January 21, 2026 — Beverage Licensing Authority Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] can call the meeting into order and we'll get it going. >> No member card today. >> No member card today. >> Okay, give me just a second, please. I lost my screen. Hold on. That's okay. No, take your time. Okay. Okay, this is a public notice for the city of Boulder Beverage Licensing Authority hearing, Wednesday, January 21st, 2026 at 3 p.m. This is a virtual hearing. Thank you so much. I will begin by sharing my screen and sharing the rules of decorum here. All right. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversation. This

[1:01] vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff, and board members, as well as democracy of people for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. For more information about this vision and the community engagement process, please visit our website at bouldercol.gov. Excuse me. The city will enforce the rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code. 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. No attendee shall disrupt, disturb, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of any meeting in a manner that obstructs the business of the meeting. This also includes failing to obey any lawful order of the excuse me, providing officer to leave the meeting or refrain from addressing the board. Only one person at a time is allowed to speak unless an accommodation like an interpreter is required. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to sub to city business. Excuse me. No participant shall make threats or

[2:00] use other form of intimidation against any person. Obscinity, other appetites based on race, gender, or religion, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes meaning will not be tolerated. [clears throat] I will do member roll call now. If you'll just speak your presence aloud. Member Ginger Barnes. >> Um, member Barnes here. >> Member Lancing Crane. >> Member Crane here. >> Member Brendan Hagerty. >> Member Hagerty present. >> And Chair Roberts. Charlie Roberts. >> Chair Roberts present. >> Thank you so much. And now we'll move on to approval of beverage licensing authority special hearing minutes from December 3rd, 2025. >> Has everyone had a chance to review those? And were there any edits? Not seeing any. >> I see an edit only because members Abselon and Califano appear on in the minutes >> as making a motion and that being

[3:02] seconded and approved. I don't I I don't think that's correct and I think it just needs to be deleted because everything else is accurate. >> Okay. Thank you. Do you know what agenda item that's under by chance? I could look, but I think I think it was the uh the uh revocation of license. >> Okay. Thank you. >> It was a special hearing minutes. There's only one agenda item. Thank you so much. I will make that change. Okay. And then with that edit, um, is there a motion for for approval? I'll make a motion to approve the meetings from December 17th. >> Member Barnes second.

[4:01] >> All those in favor say I. Member Roberts. I. >> Member Barnes. I >> member Kane abstains. I was I was not there at that point. >> Member Hagerty. I >> Okay, meeting minutes. Motion passes. >> Thank you so much. And I'm sorry. Did you make a motion for just December 3rd or for December 3rd and December 17th? >> Only December 17th because I thought we did we not do December 3rd on >> Nope. I need a I need a motion. And so we have a motion and an approval, a motion, a second and a vote for December 3rd. And that is Robert's motion bar seconded. And we have three yeses with Karine abstaining just to recap. And then yes, if I can get a motion for December 3rd, that would be great. >> Yes. >> You mean December 17th? Sorry to

[5:00] >> It sounds like we just did a vote for December 17th. Is that right, Chair Roberts? >> Yes. >> So, it sounds like we had an edit for December 3rd and so I just need a motion and a second and a vote on that those minutes with the edit. Excellent. Any other edits for December 3rd, the special hearing? Okay. Then I would make a motion to approve the edit and uh accept the minutes from December 3rd. Member Crane is I second it. >> All those in favor say I. Member Roberts I. >> Member Barnes I. >> Member Crane I. >> Member Hagerty I. >> Amazing. Thank you so much. Um next we will move on to agenda issues from the licensing clerk. Cappy to report. There's no agenda issues to report today. Um, so I will move on to agenda

[6:02] item two, which is matters from Boulder Police Department and Officer Rook is here. Hello. Happy New Year everybody. Can you hear me? Okay, good. Um, not a lot to report. I did want to give you guys some numbers about some fraudulent IDs that we received for 2025. And we are up to about 2,800 fake IDs with the youngest being 16. Um, so just giving you guys a heads up on that. We're trying to put our heads together and come up with a plan for maybe more accountability on the student side. Um so again, as I've said at other meetings, if you guys have any suggestions or ideas um on how you think that should look, please reach out and let me know um what your thoughts are on that. Um and then next month, I am hoping to provide to you some data for last year about our alcoholrelated calls for service. And I think that's it. If anybody has any questions for me, >> just such a large number.

