank you, Officer Stevens, could you please state your name and spell your last name for the record. Officer, Eric Stevens, STEP. HENS. And Officer Stevens, where do you work? City of boulder, police department. How long have you worked at the city of Boulder Police Department? Approximately 7 years. And what are some of your job duties. Currently, I'm assigned to the neighborhood impact team which includes patrol and on the city's hill area, working with college students, bars and businesses up in that area. Approximately. Where is the hill neighborhood located. So the hill is considered off. Campus runs from Broadway to 9th Street, and from Baseline to Arapahoe.

[9:04] Thank you. So, Officer Stevens. Now I'm going to ask you about some incidents that you've responded to in your capacity as an officer. So, 1st Officer Stevens, were you on duty on October 4, th 2024. Yes, I was. And did you respond to an incident with an intoxicated woman? Yes. Where were you dispatched to respond to this incident? So I was originally dispatched to 1146 12th Street. which is a fraternity, and I was in the alley between 12th and 13, th so kind of behind the bars and between the frets. And just to be clear that locations in the city of Boulder, State of Colorado correct. Correct. What did you see when you arrived at the scene. So, while pulling down the alley, I saw female being held up by some friends, she looked pretty visibly intoxicated.

[10:09] And when you say, visibly intoxicated, what signs of intoxication was she presenting. Basically she wasn't able to stand up on her own herb. She smelled of alcohol whenever I approached her. Her friends said they had been drinking. Were you able to identify the woman. Yes, I was. How did you do that. It was her friends that were with her were able to give me her name. And were you able to determine the woman's age. Yes. And how old was she? She was 19 years old. And how are you able to do that? Her friend said that it was her birthday. So I just used that date, and they said it was her 19th birthday. So went with that. So Matt.

[11:02] Were you able to determine where they had been drinking that night? Yes, I spoke with her friends about that. And where had they been drinking. So they told me they had been at chicken on the hill that night. And Officer Stevens, did you determine how the woman was able to enter chicken on the hill, even though she was 19. I was not definite on that, but of I'm assuming it was a fake id, but her phone and her id were lost somewhere in the bar or in the alley. And were medical personnel, ultimately called to that scene. Yes, they were. And was she taken to the hospital. Yes. And now I'm going to ask you about a different incident. Officer Stevens, were you on duty on November 20, second, 2024. Yes, I was. And were you on patrol in the hill neighborhood.

[12:03] Yes, I was on a in a vehicle doing patrol on 13. Oh, I'm sorry. Can you say that last part? One more time. Yes, I was in a vehicle on patrol on 13th Street. Thank you. And approximately, what time were you on the hill? It was about 1, 23 in the morning. And did you come across an unconscious woman that night. Yes, I did. And where was this woman located? So she was with some friends sitting on the sidewalk directly in front of Chicken, on the hill. And were you able to determine why she was in the state that she was in. Yes, it was pretty clear. She was overly intoxicated from alcohol. And were you able to identify the woman. Yes, I was. And how did you do that. She had an id on her.

[13:02] Okay. And how old did that Id say she was. She was 18 years old at that time. Did you locate a fraudulent id. Yes, I did. And was that Id seized by Boulder police Department. Yes, it was. Indeed, and was she transported to the hospital as a result of her condition? Yes, she was. All right, and did Officer Leah Rhett conduct a follow-up investigation of this incident. Yes, she did, I believe she called called the female, and some of her friends. And we'll address that later in the hearing. With this specific incident. Officer Stevens, were you on duty on January 31, st 2025. Yes, I was. And what were you doing that day. That day I was doing some just foot patrol and walkthroughs and inspections at some of the bars, restaurants.

[14:05] What's the purpose of an inspection? Why were you doing that? Just to check for general health and safety the area check for crowds over intoxicated individuals, underage patrons. Right, and did you conduct an inspection of chicken on the hill that day? Yes, I did. Approximately. What time did you arrive at, chicken on the hill? That was approximately at 1120 Pm. And Officer Stevens are boulder police department officers required to wear body worn cameras. Yes, we are. And can you explain for the board what is a body worn camera. It's a camera that mine attached to my vest, and we are required to activate them anytime. We take any sort of legal action with the public to capture on camera everything that's

[15:04] being seen and said. And where is this video stored? Once it's taken. So our cameras upload them to our evidence collection website. And they're stored remotely, or I guess, through through whatever their servers are. And after a video is captured, can it be manipulated or altered? Later. No, it cannot. Were you wearing your body? Worn camera on January 31, st 2025. Yes, I was. members of the bla. I'm going to play what has been marked as exhibit one. Bear with me since this is my 1st time using the share screen this evening. Oh, it says the host has disabled Participant screen sharing. If Miss Kellogg were able to fix that real quick. Mia, I just made you a co-host, so you should be able to share.

[16:00] Oh, awesome looks! Good, thank you. Great! And are you all able to hear that? Is that playing, or just? Is it just playing on mine? I think we can hear it. Will you push, play. Thank you. Sorry you said. That was audible. I believe so. Yes. Okay, great and Officer Stevens, do you recognize this video? Just from the 1st few seconds. Yes, it looks like my walkthrough of chicken on the hill. And it's a fair and correct version of the footage that you recorded on January 31, st 2025. Yes. Members of the board we're going to publish exhibit one

[18:40] and at this point that we're going to move for admission of exhibit one. Admitted. You right, Officer Stevens, what did you see during your inspection of chicken on the hill on January 31, st 2025.

[19:02] Sorry. Pretty much a lot of overcrowding. And. Walking in, also made note of the occupancy. Sign the front door of chicken on the hill, which was supposed to be 72. And approximately. How many people did you count inside of chicken on the hill. I would say my best estimate was approximately 200 people. Who determines the occupancy limits of an establishment. The fire, Marshal, for the City of Boulder. And how is the occupancy limit determined. Not exactly sure on that. They have their own tables and stuff that they do. But as far as I know, it's just based on the size of the restaurant and what their city licensing allows them to have as far as tables and open space.

[20:04] Mr. Stevens, do you believe it presents a safety risk to have this? Many people inside the establishment over the posted occupancy. Yes, I do. And why. The posted occupancy is for the safety of the patrons, mainly in case of an emergency fire, or something like that, to where people can egress the building safely, and overcrowding prevents that, and then also causes people to be trampled and injured in process. Officer Stevens, is this the 1st time you've noticed over occupancy issues at chicken on the hill. No, it was not. Can you elaborate a little bit more. So I've been in there. I believe it was a day or a couple of days before that as well, and advised them that their upstairs was way over, occupied, noticed that it was just shoulder to shoulder with people and advise them to to move some patrons out.

[21:12] Officer Stevens, were you on duty on February 7, th 2025. Yes, I was. And what were you doing that day. That day I was doing another walkthrough bar check. And did you go to chicken on the hill. Yes, I did. And why did you go to chicken on the hill that day? So we hit all of the major bars and restaurants on 13th Street that day and went into chicken on the hill just like kind of we would normally do on patrol. And were you wearing your body worn camera on February 7, th 2025, when you went into chicken on the hill. Yes, I was. Just a moment, members of the bla. I'm going to play what has been marked as

[22:01] Exhibit 2. Just a second. I took a good one. And just from the 1st few seconds, Officer Stevens, do you recognize this video? Yes, I do. And what is it? That's gonna be a walkthrough of chicken on the hill. Is it a fair and correct version of the footage you recorded on February 7, th 2025. Yes. Thank you. All right, we're gonna publish. Exhibit 2 for the record.

[24:04] Where's your ipad? You're also coming first.st So you got into this one stamp.

[25:00] What were you drinking in there? Arrivals perfect. How about you? Go walk over there? But we're asking her questions, and then you're changing her answers. I'm telling you right now. It's just easier if you cooperate. Great Officer Stevens, what did you see when you entered chicken on the hill on February 7, th 2025. So a young woman caught my eye she looked way too young to be inside of a bar. And so you interacted with the woman, you pulled her aside, is that correct. Yes, I did. And how old did she tell you she was? Finally found out that she was 18 years old. And did she say how she entered chicken on the hill.

[26:02] Yes, she had a a fake id. And was that Id seized by Boulder police Department. Yes, it was. And was a citation written to this woman. Yes, it was. Officer Stevens, in your capacity as a boulder police department officer, with your experience and training, do you have concerns about chicken on the hill? Yes, I do. And what are those concerns. Mainly. It's the go to place on the hill for underage patrons to get in and drink illegally. Thank you, Officer Stevens, I have nothing further. Thank you. Great at this point, Miss Vickio, if you'd like to cross-examine. Oh, I'm gonna say. I think, Miss Vacchio, you're muted.

[27:06] Okay. Sorry about that. Thank you very much. Yes, I just have a few questions for cross examination. Going back to that in incident on February 7th of 2025. Officer Stevens, do you recall that night, also speaking with my client. the owner of chicken on the hill. Yes, I do. Okay. So I mean, you recognize him sitting here across from the table. Yes, I do. Okay. And do you recall that my client was cooperative with you, and what he was trying to and what you were trying to accomplish. Yes, he was cooperative. Okay.

[28:05] going to Your testimony in regards to October 4th of 2024. You testified earlier that there was a 19 year old girl passed out. and that girl was sitting outside of chicken on the hill. Is that correct? She was in the alley back behind. Not necessarily right in front of chicken on the hill. I think she was a little further down. Almost kind of where Scrooge soul is. Okay, so you didn't actually see her drinking alcohol inside chicken on on the hill. Correct. No, I did not.

[29:00] And you testified that you had assumed that she had entered chicken on the hill using a fake. Id. Is that right? Yes, so her friends told me that they were all inside of chicken on the hill. But she said she had lost her phone and Id. So I didn't have a way to verify that she had a fake. Id. Okay. Now, turning to the November 20, second, 2024 incident. And I believe you were testifying in regards to a police report that had been prepared. Is that right? I'm sorry. I gotta look through my notes real quick.

[30:00] Okay, yeah. So that that incident was, I believe I emailed Officer wreck. After that she was taken to the arc. But I don't believe a report on that night was actually created. I think officer Rec. and I'm not 100% sure on this. I think she created a report later. I'm not a hundred percent sure on that. Okay? And so you didn't see this particular female drinking inside chicken on the hill, either. Is that correct? No, I did not. Okay. going to the incident on January 31st of 2025.

[31:04] And this is the incident where there was some body cam footage and displayed. Do you recall speaking with my client that night as well. I believe I did, but I don't recall what was said. Do you recall that my client was cooperative with you at that time? Yes, he's always been cooperative with me. Okay. Do you recall that he was willing to assist in any way that he could with the situation that was occurring outside and inside. Yes. I don't have any further questions for Officer Stevens. Thank you.

[32:01] Great. Thank you, Miss Keller. Do you have any redirect questions. No, Mister Calizano, I don't. Great. And are there any questions from the board for this witness? Not seeing any? Alright? Well, thank you and Miss Keller, if you have any other witnesses you'd like to call. Yes, please. I'd like to call Sergeant Marquez. Sergeant Marquez, before we get started. If you will just say your name and spell your name and give your position for the record. Sure my name is Michael Marquez, MICH. A. EL. Marquez, MARQ. UEZ. And I'm a sergeant with the Boulder Police Department. Thank you. And do you swear or affirm that the statements you're about to give before the beverage licensing authority are true and correct? I do?

[33:00] Thank you. Ms. Kellogg, Sergeant Marquez, you've already stated your name and spelled your name for the record. Where do you work? I work for the Boulder Police Department at 18 0, 5, 33rd Street is our main building. And how long have you worked at the Boulder police Department? Since late December 96. So just a little bit over 28 years. And how long have you been a sergeant at the Boulder Police Department? Almost 4 years. What are your duties as a sergeant? 1st line supervisor. I supervise for officers that are part of the neighborhood impact team as a direct sergeant. Indirectly, I'm still a supervisor to other officers with the Boulder Police Department. As part of your duties. Do you ever conduct foot patrol in the hill neighborhood. I do? And have you also worked in a supervisory capacity for incidents involving chicken on the hill?

[34:04] Yes. So I'm going to ask you about some specific incidents that you've been a part of so, Sergeant, were you on duty on February 7, th 2025. Yes. And were you conducting foot patrol on the hill area that day? Yes. Approximately. What time did your shift begin? 1,700 h, so 5 Pm. Great sergeant, I know I asked Officer Stevens. But are you required to wear a body worn camera as well. I am. And were you wearing your body worn camera on February 7, th 2025. Yes. Members of the bla. I'm going to play what has been marked as Exhibit 3. Give me just a second.

[35:09] So, Sergeant, just seeing the 1st frame. Do you recognize this video? I do? And what is it? It's my body worn camera. Specifically, that frame is my finger activating the camera. And is it a fair and correct version of the footage you recorded using your body worn camera on February 7, th 2025. Yes. Thank you. I'm now going to publish. Exhibit. 3 people are throwing trash off the balcony behind chicken so off that alley side got 123-45-6789 cups that people are throwing. I can't tell who's throwing them, but they are coming off that patio or porch area off the backside of chicken.

[36:17] See a female smoking an unknown substance on the back porch. So, Sergeant, I know you narrated the video here. But can you reiterate to the board what you saw for the record. Yeah. As I was walking in the alley, I observed people on the back porch or patio area of chicken on the hill. At 1st I heard items hitting the ground, as

[37:02] is what initially caught my attention, I observed an unknown person throwing multiple items off that porch to the South Landing in that parking lot of kind of like that I think it's a apartment parking area, and then noted that there are approximately 8 to 9 cups is what the garbage that was being thrown from chicken on the hill. You? And why is this an issue. Well, one of the main complaints is litter on the hill through community members makes the the hill dirty, or I would say, you know, just ugly and not very business like to do so again, we get complaints about litter, and that's definitely an issue that we work on on the hill. At times.

[38:00] Thank you, sergeant. Just a second. I'm going to publish. Exhibit 4. Alright. Just looking at the 1st frame of this video, sergeant, do you recognize this video? I do? And what is it? It's body cam of me on foot walking basically ultimately northbound on 13th Street from college on that west side. So I'm just south of a chicken on the hill by a couple businesses. And is it a fair and correct version of the footage you recorded on February 7, th 2025.

[39:00] Yes. Thank you. All right, members of the board I'm now going to publish. Exhibit 4 on the front side of checking. Now line extends almost all the way to 13th of college need to see that very important over here. I could throw it out, and I have to see an Id. I'm going to caution you. If you're not 21, it's time to tell me right now. Don't hand me a fake, Id, because it's going to get real bad for you like that would be just ridiculous. So don't do that.