[7:03] >> It's about a thousand more than 2024. >> And do you see it increase every year compared to 2023? How far do you go back looking at those numbers? >> Yeah. Um I do have them for 2023. We were about um 1,500 in 2023. Um we were about probably 1,600 last year or 2024. And like I said, this last year 2,800 and they're still coming in. I'm still getting more. So, um, >> are there more licenses out there? So, there more, uh, places where they could be served, uh, where [clears throat] the they'd be presented or is it relatively stable number, some coming and some going, but basically, uh, the same opportunities? Yeah, you know, I think it's the same opportunities. I think it's just the uh liquor license establishments are seeing the increase of my presence [laughter]

[8:02] and me asking for them to make sure that they seize those licenses rather than giving them back to the individuals so that they can, you know, then in turn use them at another establishment. So, um I think I'm finally h being in this position for two years. I'm really um having the opportunity to get out there and meet with the owners and the managers and and talk about these uh fraudulent IDs and the liabilities that come along with them for not only the individuals but for the um establishments as well because it's, you know, it's not just the establishments. We got to start putting some of the responsibility on these individuals that are that are getting these IDs. It's an ongoing battle. Not a not a new one. Just I think the access to them is a lot easier. >> So, we're going to take that as more effectiveness on your part. >> I hope so. But a lot it it does create a lot of work, but it also, you know, makes me applaud the license establishments because they are definitely starting to really take

[9:01] notice of that. Um, so yeah, I'm hoping that that's a positive thing by seeing more of those IDs on on that side. >> Great. Thank you. >> Um, member Hagerty, quick quick question. Um, you mentioned the the youngest being 16. Is that [clears throat] how are you able to is that a police officer stopped the individual who was 16 who had a fraudulent ID? So, not in a bar or you know how that >> how that came about? That's a really good question. Um, a couple of them were from some of our past um, cases that I've presented to you. That's where we saw that and then the testimony. Um, but then these are also ones that are being turned in by the establishments and I am working with the school district. they are um we have kind of that joint communication where they are able to share the information an information sharing agreement um and letting me know that I you know if I say I have this ID

[10:02] of this person is this is a high school student um and they are able to give me that information. So, um trying to work with the school district too to maybe push out some public service assembly type thing about the harms um associated with the fraudulent IDs on all levels. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you so much, Officer R. >> Thanks, Officer Rick. Um, I will move on to agenda item three, which is general public comments for future beverage licensing authority hearings. Um, this is a moment for anyone who would like to give public comment on something that is not on the agenda. Um, you can go ahead and raise your hand, use the raise hand function in Zoom, and I will go ahead and allow you to speak. [clears throat] I'm not seeing any raised hands. Last

[11:01] call for public comment on something that's not in the agenda. All right, I don't see any. I'll go ahead and move on. We are going out of order of our normal agenda process here. So, agenda item four is um neighborhood boundary settings for the February 21st, 2026 hearing. As you know, these were brought over some of them from last month. Give me a second and I will go ahead and share my screen. We have four. All right. The first one is here and it is for Peckish Boulder LLC. DBA PKish. It is at 111913th Street, Boulder, Colorado 80302. um for a new beer and wine cycle license. And the suggested boundaries

[12:01] would be from [ __ ] which is at 114313th Street, just on the street from there. And that is Arapjo on the north, Baseline on the south, 28th Street to Colorado on the east, and 9inth Street on the west. Can zoom out here? Any adjustments? >> I think it looks fine. >> Fine to me. Also, >> I'd make a motion to accept the boundaries for Peekish as Caitlyn stated. >> I second that motion. Member Barnes. >> All those in favor say I. Member Roberts. I. Member Barnes. Okay, >> member Crane, you're muted.