[40:19] Okay, so you're not 21. Okay? So it's been my experience. You're standing in line that you probably have a fake id on you. So I'm gonna make this easy for you. Just hand it over. So you don't get in trouble. Okay, all right. Thank you. Now, your real Id, please. You don't have a real id with you. I'm sorry. What state is your id up, Arizona? What's your name? L. What? L. Betson? So I'm going to write you a ticket real quick. Elle, all right. So were you going to try to get into the bar with this Id here, you're going to try to get into the bar with this Id here. Yeah. How often do you get into the bar with this id your 1st time 0 chance. It's your 1st time that would be like me telling you this is my 1st day of law enforcement.

[41:21] No, it actually is. I just all right. So I tell you what, I'm not. Gonna write you a ticket for your fake Id. And I'm not gonna write you a ticket for trying to get into the bar. But I'm gonna write you a ticket. All right. We're going to move for admission of Exhibit 4. I don't believe I moved for admission of exhibit 3. So we're going to move for admission of both of those exhibits at this time. Both exhibits 3 and 4 admitted. Thank you. So, Sergeant, let's 1st talk about the line that you witnessed. How far did the line for chicken on the hill extend on February 7, th 2025.

[42:05] Sure it extended from basically the front doors of chicken on the hill to the south, as I narrated almost to 13th and college. And how did you know this line was for chicken on the hill, and not for a different bar. Cause. They were lined up, all going towards chicken on the hill, and that is the only bar right there From the intersection or the 1st bar did this line appear to be controlled. No. Did you see Staff at chicken on the hill attempting to control the line. No. Why is a line like this an issue. It creates a problem I see that. Many people outside creates a hazard or a safety hazard at times harder for people to walk the sidewalk

[43:01] when you get a lot of people in a confined area like that, or that many people in line, there's always the chance of assaults or people getting into confrontations or just bad things that could happen due to that. Many people in one area. Now I want to talk about the woman that you stopped. Why did you stop her? Yeah. She caught my attention for a couple of different reasons, that she had an open container of a beverage, a high noon which I knew was an alcoholic beverage. And then also she looked very young to me. And you discovered this woman was not 21. Is that correct? I did. And how did you discover that. Well, I pretty much let her know that I didn't believe that she was 21, and then she informed me that she was not, in fact, 21. She was 19, I believe.

[44:00] And she admitted to you that she was going to try to use her fake Id to get into chicken on the hill. Yes. And was this Id. Confiscated by Boulder police Department. Yes. Does this concern you. It does. Why? Well, 1st of all, underage people entering the bar and drinking is against the law. I know it to be against liquor code right underage people that drink in the bars I found sometimes drink too much. and that leads to other problems, such as assaults, sex assaults, unfortunately, and medical calls. All right. Now I want to ask you about an incident that's occurred involving an officer you supervise. So, Sergeant Marquez, are you familiar with wildside smoke shop.

[45:00] I am. And where is wildside smoke shop located. Wild side is just south of Chicken, on the hill. And have there been complaints from this business about chicken on the hill? There happen. Can you elaborate on what those complaints have been. Yeah. I was informed by Officer Tandy, who is a watch? 3 officer that he received a complaint. It started off as a harassment as I think how it was titled in our CAD system. That the owner was frustrated with the line extending right in front of his business's front door, and even past which basically causes issues with his customers trying to get in or having to navigate through a large crowd to get in people knocking on the window treating them like a fishbowl is, or something to that effect. and also that there were people pilling decals off his signs or signage at the store.

[46:08] So his wild side smoke shop actually put in a call for service for boulder police department. Yes. And you were involved in that call. I was not involved. I was made aware of the call by officer, Tandy. And that call came on February 6, th 2025, correct. I believe so. So that was actually the day before you witnessed the line in the body. Cam, video. Yes. Do you have concerns with the line at chicken on the hill being an ongoing problem. I do? And do you believe the line creates disturbances in neighboring businesses? Yes. And do you believe anything is being done by management at chicken on the hill to control the line. I I don't see much progress in in that cause. I'm still seeing large lines outside

[47:05] or before the temporary. Overall in your capacity as a boulder. Police. Sorry. Say that one more time. I was still seeing large lines prior to the temporary suspension. Thank you. I'm sorry to cut you off. So finally, in your capacity as a boulder police department sergeant, you said you've been in law enforcement since 1996. Do you have concerns about chicken on the hill. I do? And what are those concerns. The concerns consist of letting underage people inside the bar to drink, and the issues that I had spoke about earlier over service medical calls, assaults, sex assaults. or the potential of disturbances. I'm also concerned highly with the fact that

[48:00] they're over capacity, or there have been many times where the bar is over its capacity, which creates a pretty intense safety hazard in case there is an emergency or a fire. I don't believe that they will. The people that are there would be able to adequately all get out and maybe hurt and or killed if there was a a fire or something. Major happened inside. Do the trampling. Thank you, sergeant. I have nothing further. Ms. Vecchio, do you have any cross-examination? Questions. Yes, just a few questions. Thank you. Officer Marquez, going back to the what was marked as exhibit 3. The body cam footage of the exterior of the premises. You testified to your concerns regarding trash getting thrown off the balcony. Is that right?

[49:04] Yes. Okay, are you aware of any cleanup efforts that chicken on the hill makes on a daily basis? Following especially the weekends to make sure the exterior of the premises are cleaned up after these kinds of nights. I'm not. Going to exhibit 4, which was the body cam footage taken around 1045 PM. You testified to. a long line do you recall? And that testimony. Yes. Okay. You testified to the fact that there was a young woman who was waiting in that line. That's correct. Yes. Okay. And this woman was outside chicken on the hill. Correct.

[50:05] Correct. And she wasn't actually let into the premises. Is that right? That's correct. Okay. So you have no direct knowledge that she drank alcohol inside chicken on on the hill. Is that right? Correct. And you have no knowledge that she bought the alcohol that she was holding while inside chicken on the hill right. Correct. You testified earlier to a report that was made by another officer in regards to wildside smoke shop. Is that right? Just to specify. It wasn't a report. It was an email that I had received. Okay. So this email was a report made by another person and not yourself. Correct.

[51:03] Correct. Okay? So you don't have, then any direct personal knowledge of any instance between chicken on the hill and wild side smoke shop. Is that right? Other than the email, stating that they they are having problems. So you'd never personally spoke with the owner of wild side smoke shop. Is that right? That's correct. Okay. I don't have any further questions. Thank you, officer. Thank you. Great. Ms. Keller, do you have any redirect questions. No, Mr. Califano. Great, you can move on to your next witness, or excuse me, excuse me, are there any questions from the board? I just had one quick one. That line looked pretty chaotic.

[52:01] Was it moving at all? It seemed pretty stagnant. And when you mentioned chaotic I think you you saw me pull that female from the line because it creates a officer safety issue for me if I'm trying to contact her right at the line. And I had called for cover. That was the code. 12. Because I didn't feel comfortable trying to make that contact by myself right there with that many people around me. Great. Thank you. That's the only question I had any others from the board. Not seeing any, Miss Keller, you may move on. Thank you, Mr. Califano. Thank you, sergeant. I'd now like to call Officer Diaz to the stand. Officer, Diaz, before we proceed. If you will just say your name, spell your name, and give your position for the record.

[53:02] Yes, officer Gustavo Diaz, Gustavo, GUST. A, VODS. DIAZ. I'm a police officer for the city of Boulder. Thank you. And do you swear or affirm that the statements you're about to give before the beverage licensing authority are true and correct? I do? Thank you. Thank you, Miss Kellogg. All right, Officer Diaz, where do you work? I work at the city of Boulder for the Boulder police department. How long have you worked at the Boulder police Department? Approximately 4 and a half years. What are some of your duties? My duties right now is part of the Knit Hill team, and where we patrol the the hill area on foot and in cars. Officer Diaz, were you on duty on September 13, th 2024. I was. And on that day were you dispatched to 1 1 9 13th Street.

[54:04] There was. And what is located at 1 1 1 9 13th Street. That's the address for chicken on the hill. Why were you dispatched to that location. We were dispatched for a medical service call, where a female was passed out in front of chicken. And approximately. What time did you arrive at that location? About 1 15 in the morning. Right. And were you wearing your body worn camera that day. It was. Let me share my screen. So just looking at the 1st few frames of this video officer, Diaz, do you recognize this footage? I do. That's my body. Worn camera footage from that night.

[55:01] And it's a fair and correct version of the body camera footage you recorded on September 13.th It is. Going to publish. Exhibit 5. Why did we give her, Narcan? Did she drink something else? I haven't been drinking, but she's been drinking for like an hour and a half

[56:00] guys. I need you to back up. Please let him do his job. I've seen her everything she's taken like she's not had enough. It's okay. It's okay. It's okay.

[57:14] Do you guys have her phone at all? I have her phone. I don't have her. Id. I don't know if she has a look right. She doesn't have her Id. I don't know where her they're going to be. Okay.

[58:02] There's a good Samaritan law. Sorry the video has frozen for us. Yeah, Miss Keller, the video did freeze about halfway through

[59:08] Miss Keller. The video actually froze about halfway through for everyone. I was hoping someone would tell me that it froze on my. Sorry. Wasn't quite sure. No worries. Yeah. That's okay. I I can continue with this line of questioning, and I will have Officer Diaz explain what he saw when he was at the scene. Thank you hopefully, that does not happen with the other ones. It's so, Officer Diaz, actually, before we do that, I'm going to move for admission of exhibit 5, or at least the portion that was able to be seen by the bla. We could hear the audio of the whole thing that can be admitted. But about half of the visual of the video can be admitted as well. All right. Thank you. So, Officer Diaz, what did you see when you arrived at 1 1 9 13th Street on September 13, th 2024.

[60:02] Yes, I saw a female that was just surrounded by several other people that were later identified as her friends who was passed out. She wasn't conscious, but still was breathing, and she was. She was just laying down on the sidewalk. And who is with her. I don't recall their names, but about 3 of her friends that they admitted saying that they were with her inside the bar. And were you able to identify the unconscious woman. I was. And how were you able to identify her. By the help of her friends. And were you able to determine how old this woman was. Yes, she was 19. And how did you determine that. Just by simple math by, you know, giving a birthday. And you said she was 19. Correct. Why do you believe this woman was unconscious. I believe that she was over served oriented more

[61:03] into the fact that she's just really intoxicated. Were you able to talk to her friends about how much alcohol she consumed. I did. And what were her friends, responses. They said that she had a couple shots, 2 shots inside of the dorm on campus, and then inside of chicken on the hill, that she had 4 shots and 2 beers. Was medical personnel called to the scene as well. Well, they were. And was this woman ultimately transported to the hospital? She was. Officer Diaz, were you on duty on October 12, th 2024. I was. Yes. And on that day were you dispatched to 1, 3, 3 University Avenue. I was. Yes. And what is located at 1 3, 3 University Avenue.

[62:02] It is a sorority. Kappa alpha theta sorority House. And why were you dispatched to that location. I was dispatched there again for another medical service, where a female was passed out, due to being intoxicated. And were you wearing your body worn camera that day. There was. Just like it. Fingers crossed. This one works this time just a second. Right. So, Officer Diaz, just based on the 1st few seconds. Do you recognize this footage?

[63:02] I do. That's my body worn camera from that night outside of the Sorority house. And it's a fair and correct version of the footage you recorded using your body worn camera. It is. Now going to play what has been marked as Exhibit 6. She just wanted to make sure she's okay. Okay. But she's upstairs. Okay, thank you guys for calling. He's breathing but slowly.

[64:20] They're telling us to put my hand on her forehead and my other hand under her neck. She's okay. Sorry. Okay, she's just drunk. What time did she get home? What time is it? I would say. Like, about an hour ago I was with her. For 20 min. She was throwing up at first, st and then she sat down for like 5 min, threw up again, and then for 15 min she was completely unresponsive, and then we and then we tried to carry her, and she was completely unresponsive. For 15 min I tried tapping her neck. Everything she wasn't responsive. And then we moved her like complete dead body weight. Yeah, into here. Because

[65:11] so she's fine. She's just drunk. Yeah, you guys, I know you guys are a little bit sorry. No, it's okay. Well, she's going to go to the hospital to get checked out. Make sure that she has some adequate care adequate care. What's her name? It's Molly, Molly alright. And what's going on? Hey, Molly? It's like really unresponsive. Okay, hey, Molly? My name's Matt. I'm with the ambulance. Can you talk with me at all? Right? Her phone is right here. Oh, no, that's not my phone. Okay, this is her phone. You know what she was drinking at. but they were just like, we don't really know, hey, girl? But we got separated. The police are here.

[66:22] This is her brother. This is a lot of people. No, that's not English. She's fine, I promise you. She's fine. There's just a lot of people more people trying to talk to her. We went to Chicken Hospital because her birthday.

[67:06] August 3, rd 2,005, August 3, rd 2,005, August 3, rd 0 8. August is 0 8, yeah, 0 8, 0 3, 2,005. What you wrote? Yeah, that is of California.

[68:17] Right? We would move for admission of exhibit 6. So admitted. Thank you. Right, Officer Diaz, what did you see when you arrived at the Sorority House? Yeah, we were met with a few panicked sorority sisters that were very concerned for Molly's well-being. They led us upstairs to her room where she was on the ground, being held up, assisted by one of the sorority sisters. where she was clearly having troubles, you know, sitting upright. And it looks like you were able to speak to the woman's brother about how she came to be in that condition. Is that correct?

[69:00] That's correct. And what did the woman's brother say. I initially, initially said that they were drinking on the hill both at the waffle and chicken on the hill. And was he able to give you this woman's age. Yes. And how old was she? 19. Did the woman's brother tell you how she was able to enter chicken on the hill. She has a fake id. And was that fake Id seized by Boulder police department. It was. And was this woman ultimately transported to the hospital? She was. Officer Diaz, were you on duty on January 16, th 2025. I was. And on that day were you conducting foot patrol in the area of 13th and college in Boulder. Yes, I was.

[70:00] And why were you conducting foot patrol in that location? It's pretty well known common knowledge that the 1st week of a semester it's called Silly Week. So a lot of the students tend to be drinking a lot that week. So with the influx of Just. we were also getting a lot of influx of of the students on the hill, coming back from winter break. And approximately. What time were you conducting foot patrol on January 16, th 2025. About 1010 11 Pm. And were you wearing your body worn camera that day. I was. Members of the bla. I'm going to share my screen and play what has been marked as exhibit 7. Good afternoon. So, Officer Diaz, just based on these 1st few frames. Do you recognize this video?