[13:01] >> Member Crane. I thanks for the nudge. >> Member Hagerty. I >> Okay, motion passes. >> Thank you so much. I will move on to the second one which is Mile High Pizza Cutters LLC DBA Slice House and that's at 1805 29th Street number 1144 Boulder Colorado 80301 for a new beer and wineside liquor license and this one I have taken suggested boundaries from Kura Sushi which is just right here. Um, and those are Bluff Street on the north, Colorado Avenue on the south, Foothills Parkway on the east, and 20th Street on the west. I'll zoom out for you. [clears throat] I would make a motion to accept those uh boundaries. >> Member Crane. Second. >> All those in favor say I. Member

[14:00] Roberts. I >> member Barnes. I >> member Crane. I >> member Hagerty. I >> Okay, >> thank you so much. And I'm actually going to skip ahead to number four because they have the same suggested boundaries. So, um they it is right here and the Kur Sushi is right here up here. So this is for F FRC Balance LLC DBA True Food Kitchen 175529th Street space 1080 Boulder Cardo 80301 for a new hotel restaurant type liquor license. Same suggested boundaries from Kurushi which is up here which is 185529th Street number 115. I'm sorry that's the address. Sorry. The suggested boundaries are Bluff Street on the north, Colorado Avenue on the south, Footh Hills Parkway on the east, and 20th Street on the west. I would make a motion to accept those boundaries. Is there a second? >> Member Crane. Second. >> We got two seconds. [clears throat]

[15:01] >> All those in favor say I. Member Roberts I. >> Member Bronze I. >> Member Crane I. >> Member Hagerty I. >> Thank you so much. And I'm skipping back up to number three, which is uh Isakaya LLC DVA by Ramen and Isaakaya 328028th Street, Unit 2, Boulder, Colorado 80301 for a new hotel restaurant type liquor license. The suggested boundaries are from Verde, which is I'm trying to find it. [clears throat] Over I believe >> like a little bit north of um >> it's at 37 Belmont. >> Yes. Um, and those suggested boundaries are Kimma Avenue on the north, Pearl Street on the south, Foothills Parkway on the east, and Fulsome Street on the west.

[16:06] Looks good to me. Any edits? Not, I'll make a motion to accept those boundaries. Is there a second? >> Member Crane seconds. >> All those in favor say I. Member Roberts I. >> Member Barnes I. >> Member Crane I. >> Member Hagerty. I >> boundaries passed. [snorts] >> Thank you so much. All right. We will go ahead and move on to agenda item five. And that is um local licensing authority input on Colorado liquor sales room for twostep in Brewery Inc. DBA twostep and brewery. That's at 4843 Pearl Street A1 Boulder, Colorado for a brewery permanent sales room. This um the licency is here if you

[17:00] would like to ask any questions of them. Otherwise, this is just BLA input like yes or a no. I thought the um the write up was very detailed. I appreciate that um detail they went into of all the different train people being trained and what have you. So I was impressed with the um the service policy manual that they provided. Um so I thought that was impressed with that. >> I agree. I guess Caitlyn, can you just clarify what is the question if they should? >> Yeah. So, the state um just requires that the local authority either submits and we oppose this application or we don't oppose this application. Those are your two choices. So, I say just make a motion for whichever one you want to go with and then we'll send that to the state. Um again, if the licency is here, if you have any questions, but if not, then you can go ahead and make the

[18:00] motion. I would make a motion to um send it on, send it to the state and continue the application. [clears throat] >> Member Barnes, I second that. >> All those in favor say I. Member Roberts I. >> Member Barnes I. >> Member Gray I. >> Member Hagerty I. >> Perfect. We will send um that to the state as not opposed. And thank you Mr. Sullivan. I saw your hand was up, but you're good. Um, okay. We will move on to agenda item six, which is continued public hearing and consideration of an application filed on September 9th, 2025 from the Crepe Shock Boulder LLC, DBA Crepe Therapy Cafe Boulder, 2273 31st Street, Sweet 140, Boulder, Colorado 80301. Ma McQueen 100% owner and registered manager with the business mailing address of 305 Aspen Airport Business Center sweet F Aspen, Colorado 81611 for a new hotel

[19:00] restaurant type liquor license. Um, if you are here to speak on this matter, go ahead and raise your hand and I will allow you in to speak to the BLA. [clears throat and cough] We have two hands raised. Hopefully we get those. Okay, perfect. And while our applicants are getting settled, um I'll just remind or just let the VA know that there was new material submitted in your packet. And then you also would have received an exhibit related to this case earlier today. And that is also available to the public on our website. And um Zach, I see that you're here and unmuted. Are you an attorney or being represented by an attorney? >> He's the manager. Yeah, I'm the manager. Okay. [snorts] And then Ma, I see that you're here as

[20:01] well. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And is are you an attorney represented by an attorney? >> Can you hear us? >> Sorry, we're fixing my screen. That's okay. >> Yeah. Okay. I think it's working now. I have no idea. >> Can you hear us? >> Yes, we can hear you and we can hear you. >> Okay. Okay. Oh, yeah. You're done. Okay. [laughter] >> And are you represented by an attorney so I can get you? >> No. Okay, great. I'll go ahead and swear you in and then I'll pass it over to the BLA. Um, if you will just say your name and spell your name for the record and give an address. >> Okay. Ma McQueen. Um 1999 Prospector Road, uh Aspen, Colorado. Um what else?

[21:01] >> And then if you'll raise your right hand for me, do you swear or affirm that the statement you're about to give before the beverage licensing is true authority is true and correct? >> Yes, I swear. >> And do you swear or affirm that the premises has been posted for 10 days prior to today's hearing? >> Yes, I swear. >> Okay, perfect. And Zach, will you be giving testimony today? >> Yeah. Okay, Zach, I'll go ahead and have you same thing. Say your name, spell your name, and give an address for the record. >> My name is Zach Cidd and uh 2291 um 31st Street, Boulder, Colorado 820, I believe. >> Thank you so much. If you'll just raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that the statement you're about to give before the Beverage Licensing Authority is true and correct? >> Yes, sir. Yes. >> Thank you so much. I'll hand it over to the chair. Great. Thanks, Caitlyn. Okay. This is um continued public hearing and consideration of an

[22:01] application filed on September 9th, 2025 from the Crepe Shack Boulder LLC, DBA, Crepe Therapy Cafe Boulder, for a new hotel restaurant type liquor license. And since we sorry guys, okay, this purpose of this hearing is to receive information, data, and testimony by interested parties in order to enable this authority to make findings and to reach conclusions required to be made by state law as to whether or not license the license applied for shall be issued. Interested parties are the applicant residents of the neighborhood under consideration and the owners and managers of a business located in the neighborhood under consideration. For purposes of determining who is an

[23:00] interested party at this hearing, the neighborhood under consideration is the neighborhood previously defined by the authority. The authority shall make a final determination of the affected neighborhood prior to determining whether the license shall be issued. Any interested party may speak to the question of neighborhood designation as well as any other information relevant to the granting or denial of the application to the board. Is there anybody with a conflict of interest or has had exparte communication with this establishment? Member Roberts. No. >> Member Barnes. No. >> Member Crane. No, thank you. >> Hagerty. No. >> Okay, great. Then um Miss McQueen, if you like, are you ready to proceed? >> Okay.

[24:02] >> Okay. If you're ready. >> We were there. We were there. Uh so we were there in December and uh you guys asked us to send you our training manual. That's what we did and all the people who are certified um tip certified for all the employee we did. So we just wait for you guys to make a decision. >> Um did you do some in-house training around your alcohol policy? >> Yes, we did. >> Could you tell us a little bit about that, please? >> Zach, you can tell them a little bit about that. Yeah. So um so basically you know we uh we organized a training uh which was an online training um probably two or three days ago just you know to refresh um um some of the people who already have uh the uh tips certification and then you know for the