[71:02] Yes, that's the beginning of my patrol for the the hill. The bars on the hill. And is it a fair and correct version of the footage you recorded using your body worn camera on January 16, th 2025. It is. Thank you. I don't know. Security guards, hey? Grab a security guard. Tell him. Tell him to put a hard line on it.

[72:33] Everyone on the line.

[73:19] So, hey, I'm just trying to see. They push the line all the way up into the middle. So it's not like all the way to the outside.

[74:08] We'd now move for admission of exhibit 7. So it made it. Thank you, Officer Diaz, when you arrived at chicken on the hill, did you notice anything unusual. Yes, the large capacity of the line was very unusual for chicken on the hill. It was extremely large. Extending. you know all the way to 13, th the corner of 13th and college. And when you say a large line about how many people do you estimate to have been waiting in this line? I'd estimate about a hundred. And was it an issue that the line was this size. Absolutely. It was a concern of mine that we couldn't. Even we had to push people aside to just get to the front door. Along with that I I saw people getting pushed. The line was swaying back and forth because people were shoving each other in each direction.

[75:09] Additionally to being a safety hazard. Do you believe the size of the line was disruptive to other businesses in the area. Yes, I do. Why? Just prior knowledge of knowing that. The smokes the West Side smoke shop right there. Has had some incidences where you know they were just unhappy with how the patrons in that line were treating their front business. So how did you respond to the size of the line. I called several officers to assist me with that. Just because of just Officer safety and to help with the crowd control. I spoke with the manager informed them that I wasn't going to shut down their business, but we did need to get their line under control. So we shut the doors their business still conducted inside. And

[76:01] we had a couple of security guards just pretty much. Go and tell everybody that you know they're not letting anybody else in which would disperse the line eventually. And were you successful? Was the crowd able to be dispersed. It was yes, after maybe 1015 min. Was anyone injured while you were attempting to get the line to disperse. Not that I can remember. No, but people were being shoved to the ground. Do you believe chicken on the Hill Security team was equipped to handle the situation. Do not. Why? Just speaking with the manager that night. He had informed me that they were actually short on security and that they were in the process of hiring more. So just, you know, with that information, I I knew that they weren't capable of of handling a line a line that large. Right officer, Diaz, in your capacity as an officer with the Boulder police department, with your experience and training, do you have concerns about chicken on the hill?

[77:04] They do? Yes. And what are those concerns. The overall just capacity of inside the establishment. Allowing that many people inside the bar is risk to every everyone inside. There was an emergency people could potentially get trampled on and create more harm. We've experienced times where we've tried to get through to get to someone specifically inside the bathroom, or you know anyone that's inside the bar, and it's just shoulder to shoulder, and we are unable to quickly get there and assist with that as well. The underage serving. Of yeah. of the students out there. Not only is it illegal, but it also affects

[78:01] future calls for potential sex assaults, assaults. And yeah. Thank you, Officer Diaz, I have nothing further. Great. Thank you. Ms. Vicchio. Do you have any cross-examination? Questions. I do. Yes, thank you. officer Diaz, starting with Exhibit B, which was introduced as evidence. You recall your testimony that you approached as a young woman was laying on the sidewalk. Can you hear me? Okay. Yeah. Tired of hearing. Oh, yes, I do. I do. this woman that was laying on the sidewalk. It sounds like there was some discussion initially that she may have consumed drugs. Are you. Do you remember that part of the conversation.

[79:02] The the conversation was that she might have been roofied, but that she didn't initially take drugs on her own. Okay, so you don't actually know whether or not she had been roofied in this instance. No. Okay. And we don't have any blood tests or drug results to show whether or not she had been refeed. That's correct. Okay? And we don't have any blood alcohol levels. For this particular victim, do we. No, we don't. Okay. You testified that she was in possession of a fake. Id. Is that right? I don't think that we ever collected a fake. Id, so I can't. 100% say that she was in possession of a fake id. Okay,

[80:00] We don't have any direct testimony from her that she was over served at chicken on the hill. Is that right? Not for my initial investigation. No. Okay? And in the video, it can be seen. And and you can speak to the fact that the owner chicken on the hill was actually outside with you on that night. Yes, that is correct. Do you remember that? Okay and Do you recall that the owner of chicken on the hill was trying to assist and support the police department in that instance. Yes, he was. Okay. And he was trying to keep onlooker onlookers away from the victim. Is that right? It is correct. Okay. Are you aware of the fact that there were 2 older males with the victim at the time that she was laying on the sidewalk. Do you recall that. I don't recall their age, but I do recall that there were males with them.

[81:02] Okay. Are you aware that those males were purchasing alcohol for the victim. That is correct. Okay, moving on to exhibit 6, which is has been admitted as body camera footage of in a sorority house. Do you remember that testimony. Okay? And you testified that the victim in this situation was a 19 year old girl girl who had a fake. Id, is that right? That's correct. Okay, and you testified earlier, or I'm sorry. Do you recall hearing? I don't think it was in your testimony. I think it was in the video. Do you recall hearing the victim's brother state that he was at Waffle Lab as well as chicken on the hill?

[82:01] That is correct. Yes. Okay. And do you know, if the victim drank in other locations in addition to those. Just those 2 were mentioned. Okay? And and we don't have any direct testimony from the victim who, as to where specifically she consumed alcohol. Is that right? Not from the victim mill. Moving on to exhibit 7, which was body cam footage presented of the line outside chicken on the hill in January. Do you remember that line of testimony. Yes, I do. Do you recall? That night the owner of chicken on the hill was outside, working with you to control the line. Yes, I do. And do you recall that the owner was also

[83:03] also assisted in completely dispersing the line at your direction? Yes, I do. Okay. And so would you agree that he was fully compliant with the request of the police officers on the night in question. Yes, he was completely cooperative. Okay. And you testified that he had told you and mentioned to you that he was in the process of hiring more security guards. Yes. Okay. He also testified that this was a very unusual night for chicken on the hill. With the line. Yes, that was quite unusual to see that that kind of line. Yeah. Okay. I don't have any further questions. Thank you, Miss Keller. Do you have any questions. No, I do not. Are there any questions from the board?

[84:00] Not seeing any? All right, Miss Keller, you may proceed. Thank you. We have one final witness. I'd like to call Officer Leah Rec. For me. Cool. I apologize. I have a dark barking dog in the background, if you can hear that. But, Officer, wreck if you will. Just say your name, spell your name, and give your position for the record. My name is Officer Leah, Rec. RECH. Thank you, and if you'll raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm the statement you're about to get before the beverage? Licensing authority is true and correct. I do? Thank you. Thank you, officer. Reck, where do you work? I work for the city of Boulder Police Department. And how long have you worked at the police department? For 24 years. And what are your duties at the police department. My duties currently are the liquor Enforcement officer.

[85:03] And I respond to calls of alcohol, complaints, or concerns at liquor license establishments within the city of Boulder as part of your duties. Do you also conduct follow-up investigations on calls for service, involving fraudulent ids. Yes, I do. What about calls involving service for minors? I. I am asked to follow up on those as well. In your capacity as an officer at the Boulder Police department. Have you conducted follow-up investigations on calls for service involving chicken on the hill. Yes, I have. Right officer wreck. Do you know approximately how many calls for Service boulder Police Department has responded to involving chicken on the hill since January of 2024. Approximately 53 calls for service. And what types of calls have these been.

[86:01] Those are going to be all the calls for service that are there, and those would be anywhere from calls where we're dispatched, there, where a caller calls in and asks for help, or maybe it's a burglary. The next day it could be officer conducting an inspection there. It could be a liquor law violation. It could be an assist that they've called us to come out and help, maybe with an id dispute. Things along that that line. Is 53 calls for service higher or lower than calls for service, involving most businesses in the area. Again. Most businesses. That's a higher number of calls for service. There. You've testified that you've conducted follow up investigations on certain incidents involving fraudulent ids. We're going to talk about some of those incidents now. So, starting with one that occurred with Officer Diaz, Officer Reck, did you conduct a follow-up investigation after Officer Diaz responded to an unconscious woman inside chicken on the hill on September 13, th 2024.

[87:10] I did conduct some follow up on that. Yes. And can you please describe to the board what investigative steps you took. The after I got the information from Officer Diaz in his report, and also watched the body cam footage. From that incident I reached out to the owner, Jared Liu, and asked for the video footage of the the female entering the establishment and the timeframe, so I could get a timestamp on that, and there was a little bit of communication also trying to find information on if he could get video for me on who paid for drinks, who purchased drinks that sort of a thing. But there was never. There was never any video of that. Only video of the female entering the establishment.

[88:02] Was that video of the woman entering the establishment, timestamped. Yes, it was. And approximately, what timestamp did the video have. It had 1154. Right. So based on your investigation. The medical call for the same woman who is unconscious out front was approximately how long after she 1st walked in. Based upon the CAD information. And CAD is the computer aided dispatch. So that's the how we track our calls for service through our dispatch center. It was about an hour and 16 min later that Officer Diaz was dispatched or made contact there at the establishment. And based on your investigation, were you able to determine how many drinks she was served in that 1 h and 16 min period. Listening to the body worn camera footage of the friends that were with her indicated. She had 4 shots and 2 beers while she was inside chicken on the hill.

[89:03] And in your investigation, were you able to determine how old this woman was. She was 19 years old. And also I wanted to clarify, too, based upon the video information. The other individuals that were with her also identified themselves. They provided their correct dates of birth, and they were also the 2 males, and the female that were with her were also under 21 years of age, and that information is in the report and officer wreck in your investigation. Was this entire group able to enter chicken on the hill with fraudulent ids. Yes, they all admitted that they had made it inside the establishment. Okay. right now, we're going to talk about an incident that occurred on November 20, second, 2024. Did you conduct a follow up investigation after Officer Stevens came across an unconscious woman outside of chicken on the hill. On that date.

[90:02] Yeah. And I wanted to also clarify something, too, because we've had quite quite a few of very similar calls. I believe that the call that officer Stevens is talking about. That occurred in the alley occurred on October 4.th The call that I'm talking about, or that's discussed in this. The question here occurred on October 20 second, and it was in front of the establishment, so I wanted to clarify that. And again the the follow up calls that I will sometimes get, maybe an email. It may be a verbal. Hey? Can you follow up on this? And then again, my follow up consists of pulling body cam footage from that incident and documenting those calls for service so based upon the information that I received from Officer Stevens. I believe the October 4th call that he talked about was the one that occurred in the alley. The one that happened on October 20 second occurred in front of Chicken on the hill.

[91:03] Thank you, officer, Rec. For clarifying that. So did you conduct a follow up investigation on both of these incidents. Yes, I did. All right, so we'll talk about the October 4th 1 first.st Can you describe what investigative steps you took and the what investigative steps you took. On October 4, th let me pull that call here. October 4, th let's see here. This, that was a call that I did not officer Stevens just sent me an email saying that he contacted intoxicated female. Her friend stated that she was at chicken on the hill. She was 19, passed out vomiting. She was taken to the hospital by Amr. She had lost her phone in our Id, so he could not confirm that she had used a fraudulent Id, and that's the one that he said that he was suspecting that that's how she was able to get in, or he was speculating, or had assumed. So that was that

[92:05] that call, for there. Thank you, officer. Rec. And then the call on October 20, second, 2024. What investigative steps did you take after that call came in. That call. I actually reached out to her to find out what had happened. If she. So sorry when you say to her you mean the unconscious woman. To the unconscious woman. I apologize when I had reached out to her, and she was actually at home in her home state at the time. So her dad was next to her while I was having a conversation with her, and she admitted that they were consuming alcohol at chicken on the hill, and that she used a fraudulent id to get into the establishment. While she was in there she purchased a red bull and vodka from the bar on the upper level. and she said, right after that, that's when she started feeling sick. And then she recalled waking up in the emergency room. She doesn't know how she got there. Her dad did follow up with the hospital to try to find out if they

[93:05] were able to pull any blood work to determine if she had been drugged, and they said they did not pull blood work. They had not suspected she had been drugged, and they were not able to get a vac level on her, since she was unconscious they did not have that. So that was Per. Her father, who gave me that information. Thank you. Right. Officer. Wreck! Did you also conduct a follow-up investigation after Officer Stevens alleged an occupancy violation at Chicken on the Hill, January 31, st 2025. I did. And can you describe what investigative steps you took. So when I got that information from Officer Stevens again I pulled the body worn camera footage or I didn't pull it. I watched the body worn camera footage from that incident and that walkthrough, which is, when I discovered that there was some other violations that were occurring there which were the modifications of premise, and then based upon what Officer Stevens had told me about their no tables and chairs on the upper floor.

[94:11] And that's when I noticed that there was the some violations going on there. So did you? Oh, go ahead, officer. I was going to tell you too. This is also when I reached out to the licensing authority to determine if the the modifications that had been made had been conducted through the proper channels of applying for the modification of premise. And I, we just didn't have that updated information and the licensing authority, or the licensing manager advised that there had been no modifications or no applications for a modification of premise made. Why do you believe these modifications were made based on your training and experience?

[95:03] Based upon my training and experience. I believe that the tables and chairs were moved, based upon information that they wanted to have more availability of more space, more occupancy levels. And also yes, that. And that is that is why I believe that they had them move so that they could get more people inside. And do you believe that moving this furniture materially or substantially alters the license premises. I do. And also if you, when you watched one of the body worn camera, I believe it was from Officer Stevens. You'll see directly in that front door is a wall there, and on the opposite side of the wall, I believe, is a TV, and that is not part of their plan that had been submitted, or that is on file with the licensing authority. So that is, that is an absolute. That's a wall that's there. That's not supposed to be there. Additionally, the officers, when they did their walkthrough on the upper floor they walked out to the back patio. It's an upper patio, and you could see down below there was tables and chairs.

[96:14] and then eventually lighting back there and some heating lamps in an area that is not licensed to be occupied at all. Do you believe all of these modifications represent a safety risk? I do? Why is that? I believe that it's the occupancy is a huge safety concern, for if there's any sort of an event or an incident that occurs there. It's difficult. It would be difficult for the police, the fire department, the emergency people to get inside as well as if there is an event inside the establishment. It's going to be very difficult for the occupants and the staff to get out of the establishment, to egress, to get out of there. Officer, Reck, do you also work collaboratively with the University of Colorado Police Department?

[97:06] Yes, we do. I do. And have you worked with their personnel on cases involving chicken on the hill? I did. I worked with them most recently on one case getting it, working collaboratively with the information that I had providing them with contact information for the owner. So you're familiar with Investigator Christopher. Yes, I am. And you said, You're are you currently assisting investigator, Christopher, in any active investigations. She has an active investigation going on. That was the case that I had provided to her the information on how to get a hold of the owner of the establishment. So that is the case that we've been working together to get her that information. Provide that information, and she would ask me what what I know about the scanners that they have, and and things like that.

[98:04] So, to the best of your knowledge, the Cu police department is also expending resources to investigate chicken on the hill for similar liquor violations. Is that correct? That is correct. I actually asked officer or officer. She's an investigator. She's a civilian investigator. I asked her if she could tell me how many calls for, or how many cases that they have involving chicken on the hill, and from October 10th of 2024 till February 6th they have 8 total cases, 7 of them are closed. They were all dealing with alcohol, where the parties reported that they had been at chicken on the hill, and then the latest one that she's working on is an open investigation, and it's involving a sex assault from an underage individual who had been consuming alcohol at chicken on the hill prior to the sex assault. One of her cases involved a 17 year old.

[99:02] Thank you, Officer. Reck, did you write an affidavit detailing all of the events you've testified to today? Yes, I did. Great. I'm going to share my screen. Officer wreck! Do you recognize this document? Yes, I do. Oh! What is it? Is the that is my report, where I have had it not sworn, but signed by a notary documenting all the information and the cases, and the follow up that I have done, involving the cases and the incidents with chicken on the hill. And did it appear to be a true and correct copy of the affidavit you wrote. Yes, it does. Right. We at this time we would request the Board accept Officer Wreck's affidavit as an exhibit. Oh! Accepted! Thank you. Finally, Officer, reck in your capacity as a boulder police department officer, with your experience and training, do you have concerns about chicken on the hill?

[100:05] I do. I have some. I have a lot of concerns, and dealing with the health and safety of not only the occupants, the age of the occupants, the health and safety of the community. When the individuals are served alcohol and they roll out into the community. What happens? I'm concerned about the underage people who consume alcohol, and then. you know, not not aware of what's happening to them. I'm concerned about how many people are inside the establishment for the officers, the medical personnel, and also the people who are inside the establishment. Should something happen. And we've all seen that in the news there's been situations where there have been critical incidents that occur inside nightclubs or in establishments where people were unable to get out. And it's not, it's not safe and based upon all the information and the reports that I've received from the officers and reviewing the body cam footage. I believe that it's a very unsafe environment at this time.

[101:08] Thank you, Officer Rack, I have no further questions. Becky. Any cross-examination. Yes, just briefly, thank you, officer Rack, in regards to your testimony related to the October 4, th 2024 events. You say you stated that you had received an email in regards to that event. Is that right? Yeah, it was an email from Officer Stevens. Okay. So you have no direct personal knowledge of that event. Is that right? That is correct. Okay. So you weren't there on site checking on the hill to be able to testify to what happened. Is that right? I was not there. I only watched body, cam footage. In regards to the event that you mentioned, you testified that it was October 20, second of 2024. Is it possible that you meant November 20, second of 2020.

[102:07] Yes, thank you for that correction. That is November 20 second. Okay. So this event you testified to the fact that you had done a follow up investigation. Is that right? Yes. and you testified to the fact that there was actually no blood work done to confirm whether or not this particular female had been drugged, or what her intoxication level was. Is that correct? That is what her father told me. Okay? So you have no direct knowledge. Again, as to the level of intoxication of this victim. Is that right? That's correct. And you don't have any direct knowledge as to how this particular victim became intoxicated. Is that right? She admitted to me on the phone that she consumed a red bull and vodka that she purchased from the bar upstairs at Chicken on the hill.

[103:07] Okay. you testified to an investigation that you conducted in January in regards to occupancy. Do you recall that. Yep. Wouldn't you agree that moving tables and chairs is not a permanent modification to any premises? According to the licensing authority, the moving of tables and chairs is a violation, and yes, it is. It directly affects the occupancy levels, and that is also per chief fire. Marshal Lowry. Okay. But you're not a lawyer. Is that correct? No. Okay. That is correct. I'm not a lawyer. Okay. And so wouldn't you agree that moving tables and chairs to the side is not a permanent change to any premises and not talking about the law I'm talking about. It's not a permanent change to the premises. I'm not asking you to testify to the law is where where I'm going. With that.

[104:07] Correct. Because any table and chair can be moved back. Correct. Correct. Okay? You testified also that you had had conversations with the CEO investigator. Do you recall that testimony. Yes. Okay, but you have no direct personal knowledge as to any of those investigations. Do you. I do not. I have I can. Since the cases are closed, we can request the reports. However, I did not do that I received the information from the investigator. Okay? And I'm just curious. You have submitted this affidavit. I don't see a signature on the affidavit anywhere. Did you intend to sign the affidavit, or what was your your intention? There.

[105:02] The affidavit should have been signed. I believe. Okay, I don't have a signed copy, mia, so just letting you know I don't have any further questions. Great. Thank you. Any other questions from Miss Keller. No. Are there any questions for Officer wreck from the board? Not seeing any alright? Oh, Leah. I just yes, thank you. Hi, officer Leah. Hi Leah! So you mentioned that there was a new wall or something when you walk in can you explain that a little bit more. Yeah, in one of the body cam footage videos. I believe it was from Officer Stevens when he was conducting a walkthrough. When you walk in. There's 2 glass doors that you walk in at the front of the business, and right past that is a wall, a wall that was built, and I don't know the intended purpose of that wall.

[106:11] However, it is not on the plans, and I I did verify that with licensing, and they had a copy of the floor plan. That wall is a new wall, and it was not permitted. Okay, and that would be considered a permanent modification. I believe that it would. It looked like it was fairly permanent. It wasn't something that could just it, didn't. It didn't appear from the body cam footage. It was something that they would take down each night. It looked like it was there, as there was a TV hung on the backside of it, or some kind of a monitor hung on the opposite side of it. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions.

[107:02] All right, Miss Keller. You may move on. Thank you. I have no further witnesses, but would like to reserve some time for closing. Great at this point, Miss Vecchio, if you would like to proceed with your witnesses and evidence. Yes, thank you. I would like to call the owner of chicken on the hill, Jared. I'm sorry. Yes. Mr. Liu, before you proceed, if you will just say your name and spell your name and give an address for the record. Yeah, name is Duan Liu, DUON. G. Last name is Lou. Address 47, 43 West 117th and Avenue in Westminster, Colorado, 8 0 0 3 1. Thank you. If you'll raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the statements you're about to give before the board are true and correct? Yes, yes, thank you, Mister Luke.

[108:01] 1st I wanted to have you address the allegation that you had put up a new wall on premises that's not actually on your diagram submitted to the liquor licensing authority. Please explain, if you could, to the panel what this purported wall actually is. So it's a 3 feet by 5 foot long. Wall, it's a dry wall, that's it's a studded wall that's made out of Drywall. where it's not permanently attached to the ground. That wall. The intention is to prevent customer to be surrounded, the bar and overcrowd the whole bar that wall. The intention is just to have it there, too. Divide people from coming into the bar. But like I said, it's a it's a movable wall. It's about, I believe, 20 pound.

[109:02] I put sandbags on it just to make sure it doesn't fall over, but and so you can personally walk up and just push the wall out of the out of the way. If you want absolutely okay. And you stated you put the wall there to prevent overcrowding at the bar. Yes, absolutely okay. do you on occasion move the wall so that it's not standing where it typically stands? Yes, absolutely okay. I'd like to address the time that you spoke with the owner of wild side smoke. What happened when you learned that he had a complaint? So 1st things first, st when I heard the complaint from Officer Tengy Tengi, I ran straight over to Wild Smoke. I addressed him. I said, Hey.

[110:02] this is my 1st time. Hearing the complaints don't. I don't want to have a bad neighbor, and I don't want to be a bad neighbor as well. I asked him if there's any damages I can offer to pay for. I asked him what is going on. He said that the line was just too long blocking his door. so the next following day I I told him the next following day I got some lines, some ropes, to make sure that we spaced ourselves from the line to their establishment. It was Grant he was the general manager that night that I spoke to. We shook hands. I apologize to him what had happened, and I assure him it won't happen again. He gave me his word, you know. Thank you for coming over. Addressing the situation. We also partnered up as well after that day to promote each other's businesses to further business or so.

[111:02] officer Rec mentioned some investigations at Cu. If you could address to the panel what you have done once you learned about some of these investigations. Yes, so About an hour after I received the email from the Cu investigator. I called her right away on my cell phone. I said, Hey, I take these these situations very serious. I asked her to come in herself to check on these camera footage that whatever she needs check on these Id scanner to ensure that these people did come into an establishment. She did tell me that was not needed. Just let me know if you have their names on the Id scanner. So I went through, and I checked the Id scanner, and I did not see the names, so I did respond back to her that I did not see the names of the Id Scanners. and you have also met personally with officer wreck in regards to fake ids. Is that right? Yes, I did. Met with officer wreck. Okay, what happened? And why did you meet? We both bumped into each other at Chipotle in December, I believed, and I greeted her with my daughter and my wife, and we briefly talked. She asked if

[112:21] I would be willing to have her come in with our staff and our team for her to teach us regarding fake ids. And what did you agree to do, I said, absolutely. And have you brought in fake ids to officer? Rec. I don't have further questions from my witness in regards to defense of the claim. But I do want to reserve the right to recall the witness. In the event we decide, we would like to present mitigating evidence.

[113:01] That would be fine. Thank you. Ms. Keller, do you have any questions. No, I do not. Are there any questions for the Board for Mr. Liu. I have a quick question. and maybe just a noise distracted me. What was the thing you said you called? See you to follow up, and then you checked your scanner. What were you checking for the fake id names on the scanner to see if you had scanned them in through the fake, Id, or were you looking for those Cu students to see if they had just used a regular id. We were looking. I I was just told their names. So I was looking to see if they any names were to popped up in our system on that incident on that night. The reason why was the investigator was trying to narrow down where those people were at. So she doesn't waste her time to come to an establishment. Spend 2 h.

[114:06] and I told her. You know you're more than welcome to come in. We can look at the cameras together, and the Ids together as well. So we don't know. If so, she probably had. You look up their legal, their real names. But we don't know if possibly the okay, I understand. Thank you so much. Thank you. I have one question regarding this supposedly semi-permanent wall. You you had said that you established it there to prevent the bar from being overcrowded, but that this wall can just be pushed over. Is that correct? Yes, so I put 50 pound bags. Sorry sandbags, 2 50 pounders. So they're about a hundred pounds on top of the wall, just so it would not be knocked over. The wall itself is built like

[115:06] a it's like a so there's a wall, and there's like legs right next to it attached next to it, so if we put any weights on it, it would not tip the wall over. Also with regards to its purpose being to prevent overcrowding at the bar based on the body cam footage. I don't think it's working. And can you speak to that a little bit. Yeah. So I mean, if the wall wasn't there. there would be a lot more people on that side of the room which we don't want, especially we have to make it safe and sound for everybody to leave the premise if it's an emergency. So if everybody were to corral on that side of the wall. It would be very impossible for us to get people out.

[116:00] Thank you for that. Are there any other questions for Mr. Lee from the board? I have a follow up on Chair Califano's question about the wall. if you if the establishment only had the Max number of 72 people in it is that wall required or crowded. So our occupancy was raised to 115 by the chief fire, Marshal David Laurie as well, and I believe October of 2024, we were working to get out a sign that was approved by the fire department to put up the occupancy site. The sign that I have on was not approved by the fire department, so we have to get a different sign. A custom made one. But we did get our occupancy raised by the fire departments, and the wall was there when

[117:02] the fire marshal being there too. Thank you. That close. I have one last question regarding the back balcony that is not under the licensed premise. From the video. It did look like there were people consuming alcohol out there. Can you speak to that? I cannot. That is my absolute mistake. I should have not had people back in the patio drinking. It was just for the deck, and that was my absolute mistake. There any other questions? Not seeing any Miss Vacuo, I turn it back to you. I do not have any. Follow up questions for this witness at this time. All right. Does the prosecution have any rebuke for any of the evidence presented.

[118:00] We do not. We have just a closing remaining. All right, we can move on to the prosecution, making closing arguments. Thank you. 53. That's the number of calls for service boulder police Department has responded to for incidents occurring in and around chicken on the hill between January 1, st 2024, and February 10, th 2025. Officer, Diaz, Officer Stevens, sergeant Marquez, and officer Rec. Have testified today to 5 violations of the law implicating chicken on the hills, liquor, license. members of the board. If I could direct your attention to page 14 of the agenda packet, you should see the city of Boulder request for show cause, hearing document that lists, the allegations of law violations alleged to have been committed by chicken on the hill. I'm going to ask you to follow along with me as we go through them together.

[119:02] First, st let's talk about licensing and fire code violations. If you look at the request for a show cause hearing, these are Numbers 1, 2, and 5, Colorado liquor code 47, 3, 0 2 a. And Bla. Rules of procedure. 8, 3, 1. Prohibit physical changes to the premises that substantially alter the usage. You heard Officer Stevens testify to entering chicken on the Hill for a routine inspection on January first, st January 31, st 2025. He testified to being alarmed at what he saw when he went. He went inside. Why? Because, he observed a sign stating the maximum maximum occupancy was 75, but counted over 200 people inside. Even if Mr. Liu is correct, that the occupancy has been raised to 115. Seeing over 200 people inside is still nearly double what their occupancy is allowed to be.

[120:05] According to Officer Stevens testimony. This was not the 1st time he had observed a violation like this officer. Rhett conducted a follow-up investigation, and testified to tables and chairs being moved to increase occupancy. Even if these are temporary changes, these substantially alter the usage. Members of the board, the number of people that were seen inside. Chicken on the hill would not have fit inside of there if chicken on the hill did not deviate from agreed upon occupancy plans, and move their furniture to fit more people inside. They have a hotel restaurant license. They are a restaurant. 1st chicken on the hill has never sought permission from this board to make such a modification as Officer Stevens testified. Occupancy limits are determined by the fire marshal, and allowing this many people to be inside of chicken on the hill violates. Boulder revised Code 1082, subsection, 8. a. 1

[121:08] members of the board. You should be alarmed at their disregard for the safety of their patrons and their disregard of the plans that you approved. What would happen if there was an emergency? A fire! Heaven forbid a shooting! Many people could be seriously hurt, or even killed by their actions of changing the premises to allow over occupancy on a consistent basis. Second, let's talk about conduct of the establishment. This citation is number 3 on your show cause sheet. The statute reads, the licensee failed to conduct the premises in a decent, orderly, and respectable manner. Furthermore, the licensee permitted rowdiness, undue noise, disturbances, and activity offensive to the senses of the average citizen. Let's debrief some of what you've heard today.