[25:00] new people that you know that never done the tip certification. So we uh develop you know our uh internal you know training program you know when it come to you know uh from visual you know poster you know to any scenario that might uh we might encounter you know while you know we serving you know be it so we went through you know all those kind of training so um and then you know all the legal poster and everything you know it's confined into our you know training manual. So yes, we right now as we speak, we 100% everybody that's working locally at this uh establishment are TE certified. >> Great. So I couldn't help but notice that um you just did the training since the last hearing. Is that correct? >> Yes. I recall you guys telling us that

[26:00] everybody was trained and that you would have sent this directly after the call. So, I'm a little confused on the timeline. And the reason I bring it up is because I think that having a liquor license in a college town is a pretty big deal. And I'm just a little concerned about the forthcomingness. >> Um, >> yes, the holidays, so we were pretty busy. And since you guys put the meeting in January, so regardless if we send it the next day, nothing was going to change your decision. So for us, we decided that it >> it wasn't urgent to send it to you because you're not going to change your mind. Some of the people already had their legal license like Zach said >> and we did a retraining. So, I don't understand why this is a problem now because we didn't send it the next day. >> I didn't say it was a problem.

[27:00] >> I was wondering what you were going to send us later that day because you said that you had all the trainings, but then I So, I guess I was just like a little confused. Did you decide to do more retraining? Did you decide to expand your training? >> So, so basically, you know, we decided, you know, to extend our training. So because you know like uh you know Miss McQueen you know was sh was saying so from my understanding was like you know we didn't have a substantial you know training plan the last time that uh you guys that we were on uh u on the meeting and then yes some people at that time you know had their training. So then you know since it wasn't urgent and we have already a day so we felt like you know it would be opportunity you know for to have everybody together to do the training so we all at least you know are in the same level of information right before you know we go to the meeting. So

[28:01] that's why you know we have to delay but it doesn't mean that you know we did not have people who were already surf uh surf certificate train >> if that makes sense. >> Yeah totally. >> Okay. >> And and also we are in a mountain town. We were kind of also disappointed that you know that was our busy season. So you guys decide to not kind of uh put it after. So, we didn't feel like because we said we're going to send it thinking you guys going to change your mind, you know, when we send it. So, it wasn't urgent for you guys. So, we decided, okay, well, we're going to do it later. So, that's what we did. And, uh, we have everything in place for you guys to see. Um, yeah, >> great. It's always good to beef up your policy and your training.

[29:01] >> We did. >> Are there any other questions from the board? >> No, I do appreciate them sharing though the liquor license compliance plan they put together. So, that was um they appreciate that how you how you deal with people being overs served and people that um how you serve in general. So, I do appreciate you guys doing that. So, thank you very much. And I have also one more one more thing to to point it out. Um last time we were doing the ear hearing. I felt and I'm going to tell you honestly I felt like I I was a little bit discriminated against because I live in Aspen because you guys keep saying oh you live in Aspen so you don't know it's a college town. Guess what? We have rich people here that think that we entitled to take drink from our restaurant and give it to their kids. We deal with that every single day. It's not that we don't. So just because I live in Aspen, uh it's not different world.

[30:01] Aspen has a lot of people who do cocaine, a lot of people who drink, we know what we, you know, we are confronted that. So um I didn't really, you know, it kind of it was hurtful to say, "Oh, you live in Aspen, you don't know." We do know because we have lot of people entitled people uh and young people who come and even the nanny buy drink and she thinks she can give it. No, we are there and we monitor that. So we know how the thing goes. >> Sure. And this would be the platform for you to tell us that. We don't know. >> Yeah. So okay. So so we listen people we have people coming in our store. Okay. They think we don't watch. We have camera everywhere. We we see people because we have a patio, they go and they try to we take it out. We don't we we we we don't take anything. Um we don't let them have it.