[122:00] Officer Diaz testified to being called to assist an unconscious 19 year old woman in front of chicken on the hill, and Officer Wreck testified to a follow-up investigation, where she discovered this underage woman, who was able to enter chicken on the hill with a fraudulent Id was served 6 drinks within a 1 h and 16 min period by chicken on the hill. Officer. Diaz further testified to being called to assist another unconscious 19 year old woman in a sorority house whose brother confirmed. She had a fake Id. And had been drinking at chicken on the hill. Another teenager harmed from the actions of this Licensee officer, Diaz, testified to a line of over 100 students at chicken on the hill, disturbing other businesses, and then resulting in people shoving each other, falling down and stepping on one another when officers were called to try to clear the area, you observed this incident on body worn camera officer Stevens also testified to responding to 2 unconscious teenagers, one who is 19 and one who is 18.

[123:06] Officer. Rack's subsequent investigation revealed that these women and their underage friends were all able to get into chicken on the hill, using fraudulent ids. More teenagers harmed on February 7, th 2025, just 4 weeks ago, Officer Stevens went into chicken on the hill for a patrol, and discovered an 18 year old woman inside who had gotten in with a fraudulent Id. And was drinking a vodka. Red Bull. Luckily the officer got to her before she could get to a point of passing out in a bathroom or a sidewalk, and coming to further harm. Officer rec testified to collaborating with the cupd and investigations involving underage students who have admitted to drinking a chicken on the hill as young as 17. Finally, Sergeant Marquez testified to people throwing trash off the balcony at chicken on the hill on February 7, th 2025, and pulling an underage girl out of line, who confessed she planned to use her fraudulent Id to get into chicken on the hill

[124:09] members of the board. This is collectively a failure to conduct the premises in a decent, orderly, and respectable manner. This is activity offensive to the average citizen. These are not isolated incidents. These are incidents that are causing continual disturbances in the hill area and jeopardizing health and safety. It is shameful for the community of Boulder to have a liquor licensee that allows for these things to consistently happen on their premises. Young people will drink, but that does not mean the city should continue continue to allow for its licensee to make it as easy and harmful as possible. 3, rd and finally, let's talk about violation of Boulder Revised Code 573. Unlawful to sell or give to or procure for minors. This is Number 4 on your show cause sheet.

[125:02] You heard from Officer Diaz, Officer Stevens, Sergeant Marquez and Officer wreck today, and every single one of them testified to underage students, not only being served alcohol, but being over, served. Alcohol at chicken on the hill. Minors are consistently being served, alcohol with fraudulent ids at chicken on the hill. Members of the board. I want you to use your common sense here. This is a pattern. If you're an underage student looking to drink. You're not going to go somewhere that's known for being strict. You're going to go where you've heard your underage friends have gotten into and are being served alcohol. and that place is chicken on the hill. They either do not care or it's their business model to cater to underage individuals, and I'm not sure which is worse. Let's use our common sense and ask, why is this the only bar on the hill with a line? That is this long and this unruly. This is not an accident. This is not a mistake. This is a pattern of disturbing actions of a liquor licensee, not caring about the rules or intentionally breaking them to turn the easiest profit.

[126:11] The city has presented more than enough evidence today to ask the board revoke chicken on the hills. License to serve alcohol. The standard of proof in this matter is preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence means it is more likely than not. if you find today that it is more likely than not that chicken on the hill has violated the law, then it is your duty to stop them from violating the law in the future by taking their liquor license. This needs to happen due to the seriousness of the violations and threat to health, safety, and welfare of this community. We cannot afford to wait until people are seriously hurt or worse. We have the information, and now is the time to act. These actions cannot be tolerated, and it is your responsibility to move forward and revoke their license. Thank you.

[127:03] Thank you. Ms. Keller, Ms. Vecchio, if you'd like to make any closing arguments. Yes, thank you. Chicken on the hill 1st wants to acknowledge the seriousness of the allegations. Chicken on the hill will continue to work with the Boulder police department to be sure that it is creating a safe environment for all of its customers. You've heard testimony that from several of the officers that the owner of chicken on the hill has been working with the Boulder police department and compliant with the request of Boulder police department. During these incidences that have been discussed in the testimony that you've heard. We do acknowledge that it is the responsibility of a license holder, especially in a college town, to conduct its business in a lawful manner, and to comply with city and State law.

[128:03] and we'd like to address each of the allegations individually. First, st as to the allegation that chicken on the hill changed, altered, or modified the premises. We must 1st look to State law for guidance, because the liquor code is a code of statewide concern, and looking at the rules in regards to changing or altering liquor license premises, we go to Colorado Code 40, seven-three 102 a. And and the city has also cited boulder licensing authority, rules of procedure. 8, 3. 1, which states that a licensee must not physically change the premises in a manner that materially or substantially alters the premises or the usage of the premises. because the code does not define what is a material or substantial change. We can look to Colorado law to determine what would be considered a material or substantial change.

[129:07] Colorado law defines a material breach in an agreement as a breach that goes to the essence of the agreement or the root of the matter. and in this case there was no material change or breach by moving tables and chairs to the side is not a permanent change or alteration to the premises. so there is no need to file for a modification to a liquor license to request tables and chairs be moved to the site. Now, as to the instance of having a half wall on premises again, you've heard testimony that this half wall was not permanent. It was not bolted down, and it was meant to create a safer space in a less crowded space. This wall was not permanent, and can be moved, and is not an example or a reason why a modification to the liquor license should have been applied, for

[130:05] the city is confused in terms of a zoning approval for seating capacity as opposed to what is allowed in terms of occupancy as set forth by the fire, marshal. The numbers are different, and you've heard testimony from my client that the fire marshal permitted over a hundred occupants on site, and and any in that number that 100 isn't meant to equate to the liquor, licensing, zoning, approval of interior seating capacity. As far as the allegations regarding conduct of the establishment. The evidence has shown that chicken on the hill, through its employees and bouncers and bartenders.

[131:00] does work to assist the boulder police department with the crowds, and to keep the premises safe. In regards to the allegations related to sale. To a minor. We also must look to State law and specifically under State law. It is an affirmative defense to any claim to a charge for selling to a minor. If the minor presented a fraudulent or fake Id. and in this case you've heard testimony over and over from each of the officers that the students in question were presenting Creek ids the licensee. It was. It was also addressed by the officers that the licensee had a scanner, which is also an affirmative defense to the claim In this case the law is under the Colorado revised statute 44, 3, 9, 0, 1.

[132:01] If a person who, in fact, is not 21 years of age, exhibits a fraudulent proof of right of age, any action relying on such fraudulent proof of age, shall not constitute grounds for the revocation or suspension of a liquor license. We have no evidence presented today that chicken on the hill acted unreasonably by failing to check Ids. The evidence presented was that fake ids were presented because simply because the owners, bouncers, and and bartenders missed some fake Ids does not mean that they acted unreasonably. Furthermore, lastly, I want to address the fire code violations.

[133:01] I would present to the Board that the city has not met its burden of proof, but has merely presented testimonial evidence and estimates of what appears to be a crowded space, but no actual numbers of fire code, violations and estimates alone are not enough. In summary, the chicken on the hill requests that the Bla deny the city of Boulder's request to suspend or revoke its license. and chicken on the hill does reserve its right to present mitigation evidence in the event that there is a determination for relocation or suspension. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Keller. Do you have any final arguments. No, I do not thank you. Alright. At this time we will close for deliberation. Is there any discussion.

[134:06] This is Member Absalam here, and obviously a lot to digest. System. And just wanted to kind of say, one of my thoughts around some of the the the law, you know, we are required to uphold the laws in Colorado. Mike. One second. I think Perberto has something. I do, and if I can just please make a suggestion that you deliberate as to each one so deliberate as to one deliberate as to the other, just so that you guys can can keep that evidence together. That might be helpful. Thank you. That makes a lot of sense. Alright. Mike, did you want to finish. No, you can go ahead. Let's just let's just go with each one as we go, and then we can talk about them as we go right. So do we want to start with which, you know, was there. Start with violation. Colorado code 47, 3, 0, 2 a. And that is changing, altering, or modifying license premises. It's not. It's the 1st violation on the list.

[135:11] Okay. Yes, I will speak to that. I was slightly confused about how that. And I think, Member Califano, what you said about whatever modification was being done, whatever its purpose was, wasn't really serving it based on body cam footage. Whether that was a permanent modification. I kind of go back to a lot of the modifications of some of the off premise licenses where they were moving things around. It doesn't seem to me like a permanent modification. But whatever function it was serving wasn't really serving it. So I'm I'm kind of feeling like I'm not sure about this specific charge. I I don't. I don't see it as a permanent modification. I also don't see the reason why it was put in there. In the 1st place, I'm kind of confused as to why it was. There is, I guess, how I'm feeling about it. Personally.

[136:03] Oh, it's. Oh, go ahead, Rob! Aruza. Done. Yeah, I just wanna make clear that you guys are using the right test. So the question is, after the issuance of a license. The licensee shall make no physical change. alteration, or modification of the license premise that materially or substantially alters the license premises or the usage of the license premises from the latest approved plans and specifications on file. There is. So I don't know where this permanent language came from permanently is not in that language. So I would just ask that the members only use the the law that that has been alleged, and that's the same for the bla rule 8, 3, 1 you'll get there permanently is not an allegation.

[137:08] Thank you for that. That is totally my fault. yeah. So to that point, I just I don't. I don't know that I based on that, the way that that was set up, and how it was kind of temporary. I don't know how I feel about that being a violation. So that's just how I feel. Ria. I guess I'm a little well, now that I know it's not permanent. I guess I'm looking at it like the fact that there was an attempt to modify due to crowding. I think that that's like where I'm taking issue with it, but I can't say that like moving tables, for something is like a violation. I don't.

[138:03] I don't know about that. It does also bring in the question to me like, Are they still serving food? If they're pushing other tables to the side. and then I want to know what? I wanna I don't know how to go. I mean, it would be hard for me to go back and look, but I know that when we approve licenses we talk about a ratio of food to alcohol, so I'm just kind of curious what was 1st documented and presented to us in terms of that ratio, and how that has strayed. And yes, I got there from just considering the moving of the tables. It's like took me down that road. I would agree with that. I don't think we're privy to look at their sales taxes. Roberto, is that correct? Purposes of this hearing, you can only consider what was presented this evening. So if if you don't have the evidence necessary, then that's what you go with.

[139:08] Yeah, I agree with Member Robertson that they decided to move these tables to allow for more people in for the bar, and that wall. The a temporary wall that was put in was said to try to prevent overcrowding of the bar, which, in my opinion, still was happening, based on the body cam footage of the officers. but I do agree about the moving of the tables in terms of modifying their premise. That's a little hard for me to buy. but we do have to look at what purpose to. This is Member Haggerty. Yeah, I'm I'm in agreement, I think, moving the tables and chairs really doesn't qualify as modifying. But in regards to the temporary wall.

[140:02] I believe Chicano Hill testified that it was intended to move people away from a specific area. But the body cameras. Obviously it looked like that wasn't the the the case? So it was. you know, was the attempt or the intent there to kind of help mitigate the crowds from the specific area, and it just wasn't successful. Todd, I don't know. I don't know if that plays into anything. This member absolutely again. Just because I started this, I'll kind of go back and I don't know if I can make a motion. But I'm looking at exactly what it says here, and I don't see anything that this Licensee has done in terms of modification that materially or substantially alters the license premises or the usage of the license premise on the approved plans. The approved plans. People will move tables around in restaurants all the time. Tables aren't a part of approved plan. They're movable objects in a plan we can look at seating right. But that's the one thing I'm kind of concerned about, I would I would personally make a motion that this License is not in violation of Colorado Liquor Code 47.

[141:21] Remember how you do seconds, Marshall. All in favor, say, aye, member Califano. Nay. Number Epsilom. I. Member Haggerty, Eye. Member, Roberts has a question, how does that work. I think we need to get your vote first.st We have a 1st and a second motion on the table, so. Yeah, I'm just reading the word, the well, I'm gonna say, no. Then. So I can ask my question. I guess.

[142:03] All right. So motion fails. Remember, Roberts, what's your question? What about that back porch that was used? I guess it doesn't. It's not within their licensed premise. So it's not something. So it's not technically, even though it was in use. Okay. I'm sorry, guys, I'm sorry about that. I just didn't. I just want to make sure we're considering everything. All right, so do we have a motion. Member Absom will make a motion that the current legacy is not in violation of Colorado liquor code 47, 3 0 t. 2, a changing, altering, or modifying a license premise. Member Haggerty, Seconds. Member Califano, Ne. Number absolute. I. Never hired a guy.

[143:06] Member, Roberts. member Roberts, we need a vote. I don't know. Sorry then. Yes, Roberto, help me. Well, I can't help you with the voting, but you can certainly. Table move to the next one, which is a very similar one. I don't know if you're gonna get anywhere, but you can at least request and as long as everybody's okay, you can request to table this vote. What? Until the end, or something, or what table it to what?

[144:01] Well. The very next one will be a discussion that's very similar, and I don't know what you're struggling with, and I can't direct you one way or the other, but at least maybe having a conversation about the next allegation might help in your determination. Oh, okay. Member absolute will make a motion to table. The 1st violation. Member. California will second all in favor. Say, aye, member Califano. Number, absently. Member Haggerty, Eye. Memora. Robert's eye. All right, we can move on to the second violation, which is Vla. Rules of procedure. Subsection, eight-three-one. Permission required. So as Roberto guided us. This is very similar. The language is almost identical. A licensee shall not physically change, alter, and modify the premises in a manner which materially or substantially alters the premises or the usage of the premises from the plans and specifications submitted by the time attainment, license by the clerk or authority. So in terms of language, it's it's slightly, a little bit different. It says physical change. It's basically pulled from the same exact. It's the same exact thing. Essentially

[145:23] so. I guess my discussion to Member Roberts, and just trying to see, like what is material or substantial about the changes that they made is the question I would pose to the board. Well, and does it alter the premises or the usage? Or does it alter the usage of the premises? I think that that's important to consider as well. Yeah, absolutely. Which Member Califano believes it did. Right.