[31:00] >> I don't care if your dad is a gazillionaire or he's very influential or whatever. We don't because what is more important to us is make sure we follow the rule and and do the right thing. And we get we get I got yell at because oh I didn't want to give a drink to to someone. So I so we we are confronted to maybe a different set of things that Boulder doesn't have. But I say that Aspen it's worst. you know a college town you know you have to c everybody and you know that they lie with the the the the card sometimes they have fake ID and we have a book for that so like you can't just take someone um >> words >> or you know word for it or you know they look young or you know how they say black don't crack we don't do that like

[32:00] no you need to give me your we have a policy they need to hand out the ID I need to hold it and I'm going to verify, okay? Because this is what we are confronted in Aspen and I'm sure Boulder is the same thing. Well, that's really great and I'm sure the board shares the sentiment that we really appreciate hearing your experiences and that helps us understand that you are equipped to to run this, but without that information, we wouldn't know. So, I'm glad we had a chance to sort that out. Are there any other um questions for the board or from the board? Excuse me. Okay. Would you guys like to make a closing statement? >> Me? >> Yeah. Before we either [laughter] of you before we close for deliberation,

[33:00] [clears throat] >> we do need the legal license so we can have brunch and we can have Valentine. We can start having you know dinner party at the crepe therapy because you know you know that liquor it's a big part of what we are you know crepe caviar and champagne is is one of my signature dish. So uh Right now my check average is like low. Um and I think having a liquor license will put it higher and it's higher margin and uh it will help us a lot um keep uh keep us in the business. >> Great. >> Thank you so much. So then at this time let's go ahead and close for deliberation. Member Barnes, I agreed with you. I was really happy to see all the extra um

[34:01] documentation and happy to have them walk us through their new training and see those um even more um certificates added to their books. Um any any discussion? >> Uh just a just a note, I wasn't uh at the prior hearing where they started and we weren't able to complete it. Um and so I'm I'm pleased to be able to have a firsthand uh review and uh hear from them. And I note in the materials the the neighborhood survey seems to indicate very positive uh uh support for them and that seems to me like what we're supposed to be looking for. So uh seems right seems right to me. >> Absolutely. I would go ahead and make a motion to

[35:00] approve this license. Is there a second? >> Member Barnes seconds. >> All those in favor say I. Member Roberts I. >> Member Barnes I. >> I. >> Member Hagerty. I >> Great. We look forward to your champagne and crepes. I'm just kidding. >> And caviar. [laughter] >> Caviar. >> But don't actually give it to us. [laughter] >> We'll pay for it. >> We'll pay for it. Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Exciting. an encouragement, not an offer. Right. [laughter] >> Excited to have you guys in Boulder. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks everyone. Give me a second while I get everyone in the right place. All right, we will go ahead and move on to agenda item seven, which is continued

[36:04] public hearing and consideration of an application filed on October 7th, 2025 from Emily and Logan's Holding LLC DBA Logan's Espresso Cafe 4790 Broadway building A101 Boulder, Colorado 80304. Emily Krisa, 50% owner or sorry, 50% member/manager and proposed registered manager. And William Patterson, 50% member/manager with the business mailing address of 4955 Morehead Avenue, number 13, Boulder, Colorado, 80305 for a new beer and wine tie liquor license. If you are here to speak on this matter, please go ahead and raise your hand and I will let you in. All right. While everyone's getting settled, I just remind the board that this was continued from last month. Um, just because of the the wind storms. And

[37:03] >> yeah, those windstorms were something else. [laughter] >> Good to see you all. >> Very nice to see everyone. >> There you are. [laughter] And Emily, are you um represented by an attorney today? >> I am by Fern O'Brien. >> Yes, I'm the attorney. >> Hi, Miss O'Brien. If you'll just go ahead and record your appearance for me and then I'll get everyone's warning. >> Sure. >> I'm Fern O'Brien. F E R N O B R I N. My um attorney registration number is 26912. And um we are here today seeking a new um beer and wine liquor license for my client. And my client is as I think you already stated who our client who my client is. So, >> yes. And Emily, I'll go ahead and swear you in if you'll just say your name, spell your name for the record and give an address. >> Um, my name is Emily Krisa. E M I L Y K