[146:04] As was presented by the city prosecutor. They're 1st and foremost a restaurant. and they were functioning more. Something, you might see. with a different type of license, such as a tavern license. They currently hold a hotel restaurant type license. And there's tavern license. And there's also venue licenses and things like that that are completely different. And like I agree with you and Member Roberts, you're asking about food requirements as well. That's not on the table right now, but that's part of their license and part of when they received their license, they had to present what they were planning on to do with the space. And there's a requirement for percentage of food sales with that. So to Member Califano's point, I get that. What I what my one thing about that is is when you start thinking about like, like, how you

[147:02] talk about usage and alter. You know, when we approve a license, we are talking about a lot of different things, but operators also have an opportunity to move tables around. And and even if they're in the midst of saying, Hey, we are a restaurant. At this point. I I think there has to be a way for us to look at this and say, as people who are running their license establishment, if they move tables around to do sales in a certain way. That's something that I consider based on what I'm reading in in the code here. And that's why I made the motion in the 1st place. and it's it is difficult to to kind of make that decision. And there are 4 of us here today. We don't have a 5th vote, unfortunately, but we do have a quorum. Yeah, go ahead, please go ahead. I was just gonna also ask Chair Califano to kind of go into your point of view a little bit more as well on. Why, you

[148:07] are reading the other way, or at least we're on other one. Yeah, I'm I agree with Member Absalom that moving of the tables that happens all the time. I think. And and we may need to talk with the city about this. But is is the alt or the the changing of the premise? Is that anything inside of the license zone, or is that anything that would expand the license zone. Is that a question for someone with City of Boulder. Yes, it was. Yeah. And unfortunately, at this point you can only consider the evidence before you. So those questions you

[149:03] could have been asked. But now that the evidence is closed. You could only deliberate on what you have before you. and and I apologize for that. It's a tough thing, but that's kind of what you're charged with at this point. Member Absalom, can you? Can you just go into a little bit more about why you feel this is not a violation or. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Thank you. Member Roberts, yeah. So just kind of looking at it. Says the licensee shall not physically change or alter or modify the premises so immediately. I don't think that physically changing or putting in a temporary wall or moving tables meets that criteria a and then I think, materially or substantially alters the premises or the I think the usage of the premises is, and I'm not going to put any words in Member Califano's mouth. He's way smarter than I am. But the point is that I think what he's getting at, and he can speak more to this. Is it turned from a restaurant into a club. It turned from a restaurant into a nightclub essentially. And I think that's the problem that I see as well. But I just don't see it.

[150:20] I just don't see it in the in the law to call it out. So that's the only that's what I'm I understand exactly. I see both sides of this thing. But I'm looking at our rules of procedure, which are basically pulled from the Colorado liquor code. And it's just it's too vague for me to say that the usage was changed is what I'm saying. So that's the reason that I made the motion. In the 1st place, I don't see any concrete evidence that the usage of the premises was changed, but I can understand how that can be viewed. I just don't know that I can see it in the, in the actual code, and that, I think, is the Lemma, that we're all facing right now.

[151:00] if that makes sense to you. Member Roberts. Yeah, totally. That's where I'm really conflicted. What about the fact that the defendant did comment on? He was trying to reduce and kind of change. I guess that's not really changing the usage that was just changing the flow of traffic. So he wasn't. Okay. Okay. Member Haggerty, just to echo Mike, I you know I would say, with the on the tables, if the tables were like removed from the premises like, and, you know, thrown away. I'd have. I'd take, maybe issue. But you know, to Mike's point. yeah, there's a lot of lot of wiggle room there. You know they're still there. I'm I'm they might be moved back after you know. Everyone leaves and people come in and eat but kind of without knowing that. It's hard hard for me to.

[152:01] See, that's not what it is. Yeah, that's just echoing what you said, Member Haggerty, like, there's no proof in anything that was provided by the city. That's saying they weren't providing food at those tables at the Point, and there's nothing in the body camera footage that's saying the kitchen wasn't open, that none of that argument. There was no argument made for the usage of it. It was to me the arguments that were made by the city were coming up on the next violations mostly. So that's why I don't hear the usage part of it, which is, I think, the problem problematic component of it. So this is Member Absalom and I will make a motion to say that the licensee is not in violation of Colorado liquor code 47, 3, 0 2, as well as the second violation of Vla. Rules of procedures. Subsection 8, 3, 1. I second that motion. Gotta do them one by one, right? Yes, sir. Excuse me, I will start again. This is Member Absalom making a motion that the licensee is not in violation of Colorado. Liquor code 40, seven-three 102, a.

[153:04] Raggedy seconds, that motion. All in favor. Say, aye, member Califano. Aye. Perhaps online. Amber. Haggerty, I. Member Roberts. Aye. This member, Absalom, again, talking about the second violation. This is Bla. Rules of procedure. Subsection 8, 3, 1. Permission required. Member Absalom is going to make a motion that the licensee is not in violation of this rule of procedure. Remember Haggerty Seconds, that motion. All in favor. Say, aye, member Califano. Aye. Number Epsilon, I. Member Haggerty. I. Member Roberts. Aye. Alright, so both of those are dropped moving on to the 3rd one. which is conduct of establishment.

[154:04] This is member appsom, and I'll kind of do the same thing I did on the last couple of violations here is just reading through it, and kind of going through the license you failed to conduct in the premises in a decent, orally and respectable manner. to that I would say that the license and this is just discussion. I'm not making a motion. Just so. Everyone's clear. I think that the licensee is in violation of those completely. Furthermore, the legacy permitted rowdiness, undue noise, disturbances, and activity offensive to the senses of an average citizen. Those are also things that I believe that this Licensee is in violation of as due to the evidence presented by their neighboring businesses. Just the video that I saw from that back patio, and that to me is, this is a complete violation of conduct of establishment, and I will start the conversation. There. Member, Califano would completely agree with that. Also the unnecessary use and disproportionate use of city resources for this one establishment.

[155:08] You know, we've we've seen how many times they had to respond to that. And it's just it's a lot so I would agree they're 100% in violation of this violation. Member Haggerty. Yeah, I'm certainly in agreement there. I do want to say, you know, I appreciate the fact that you know with on the trash side of things. You know that that the establishment, you know, attempts to clean up if they see it, you know the night after morning of but it it seems like it's the the constant. And so I do appreciate the fact that they they are attempting that but you know what what I was kept going back to was just the frequency you just mentioned there, the the number of you know, the 50, the 53 calls since the 1st of January. You know the the city resources and just it. It seems that.

[156:08] Well, the the owner, you know, has been cooperative, you know. He's certainly a partner, a willing partner. But just this doesn't seem that the constant conversations, you know, move the dial in any way. And it just kind of continues to be, you know. a thing night in, night out, as we as we kind of heard testimony to so that's kind of why, I certainly feel that they might are, you know, are in violation. Just because it's I really do think you know. when they're when you talk about the conduct decent, orderly, respectable manner. I feel like a lot of that is you know they're they're they're falling short. Well, short. Ember. Califano would agree with that.

[157:01] Just in the fact that this this owner seems to be somewhat reactionary and not proactive, they're reactive. And it seems that they frequently do things 1st and then ask for forgiveness later. And even though that they've been forgiven numerous times, it keeps happening. And you know you've got individuals that are so intoxicated that they're inebriated and passed out on the sidewalk in front of your establishment like, that's that's kind of scary. So again, I reiterate that I believe that they are in violation of this, and would make a motion to say that they are in violation of this code. So share Califano. To to that point we have in our penalty schedule. Obviously, conduct of establishment. It's hard to look at that. Because when you say how many counts of it at this point, we're talking about, how many have we heard? There's nothing in our amount of counts that we've heard to this point that I would believe are true.

[158:10] So if I I completely agree with everything that's being said, and what I'll also just say is that whatever's happening there is out of control, and like as opposed to like asking forgiveness later, it's obvious that there's something happening right? So we're not seeing any activity on their end other than calling in city resources. So I mean, I'm looking at the penalty schedule here for conduct of establishment. The highest one we have here is 3 plus counts. and that that's gonna put you at 18 days served with 27 advance. It looks like to me. Roberto correct me if I'm wrong. But is that our determination of how many counts or is does this just count for one. So when you read

[159:01] the allegations are between September 13, th 2024, and February 7, th 2025, one thing that that I, I will. But for your consideration is, you can actually decide, based on the evidence that was provided to you. You can say. Do we all agree or not, agree as to this specific date. and then move to the next one and to the next one. If that is helpful for your consideration. you can also, based on the way it's written, is, Do a yes vote. or an upvote, or a downvote. That would be for. For for number 3. So you can, you can say we're doing an upvote down vote, and it's 1, or you can do it by specific dates. Does that? Does that make sense.

[160:02] Chair. Califano would have to read through the specific dates of accusations, and we have to up our thumbs down. Whether or not we think that that would be a violation of conduct, of establishment. Right. That's certainly one way to do it. If you wish to do that, as the authority. What's the authority? Think. What's so in one? What's the alternative? The alternative is, you can treat this as one allegation. Got it. And you're saying yes or no. Whether or not, by preponderance of the evidence that they have failed to conduct themselves appropriately, as it as it relates, or you can go through the allegations. So, for example, October 4, th 2024, November second, 2024, January 31, st 2025, February 7, th 2025.

[161:04] Member, Haggerty, I I think we should just do it as a whole, like, I think. Certainly there's some instances in here which are a little worse than others. But looking at them together, I I don't know if that would alter the out. Then outcome. Does it alter the penalty. Is that what it does? Okay. Yeah, this number here, just what? Just to explain to what we were getting at, and just kind of put it in terms like, if we do decide to say that there was one violation of conduct, and you can see the penalty schedule in front of you in your packet. So, my, what I wrongly suggested was like, Hey, we can see there's various violations of the conduct of this establishment. What Roberto is telling us is that if we wanted to have more than one. We would have to go through the specific dates and look at the evidence to each date.

[162:02] And I would defer to chair Califano for his thoughts on this. If he has any idea of what he thinks he wants to do. Member Absalon. Could you point to the page of the document of the penalty, document, or schedule in our packet? Is on page 9 of the packet. We can do it quick. I hate to waste everyone's time, but we could go through each individual one. Roberto. Also, and I sincerely apologize. I want to make sure you guys get this right as it relates to the suspension penalties. It is clear in that document that tells you these suspension penalties are guidelines only, and are not binding on the authority.

[163:01] The authority reserves the right to impose any penalty authorized by law. I was actually going to say that before I gave my opinion. But yeah, I think, given that, too. I think we can just look at it as a whole and determine. You know it's our, it's our determination. These are merely suggestions. Yes, and I thank you, Chair. I respect that. But I don't want to set precedent around that, and I do want to make sure that we are looking at this, based on specific cases and evidence and not just saying, Hey, we can just say what we want. Obviously, we can. That's in the rules. But I would make a motion then to suspend this licensee to the according to our penalty schedule of. We're not quite there yet. We we need to make a motion if we find that in violation of this.

[164:02] Oh, so my first! st Motion is. That with a preponderance of evidence that this Licensee is in violation of conduct of an establishment that is, a motion for Member Absalom. Member, Califano would second all in favor, say, aye, Member Califano, aye. Wraps them, I. For Haggerty. I. Timber. Roberts, I. Roberto, do we need to determine sentencing and get this point. No, you continue going through the list until you have your findings before you get to that point. Great. Thank you. All right. Moving on to charge number 4. That is, violation of bolder revised code 5, 7, 3.

[165:00] Unlawful to sell, or to sell, or give to, or procure for minors. This is number absolute speaking. This is a tough one for me. I do see there is evidence to support that this Licensee is in violation of this revised code. I also can see a little bit of there's not some hard facts around it. A lot of kind of secondary finding out information things even in the one body cam footage that we saw there was like the officer was working with the person to figure out if they were underage or not. Obviously they had a drink in their hand. But I just at that point the establishment hadn't sold them that drink, and they were still on the line. So I would love to hear what the rest of the members have to think about this I do. I do feel that there is a lot of problems around this with this establishment. I just don't know if it's a violation of the specific revised code to the, to the facts of the case.

[166:13] Member. Haggerty. yeah, I'm I'm I'm kind of in an agreement there with Member absolute you know. I would say that a lot of the you know the evidence that was presented. It was you know, after the fact. Right? They were at a different location, and they just. you know, pointed towards chicken on the hill. So yeah, a little kind of kind of murky there. But in agreement that certainly there is, there is a problem. There, you know, lines going around the block because of. you know. you know the the ids, the lax ids, right? So I think it all points to the you know the conduct of the establishment. But on this specific charge I do I'm I'm kinda on the fence.

[167:03] because I just don't know if there was enough presented that, you know can point to it. There was that one body cam footage of an officer removing an individual from inside the establishment, and she was not a page. You know that's true. Not that you need to be 21 to necessarily be in there being that it is a quote unquote restaurant, the you know they pulled someone out that I didn't see them consuming, but. She had a drink in her hand right. Did she? I don't think she did. And she said, and that was. And the officer said, What are you drinking? And she was like, oh, just Red Bull! And he was like. wasn't that that? Didn't that happen? She said, red Bull, yeah. And I I didn't hear the. Right, and then I don't know. There's no proof that there's alcohol in there. If she said it was Red Bull. Yeah. He didn't like. Yeah. So that's the thing about like we can all surmise that there was alcohol in there, but the the burden of proof

[168:07] doesn't seem like it was there just for me. so member opposite will make a motion that this Licensee is not in violation of Boulder provides Code 5, 7, 3. Unlawful to sell, or give, or procure to minors. Is there a second. Member. Haggerty seconds that motion. All right. We have a 1st and a second, all in favor. Say, aye, member, Califano. Nay. Never have some eye. I'm Raggerty. I. Robert today. Alright, so motion fails their discussion. I just it for me. What the prosecution presented was a preponderance of evidence that there was underage drinking going on at this establishment. The number of people

[169:05] that had. you know said that that's where they were drinking, especially the ones that were underage, and got sent to the hospital being just outside of there. It's it's concerning to me, and it's it's I feel the writing's on the wall. Okay. Please. Go. I kind of look at it like if you're inside all day and you go outside and it's wet like, did it rain like you can kind of like, look around and see what's going on. And like I I don't think it's light evidence, but I see where you're coming from, Member Epsilon, but to me I think the evidence is pretty clear. Right, and it's the burden of a preponderance of evidence, and I don't know that any lawyer would tell you if it's wet outside, that I could prove you that it didn't rain. Someone poured water on the ground. So we have to kind of watch, like how we, how you think about the preponderance of evidence. So you remember California's point? Everyone's saying they were drinking their

[170:06] there's no body cam of someone getting served alcohol there as well. So that is the reason I made the motion. The writing is completely on the wall here, and I kind of feel like this kind of falls more to conduct of establishment and operations of the establishment. But, I'm I'm willing to hear more about what you're saying, because I just remember Califano Chair Califano. You say that they're based on all the evidence that was presented by the prosecution that there is a preponderance of evidence? I'd be willing to hear a motion around that. Yeah, be thinking. Member Haggerty. Just kind of wanted to pick your brain about this a little bit, because when we're talking about the preponderous evidence, what was your feeling around the evidence presented by the prosecution to this point? Specifically, because I'm just trying my best to.