[38:01] R Y S K A. My address is 2350 Grape Avenue, Boulder, Colorado 80304. >> Perfect. And if you'll raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that the statements you're about to give before the beverage licensing authority are true and correct? >> I do. >> And do you swear or affirm that the premises has been posted for at least 10 days prior to today's hearing? >> I do. >> Awesome. And then Miss Carson, I see that you're with us as well. >> Hello, Caitlyn. How are you? >> I'm great, thank you. Um, I'll just go ahead and swear you in. If you'll just say your name, spell your name for the record, give an address. You bet. So, my name is Eva Garrettson. I'm with Liquor Pros, one of the owners, and I am located at 5515 Saddle Rock Place in Colorado Springs, Colorado. >> Thank you so much. And if you'll just go ahead and swear, raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the statements you're about to give before the Beverage Licensing Authority are true and correct? >> I do.

[39:00] >> Thank you so much. And I'll pass it over to the chair. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Thank you so much. So, um, first person I'd like to call is Ava. >> I'm gonna read it. >> Sorry. Sorry. Okay. >> No worries. So, this is, um, a continued public hearing and consideration of an application filed on October 7, 2025 from Emily and Logan's Holding LLC, DBA, Logan's Espresso Cafe, for a new beer and wine type liquor license. And attorney O'Brien, would you be okay with me um with would you excuse me, would you like to wave the reading into of procedure into the books? >> Yes, thank you. I would love to wave that. >> Excellent. And are you ready to proceed? >> I am. Thank you. >> Sorry. Um to the board, has there been any exparte communication or um conflict of interest with this establishment? Member Roberts, no.

[40:00] >> Member Barnes, no. Member Crane, no. >> Member Hagerty, no. >> Great. Then, uh, you may proceed. Thank you. >> Very good. Thank you so much. The first witness I'd like to call is Ava Garrettson, who conducted a petition on behalf of my client. Go ahead, Ava. >> Thank you, Miss O'Brien. So, once again, for the record, my name is Eva Garrison, one of the owners of Liquor Licensing Professionals. We were um hired by the applicant Logan's Espresso Cafe located at 4790 Broadway building a uh 101 there in in Boulder. Um they were applying for a new beer and wine type liquor license. Um we went ahead and got in contact with Logan's to find out what their process and procedure was and how they were going to sell the liquor. um which you

[41:00] will hear from the applicant and the attorney um and it relate that back to the business owners, managers and residents. We also notified the surveyor at the time the type of liquor license that is being applied for. In this case, it's a beer and wine type liquor license, which means just the beer and wine does not include hard spirits. Um we conducted this these this survey on the dates of November 30th, December 1st, and December 2nd. We made attempted contact with 425 business owners, managers, and residents. Once again, for the authority, we do carry your packets. So, they do have to identify themselves as a business owner, um, manager or a resident in the in the area. Of the 425, we obtained a total of 124 signatures. 30 were from business owners and manager with all 30 signing in favor at 100%. We then obtained a total of 94 residential signatures with 91 signing in favor at

[42:02] 97%, three opposed at 3%. We did try and grab several locations in and around the area. If you look at the map, it looks like we did probably 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 different areas trying to um gather feedback, but it was all and around the area. if we did find uh folks that were concerned, we did try and stay in those areas as much as possible. We also let those folks who were signing in know that um that this is a public hearing. So, if they did have any questions or concerns, they may attend this public hearing or the public hearing that was before. Hopefully, they knew it was continued um and they could address any concerns directly with the authority or with the applicant themselves. Um, if we combine these totals, we actually have 98% signing in favor with 121 signatures and three opposed. Once again, we do ask those folks to write in why they are in favor or opposed to this license. The

[43:00] reasons of opposition right now, um, they actually said one declined to provide us with a reason. One stated noise and one said it's not good for local population. Uh, which the last two don't necessarily speak on behalf of the needs and desires. Um, so if the authority chooses and they want to toss those out, that actually bumps the in favor up to 99%. Um, right now, um, I don't believe there's another, um, beer and wine liquor license in the entire area. Um, but the even just the raw number of 98% clearly shows a positive need and desire for this license in the area. Once again, we are a third party uh, unbiased petitioning company, so we do not guarantee results. um we simply provide the the information and then they sign as they as they choose. Um but the 98% clearly shows a positive need and desire and that any existing outlet um are not meeting that need. And I'd be happy to