[171:12] Here's some other opinions around this, because I'm feeling very strongly about about what Chair Califano just said. And I want to maybe just hear some. Oh, yeah, yeah, I think. You know. So remember Robert's point, too, is is certainly I I think they the prosecution, you know they illustrated. You know where the the you know, the underage, drinking and kind of how it, you know originated, and we all all signs point to, you know we we heard the testimony, or we saw the body cam footage So you know, I kept on going back to you know we we didn't see you know. Body cam footage of any minors drinking alcohol in in inside, in the establishment it was all kind of you know, went back to I. My friend told me, said we were doing this. You know it. So

[172:06] yeah, I can certainly go the other way, because I think we all know, like what what is happening. But you know, in the in the spirit of just I don't know. Trying to. trying to, you know, go by the law. I don't know. I'm I'm on the fence here, you know. I I don't think there's any any doubt in my mind that what is going on here? It's just do. We want to make sure that you know, we we find them in violation of the what they're in violation of, I guess. Even, you know, going with the law and everything that we have to do, we're bound by. We're also a Community safety Board. and the fact that this establishment has sent I can't remember the number, but so many underage females to the hospital is incredibly concerning to me.

[173:08] I know they all we have is them saying that they were there, and that's where they were last drinking. But it's just it's to me it's there, because, you know, the police are being called there for individuals that are passed out in front of the establishment. Multiple times. And it's it's kind of like, you know, 2 and 2 adds up. What was quick, quick question there was there. I feel like there was some testimony provided by one of the officers that there was they they saw someone inside as well that was passed out. I don't know if that was one of the specific. Hey, Joe? In our official you'd have to go back and read through the affidavit. But I know that was presented. At the last hearing we had.

[174:04] Yeah, no, your your point certainly. Well taken, Ab, absolutely. I think you know responsibility to the health of the community. Yes. Member, Califano would make a motion to see that they are in violation of this code. Member, Roberts will second that motion. that they're in violation of the code. All in favor. Say, aye, member Califano. Aye. Never apps, am I. Member Roberts. Aye. Moving on to the last and final charge. Number 5. So I'm slightly confused about this and I. I figured I might get some more information from maybe Caitlin about what was said.

[175:04] by the defendant here around the fire code thing that was changed during that I didn't. Do you recall what happened there where the actual occupancy load was changed. Is that real. If it's permissible at this point, I can let you know what a licensee submits in their liquor license application when it's being approved. That would be helpful. I don't see Roberto interrupting me, so I think I can continue. Okay. Okay? So when a liquor licensee submits an application, they submit. And you see these all the time they submit administrative reviews. And those have seating occupancy in them. And then let me just double check what question

[176:03] it is. I believe there's also an occupancy question on the application itself. So give me just one second. So in their zoning application they will have an indoor premises, square foot, and outdoor premises, square foot. If that exists for them, and then they'll have an indoor seating capacity, and that'll be how many people can be seated in the in the restaurant, and then they'll have an outdoor seating capacity, if that's applicable. And I believe that that information for chicken on the hill is in your packet, and then so on the zoning administrative review that's submitted. There is not a question about

[177:01] occupancy from the fire department, which I believe is what was being referenced by Ms. Vecchio. But let me look really quickly and see if that is a question on our city application. I don't believe it is, but it might be yeah on our city application. Okay? So on our city application. We do ask, what is the seating capacity of the establishment? And that is what is on the Adr. And then we also ask if they've applied for an occupation load for the interior and exterior space from the fire department, and then they can answer yes or no, and whatever that occupancy load is. Yeah. So, members of the authority, you can see the the very last pages of our packet. You can see. You can see the actual drawings, and then the last pages are the city of Boulder loads on requirements.

[178:03] It says 47 downstairs, and I can't even think about looking at a body Cam, and understanding that's even close to what that's like a fraction of what it looked like to me just from one video. So that's the 1st thing I'll say. You say when you say a fraction, you think they were less or more. I think there were like 3 times the amount of people in that building downstairs versus what they have for the load. And then the maximum occupancy was 115. One of the officers testified that there was over 100 people in line waiting to get in there, and that's their maximum permissible actually, is a hundred 15 people. So. And if you watch the body cam of one of those when they were trying to get the line in order, you couldn't even get in that door. There's no way that they're meeting these requirements in any way based on what we saw, the evidence presented like beyond, like.

[179:02] beyond a reasonable doubt, and I don't know if anyone else on the authority wants to comment on that. But. 100% agree with you. Yep, Member Haggerty. Yeah. The I think the the footage itself, you know, speaks for itself, really does. yeah. And kind of going back to chair. Calfano, you're you're You know your comments about, you know, public health and safety. I think that's really what it it comes down to as well. you know, lot of lot of opportunities for bad things to happen with that many people in there. So yeah, no question my mind. I also wanna just say for the record that the police officer himself said that he did not feel comfortable approaching the crowd because it was so big, and then had to call for more resources and backup. And that's really not fair to put our police officers in that kind of situation. So I believe that is more towards the community. Safety issues.

[180:07] Member absolute. Make a motion that the legacy is in violation of Boulder Revised Code 1828, a 1 fire code over occupancy. Ember Califana, with second, all in favor, say, aye, Member Califano. Aye. Perhaps some I. Member Haggerty. I. Member Roberts. Aye. Alright. So at this point, and correct me if I'm wrong, Roberto. But we need to go through each one again that we found in violation, and determine their suspension correct. Well, you have to determine the penalty. As you consider that. There's 2 things to consider. Number one they already have. I believe it's 15 days that had been held in abeyance from April so less than 12 months ago. So that's 1 issue to consider another issue.

[181:09] If our licensing manager, do you believe that it's appropriate? At this time I know that there was an issue that from sales tax. If you believe that this is the appropriate time, then we do have Miss Rhodes from sales tax that can speak. So this is even before you guys are gonna make any sort of determinations to. Just so you have all your information. So sure let's go ahead and hear from Miss Rhodes. Hi! My name is Penelope Rhodes. I am the Tax Operations Supervisor, and we are asking. so long as the license is not revoked.

[182:03] That there be the condition that they check in each period with a good standing from tax sales and sales, tax and licensing. This is Member Absalom. Correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't this already existing. No, they they were for a while and they got into compliance. They passed that period where they had to check in, and they no longer have to. And since then there have been some issues, and we would like to put them back onto that. They are working with us right now to get those issues resolved, but we feel that they should have the check-ins. They do better. Thank you. Okay. So now, before you start a discussion as to the appropriate penalties,

[183:04] the prosecution should be provided. An opportunity to present to present to you. Matters in aggravation and chicken on the hill should be provided an opportunity to present to you matters in mitigation. Great Miss Keller, do we have those matters. Thank you. I don't have any specific evidence of aggravation beyond what's been presented this evening. Great. Thank you. Ms. Vecchio. Do you have any mitigation factors. Yes, thank you. I have a witness, and I have several exhibits that are in your packet that I'd like to reference. and I 1st like to recall Jarrett. I'm sorry, Juan Liu. I he also goes by Jared, so I apologize to testify as to litigation. Do you need to reswear him in, or are we still good.

[184:14] I believe you're still good. Okay. Alright, Mister Liu, if you could state your age and home address again for the record. 2947, 43, West 117 in Westminster, Colorado, 8 0 0 3, 1. And where did you go to school? Went to school in Westminster High School? And did you graduate? Yes, and did you attend college? Yes. And what did you study? I studied business, and after you studied business, did you graduate? No, what did you do following your term in college? So I was a nail technician for a good period of my own time. And what led you to want to own a restaurant. I also worked at a bakery for a few years. I was a manager there, and I always wanted to have my own business one day. Okay, and how is it that you came upon chicken on the hill? It was for sale in 2020.

[185:14] And are you the sole owner of chicken on the hill. Yes, and what are your responsibilities in that role? So it goes all the way from the kitchen, frying the chicken, preparing the chicken frying the chicken to the bar, making sure everything is cleanliness. stocking, inventory, making sure everybody is trained with Abt. It's an alcohol beverage training course, scheduling. Everybody. Okay, how many employees do you have? We have 12. And of those 12, how many are part time versus full time, 2. Full time and 10 part-times. Okay? And what training policies do you have for new hires, new hires? They have to shadow the bartender for at least 2 weeks. Get certified with Abt

[186:06] and read our internal policies. We do have internal policies for the securities. We do have internal policies for the bartenders as well. and in terms of ongoing training policies. What do you require for current employees? Current employees are required to retake their exams every year with Abt. Do you? Sorry? And they have to review the internal policy every 3 months. Do you conduct weekly staff meetings? Yes, we do conduct weekly staff meeting, and we also address any ongoing issues at the end of the night. If it's big enough. Okay? And who ensures that your employees are alcohol seller, server, trained myself, and when you were 1st notified of the allegations associated with this complaint.

[187:04] well, I'm sorry. When do you remember when you were 1st notified? Yes, it was February 19, th and what was your reaction. I was very shocked, but I'm very concerned. I take these allegations very seriously. It took me out of the blue because I was at the police department that evening before anything happens, I was turning in fake ids. Okay, since you were notified of the alleged violations. What have you done? So I asked all of my staff to get retrained with Abt. All of our security members has to go through a 16 h security training from the State of Colorado, and they will get a security card as well. Okay. so I'm going to direct your attention to what we have is exhibit A, which is page 39 of the packet.

[188:00] Just take a minute to get there. This is the training log. Okay. Do you recognize this exhibit? Yes, what is it? It's a log where I put all of my employees name when they were hired. When did they get trained, and when they were retrained? And did you personally complete this form. Yes. and I'd like to move our exhibit a in evidence. Been moved. And turning to exhibits B and C, which are pages 40 through 54 of your packet. Do you recognize these documents? Yes, yes, I do. Okay? And what are they? They are a certificate of abt alcohol beverage training, where our employees had done a 3 h course and passed exam.

[189:05] In order to achieve these certificates, and the courses are checking for ids, making sure we don't serve underage making sure we don't take any fake ids or serving somebody that doesn't look like that person with the Id. And are you considered a records custodian for chicken on the hill? Yes. And do you keep copies of these certificates in the ordinary course of business at chicken on the hill. Yes, and chicken on the hill moves to have exhibits B. And C. Admitted into evidence. They'll moved, but I'm pretty sure they already were being that they're in our packets. Great who. I'm sorry. What internal policies and procedures does chicken on the hill have that are written regarding security and serving.

[190:01] So the security has a their own policy where they need to understand the severity of the job. We've got to keep the premise safe and our customers safe, meaning. We have to take care of the lines. We gotta make sure that the people inside are safe and sound, making sure that we have to spot out somebody that's drinking a little too much, and they should have. And who wrote these policies myself? Okay, when did you? So I'm sorry. Let's turn to exhibit D, which is your security policy. Do you recognize the exhibit? Okay, when did you write this security policy in May of 2024? And can you summarize for me what is contained in this security policy? So like again, understand the severity of the job? Making sure we stay up and formal? We don't like flirt with customers. We stay professional.

[191:03] We take care of the customer that comes in and leaves the place, making sure no alcohol, no weapons, is coming into our establishment, and no alcohol is leaving the establishment as well. making sure we are looking out for everybody that's inside and outside of the house. Okay, moving on to exhibit E, which is your bartender training guide. Page 61, through 77 of the packet. Do you recognize this document? Yes. And did you write this document? Yes. Do you recall when you wrote it? And about. I'd say, June of 2024, okay. And can you summarize for the panel. Exactly. What's the purpose of this training guide is yeah, to let them let our employees understand. We do not serve underage. We do not take fake ids, and if there's a fake Id presented, we are having to. We have to confiscate it. Log it, give it to a manager, and then turn it to myself at the end of the night

[192:06] implement that we do not serve more than one drink per customer. Okay, turning to exhibit F, and that is pages 78 to 84. Do you recognize that document? Yes. And what is it? It's a policy alcohol policy written by rar. Okay. And is this a policy that you also had in place at chicken on the hill? Yes. And when did you implement this policy in May of 2024. Okay. is this a policy that you have employees review and understand as well as the policies that you wrote? Yes, okay.

[193:01] Moving on to exhibit. 2 week. Just page 85 of the packet. Sure. What is this document? This document is? The signatures of our employees where I have them look over the packet, read it, acknowledge what is in the package, and give me their names and their signatures. Okay? And so when you say the package. You mean the alcohol policies for chicken on the hill? Yes. Okay. How? Soon after reviewing the alcohol policies, do you obtain a signature immediately? Okay. how soon after hiring an employee, do you require them to review these alcohol policies and sign immediately? Okay. why do you train your employees on these policies again, just to ensure that we do not serve underage. We don't take fake ids.

[194:05] We don't sell fake ids back to people. We have to confiscate them and turn them into the city to ensure. We only sell one drink at a time to not over serve any people inside of the world. Do you train your employees on how to identify fake ids. Yes, okay, what kind of training do you do on that regard? So we do have a scanner. But we do not rely on the scanner alone. We have an Id book that we go to every single time we have a question about an Id. I tell them the biggest ones are the corners of the Ids. We gotta feel for it if it pills. We do not take any any words are missing on the Ids is a no-no as well. Also we, if anything, works out, we also ask them the date of birth. When did they graduate? in what city and state were they born in? And just further on questioning, just to see if it is actually their ids and second form of ids as well.

[195:06] How do you train and talk about preventing the sale of liquor to intoxicated persons on premises? Can you repeat that one more time? How do you prevent the sale of alcohol to intoxicated people on premises? Yeah. So we don't sell to anybody that's intoxicated on the premises, and we also make sure we only sell one drink at a time. How do you train your employees to identify an intoxicated person slurring? They can't stand up straight. They're just wobbly, or their eyes are bloodshot red. That's an automatic. No, for us. Okay, what do you do? If you identify an intoxicated person on your premises? So I'd ask them to sit down, give them a chair, provide them some water, ask them if they would like some food, some chicken tenders.

[196:06] and if they have new friends around. We can call, and if they're okay to leave conscious enough to leave, we'd offer to buy them Uber as well. But if they're not conscious, or they're in and out of conscious. We have to call 9 1 1 What do you do to keep the premises safe and secure in terms of of security guards on on site. So we have 7 to 8 security guards at night. 4 of them are gonna be on the outside. 3 of them are gonna be in the inside on the inside. One of the security will be on the upstairs patio deck. There's gonna be another one on the Second Level, and there's 1 more security on the 1st Level, where they all will be walking up and down, making sure the bathrooms are good, making sure nobody's in there, and the securities on the outside, the 4 1 would have to manage the line.

[197:05] one would be checking their purses and their pockets, making sure no knives, no weapons, no alcohol is coming inside our premise. And then another one would be the door. Guy, we call him the doorman. He checks the Id physically. Make sure that person in front of him is the person on the Id, and then we'd have to scan the id if the Id scans fail, we automatically checked. The last security would be at the other side of the door to check people out from leaving to make sure they don't bring any alcohol outside. What policy did you put into place to train your security guards going forward? So they have to go through a 16 h course. With the company called Nightclub Security Company, For 16 h they will be able to identify intoxicated people how to mitigate problems, how to deescalate problems and how to work with law enforcement.

[198:09] and they will be provided a Denver Security Guard card as well. And you're looking at a piece of paper is that our exhibit H. And look on pages 86 through 91. What are those documents? These are the training courses that I have purchased myself for our security members to get trained. Do you have security cameras on site? Where are those located? There's 5 at the bar. There's about 3 at the front of the house. There's about 8 upstairs, and there's about 2 at the bathrooms. Okay? And who monitors these cameras myself. Okay, do you have fencing on site. Yes. And do you have signs on the fencing?

[199:01] Yes. And what do the signs say? No alcohol beyond this point? Do you have a cover charge we do. Why do you implement the cover charge we implemented the cover charge is to ensure that we don't have. We don't exceed our occupancy. That was allowed. and to ensure that no underage are coming in. This is very unlikely for a 17 year old to pay a cover and have an id that's 21 plus to come in. How are ids checked? On site, both outside and inside. So the Ids are checked at the front of the door with the doorman. We physically check the Ids peeling, scratching. and then he would scan the Id and see what passes, and he'd be filled. He needs to further ask them. He would ask them for their date of birth. What year they graduated their Zip code? What city and state were they in once they're in the bar every time they come up to the bar, and I mean it every single time, even if we know that person, the bartender has to id them again.

[200:09] Are you considering implementing wristbands or stamps forward? Yes, we're considering doing stamps of our logo. So it's not easy to duplicate. Okay, what would you do if someone who was trying to enter the premises gives you a hard time about a confiscated fake? Id. I'd have to call the cops are you willing to work closely with the police department to ensure the premises? Are safe absolutely. And have you done so in the past. Yes. What have we done to help keep drinks safe in terms of concern about

[201:02] patrons getting drugged on site? So we are putting lids on every seat and go with drinks. so no drinks are getting tampered with, even with other customers. Okay. how is it that came? It came to your attention that that might be a concern. Just the news. And just you know, the surrounding the neighbors, and just seeing what's going on around. I just like it to make it a lot more safe inside for the our customers. Okay. looking at exhibits J and K, which are the last few pages of our packet. So if you could explain to the panel what these are and the circumstances surrounding the occupancy load situation. So in October we asked chief of my chief Marshal, David Laurie, to come out to do an occupancy check for us, and he gave us a number of 1 15

[202:06] for the whole premise, plus 49 for the patio deck. Okay? And that was you said in October of 2024. Yes, okay. And then what's happened since then? In February I was notified by the same chief. He said, that we're not able to move our tables and chairs due to our liquor license, so that our capacity has decreased by 8, with only being able upstairs. It's 54, and then downstairs, 47 plus 49 on the patio deck. Okay? And what do you do to make sure that you are not outside of occupancy? So we charge a cover and we have a clicker at the front of the door. Okay? And so what is the clicker? So the clicker is where we count how many people came in and how many people leave to make sure we stay within the occupancy. Okay.

[203:10] is chicken on the hill a member of Rar. Yes. When did you become a member in March of 2024. What kind of things do you do that are positive for the community? As a small business owner. Yeah. So for our exteriors, we always always clean up every single night. I try to tell my guys that we have to leave the place better than how we found it. The night of cleaning up straws, cleaning up any bottles even. It's not ours. We provide food to the people in need doing game days. People are hungry on the outside who doesn't have money for food. We try to try to help them out. With that. We also were featured with Coach Prime, and should do a sender on Amazon prime.

[204:00] where we had our space opened up for the community to come in free of charge, to meet and greet should do a sander that day, and food was also provided. Given the serious nature of the allegations. What would you like to say to the panel? So I am very concerned of these applications. 1st and foremost, I am working days and nights to make sure that my staff knows. And I myself know the severity of these claims, making sure we're not gonna cross these claims anytime in the foreseeable future. getting people retrained, getting people trained with security, and I pay all of their trainings all out of my pockets as well. and I am very sure that we can make it a better place and a safe environment for the community. I don't have any further questions. Thank you. Ms. Fakil.

[205:02] Alright. So, Roberto, are we back to deliberation? You are, and can we make the determination if we want to go through in each. Okay. Or I guess we need to figure out what we want to do for either a suspension or a revocation right? Well my suggestion to you to ensure that it reflects Individualized penalty. For every violation. That you discuss each one, and then do a motion for a penalty on each one. Great. Thank you. Alright. So let's start with number 3. Conduct of establishment.

[206:08] So just to go back to hate to, you know. Go back to the the dead horse thing here. But since we don't have to go through each count individually. I can make a motion around 3 plus counts based on what I'm looking at right now. Am I wrong about that? Or is that correct? I think, Roberto said we should go through each count. So each date of each accusation. No, I you guys are saying 2 different things. Yes, I am saying something different than what you're saying now. Yeah. So what? What I understand that you're saying is the number of violations within number 3. That is correct. Yeah. So, Chair, I'm looking at establishment. I'm looking at a penalty schedule, and I'm seeing the amount of counts to get to that point, and I know that we don't need to go off of this. I guess the 1st thing I'll say is based on connick of establishment. I

[207:07] revocation doesn't seem crazy to me. So I don't know if anyone else wants to think about that a little bit more. But the amount of mitigation I'm seeing is not an action. And I am not someone who wants to take away anyone's business. But there is a public safety concern here that is attached to convic of establishment, and I would. I'm not making a motion right now, but I want the other Board members to think that I have. It has crossed my mind to revoke this License based on what I've seen. I would agree with you in the mitigating versus aggravating factors, one of the biggest aggravating factors. We've seen this over and over and over again with this establishment in terms of I take this seriously, I'll do better. They do better for a little bit. They don't have to visit us, and then they fall apart like the sales tax that's going on right now.

[208:06] You know, the police officers have been there multiple times, being like you need to. They they've spoken to him and and let him know that what what's happening outside is not okay. What's happening inside is not okay. And I, you know there's this claim of yes, I'll do better. I'll do better, but it just keeps happening. Maybe we have to consider that his better just isn't good enough or responsible enough to hold a liquor license. and maybe he but I am on the same page as you guys, I think revocation is should be on the table as a penalty. But I'm open to hearing other things, because. like I think, Member Absalom said, I don't want to shut anyone down like I don't want to take away this experience. This is obviously a young gentleman who's worked hard has goals, and so I love to support that. But

[209:05] I think, as a representative of the community, this just is not a safe support. I would also just like to clarify that we're not shutting a business down. We're pulling a liquor license. I did not mean to. Yes, you are correct, and I didn't mean to say otherwise. but I guess I feel like it would be hard. maybe, without that aspect of the income. Yeah, this member, Haggerty. I I would have loved to see a little bit more. It was great to hear. Like, you know, here, here's everything that we're that's in place. But you know, to date that hasn't done a whole lot right. So I would have loved this, seen a little bit more of a proactive like we're gonna completely revamp our security protocols based off what we've, you know, experienced. And this is what it looks like. We're not there yet. But we're trying. And this is what we're gonna do, you know, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

[210:06] you know, just to give us an indication of like, Hey, you know, we're really gonna take this seriously, if we want to improve, because you know what what we've been doing in the past just isn't cutting it so I would would have loved to seen something like that. and I'm I'm kind of in agreement, too, that you know, boy, not not tough place for us to be in, because we certainly don't. Wanna you know. Take anything away here. But it's kind of we're we're weighing, you know, our responsibilities to the public health. You know, we wanted businesses to thrive and and do good work. but you know, I think it's a tough task of us is to figure out, you know, where. Where is the line drawn? To, you know. And you know a lot of these, you know, there's a lot of personal responsibility involved, like, you know, a lot of these underage students can't be, you know.

[211:00] Can't go without fault, but at the same time, like they're, you know. I think chicken on the hill has a responsibility, knowing that they do sit close to the university that you know there are going to be students looking to do that. And you know they're going to have to take, you know, precautions and take measures to ensure these things that are happening, don't? And yeah, I just I don't know how comfortable I feel. Just kind of saying all right next time, you know. Don't let it happen again, guys, or yeah. you know, next time it better be different. because it doesn't seem like that's getting through. I appreciate that I respect what you're saying, and I want to just echo member Califano's point is that we revoke a liquor license. They still are available to serve chicken. And a lot of the mitigation is around providing food to the community. And you know, so that's something where you're looking at. Okay, you can still provide food. And then to the points of Member Haggerty and Member Roberts. there's just a there's just a complete lack of what they're what's happening. There is just not being understood by the what they're how they're operating, and it's unsafe. It's unsafe for the community. And if there is no more discussion. I'm willing to make a motion, but if anyone else wants to speak.

[212:20] I guess. Just a quick question. You know, what do we want to discuss like maybe a few options, or are we pretty pretty clear cut on what? What we're, how we're leaning. You know. What would I like? A I guess a lesser penalty look like, or who how comfortable would we feel? You know what what you know is there. There are things to consider with giving them a suspension. They already have 15 days. If we were to go with the 3 plus count for code of conduct. That's an additional 18. And then we've got 2 more charges that we would need to do for the the.

[213:04] They're potentially looking at a very, very long time closure the could equate to a revocation. In my opinion, I don't know if anyone else has a. I have I I have considered that like well, what if they? What if we suspended it for, you know 2 or 3 months, and they're showing up in front of us again for taxes, you know. Could they learn the lesson and do better? But then I think about like when that license is available again. And maybe the people I don't know. I just. I'm really concerned about the underage stuff. I'm really concerned about the unconscious people. I'm just to me. i i i don't know.

[214:01] So no, I don't think that a 2 month suspension would be the same as the revocation. But, I just feel like we've given so many chances. We've made it so clear how to like. We have given so much support to all of the liquor, license holders. How can we assist you in not serving underage? We've looked at scanners. We've just looked at so many options, and it just seems like. There's no accountability, and there's no really helping themselves. I'd agree with that, and you know they just keep coming back. It's like they're not. They're not learning and part of having a liquor license is, you know. being a safe establishment and not a health risk to the community which this is so, and it seems to keep happening. It does. And also, I I think, some of the testimony the police officers, provided.

[215:05] you know, like this is kind of known as the underage spot right? And it's obviously, I think, by the crowd size of the crowds that's you know, is pretty apparent, and it, it, you know. Seems like the owner has a great relationship with the police, and has been, you know, cooperates and is, you know. communicates pretty freely. You know, I feel like there's that dialogue there that like has never, you know, it's just, you know. I would hope the cops were like, Hey, guys, you know, you underage kids like, you know. you you guys are the spot like, don't be the spot anymore, like, Come on. And you know that that just doesn't seem like that. You know, that focus hasn't been there so. Right like. It's kind of alarming that all of these calls ha! Ha! Have not been taken more seriously. I mean 53 calls like, I I don't know if the police were giving me that much attention, I would think I had a problem.

[216:03] So yeah, that's that's the tough one. Kind of just wrap some of what you guys are saying a little bit. And so what I've been thinking. But yeah, to that point. What Member Roberts is saying that many calls, and you hear Member Haggerty say, Hey. I under. Now I'm doing something about it. We're not seeing that they're not understanding what. How like the the breadth of the problem that's in front of them right now. And that is problematic. So to Member Califano's point to wrap all of it. I think if we were to go even farther down the list of that of the different violations that we found. we're looking at shutting them down for 2 months up to that. That being said, any operator that has operating with a liquor license is going to tell you. That's gonna cause them to shut down. Anyway. I mean, that's just that's what people are going to tell you. if you're doing food. Only I mean, I'd love to see this establishment. Just go crazy with chicken and be the best chicken place on the hill, and like have lines out the door for people eating chicken. But to me it doesn't feel like this operator is responsibly holding this license, and this is member absolute, making a motion to revoke the license of chicken on the hill.

[217:17] Amber Califano would second all in favor, say, aye, Member Califano, aye. So am I. Member Haggerty. Bye. Member Roberts. Aye. Thank you. I'm just gonna interrupt, really quickly. Licensing manager, Elisa Darrow. Just needs to provide some instructions on the record really quickly. Thank you. Caitlin, chair, Califano, and members of the authority. There are just some housekeeping items that licensing staff needs to inform the licensee of if the authority would grant me just a few minutes to do so.

[218:05] My name is Elisa Darrow, and I'm the licensing manager for the regulatory Licensing division for the City of Boulder. Mr. Lew and Ms. Vecchio, if you need me to repeat any of this information to you, please let me know. I will also email this to you when the meeting is adjourned. At this time no alcohol inventory may be removed from the present premises effective. Immediately a member of regulatory licensing, and an Enforcement officer from Boulder police will meet you at your business at 9 o'clock Am. Tomorrow. I will be that staff member from licensing, and Officer geniac will be there from Boulder police Department you will be required to perform a city witness full inventory of all alcohol on the premises, and provide a signed and dated copy of this to regulatory licensing. Once completed. city staff may not assist in the inventory.

[219:02] move boxes or bottles during the inventory. Please ensure you have enough staff to assist in the inventory. You, the licensee, will have 5 working days in which to contact your alcohol suppliers regarding any alcohol stock that can be taken back for credit. You will need to email regulatory licensing confirmation. Once this is completed. the return to suppliers will need to be scheduled no less than 10 days from today, and receipts forwarded to regulatory licensing on the 11th day after the hearing, or sooner, if you are able, a regulatory licensing staff member will meet you on site to perform the witnessed alcohol destruction of any unreturned sock. This would be no later than Monday, March 17.th Please note that city staff cannot assist in the alcohol destruction. You will need to make sure you have sufficient staff on hand to facilitate pouring out of all alcohol that will be destroyed. City staff cannot lift or remove any alcohol.

[220:06] Members of the historic authority. I will be the staff member that will oversee both the inventory and the destruction. Thank you. Okay. take questions. I don't believe there's anything else from anyone at this time. Do we need a motion to adjourn? Yes. There a motion to adjourn. Member absolutely make a motion to adjourn. Member Roberts will second that motion to adjourn. All in favor. Say, aye, member Califano. Aye.

[221:00] Or epsilon. I. I'm Raggerty, Guy. Remember Robert's eye. Thank you. And it's 8, 43 for the record.