[44:00] answer any question from the authority. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from the authority? Not seeing any. Okay. >> Got a couple. >> Oh, sorry. I didn't see you there, Member Crane. >> Carter. Um, uh, thank you, Miss Garrison. Thorough as always. Um uh uh looking looking at your statistics, I just in the in the area that uh it that uh uh Emily and and uh or Emily and Logan's uh espresso is located. Um where is the complaint from noise coming from? Uh it's it's kind of a wide area. is do you >> do you track that when you do your reviews or

[45:01] >> or >> um we we do have the address unfortunately right now I I would have to pull up the whole entire packet and relook at that for you Mr. crane, but I'm more than happy to do this if you give me a second and then I can do that. Usually, if it's if it's more predominant if you know, one complaint, we think, okay, you know, they just might be sensitive to noise. If it's several complaints, that's when we really want to make sure that we stay in that area and get enough. Um, the hard part about the area right there, everything bounces off the mountains right there, as you know, Mr. Crane. So, I I think um this is why we don't have uh music venues back there. would be very loud. So, >> well, and >> but that's a great question. >> The the result is very very strongly in favor. So, I'm not trying to be picky. I'm just trying to kind of understand in the other part of the answer which says not good for local population. The the local population could be pretty distant from Emily's. Um it seems to me like

[46:01] there's very very strong neighborhood support for it. So, uh, I think >> but I was I was curious as to where those people were concerned about the noise in particular. >> And it should be in the packet with the address of the location as well. And I can, like I said, I can get that for you if you give me a second. >> All right. Okay. >> It's okay. >> No, but I love the questions. I appreciate that all the time. No, I I really enjoy that. So, yes. Thank you. Thank you for asking. That's it for me. >> Questions? Not seeing any. You may proceed, Attorney O'Brien. >> Hey, thank you so much, Eva. Um, so I'd like to call Emily Krisa as a witness and Emily. >> Hello. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> So, um, can you say your full name once

[47:01] again? >> Yep. I'm Emily Krisco. >> And um and how are you related to uh Emily and Logan's holding company LLC? >> Um I'm a 50% owner, which is known as a member member manager of the holding company that has a couple DBAs under it. And one of the DBAs is this Logan's Espresso Cafe. I worked for Logan for over a decade. And then the shop Logan's Espresso Cafe in North Boulder closed two years ago due to um a lease our lease not being renewed. And we've spent two years trying to get back home to North Boulder and we are very close. We're hoping to open on March 1st. >> Great. And then and what is the name of your new cafe? >> It is Logan's Espresso Cafe, but that is the DBA. >> Great. And can you holding company? >> Okay. Great. And can you describe um the cafe? what kind of a cafe you plan on having there. >> Yeah. Um I want to give you a teeny bit of history which is that the 20 years

[48:01] we've had in North Boulder, we have always been a neighborhood cafe. Um we've had everybody there. It is our community and it is very strong and I've had people for these two years reaching out almost weekly um through email or text trying to get in touch with me and to understand, you know, when we might be opening again. So, the cafe that we're going to be opening is um going to be very like familyfriendly um food oriented. We originally just used to be a coffee shop and in today's world that is harder to make ends meet and we have a higher lease and so that's why we decided to open up um having a sandwich and soup program as well as salads and like not quite a grocery but you know but like a little mini be able to get some stuff to take home, some food to take home and and we would like to serve beer and wine with that as well as some ana beverages just so that we can have something that is like a nice community hub where we can support and serve for everybody um to the best of our ability. >> So, can you tell me how the ordering do

[49:01] you have a table service or do you have um people order at the counter or can you just explain to the authority how that works? >> Yep. Um it is order at the counter. We will have a line. People will have a menu that they can pick up at the door. Um, and yeah, they'll just come up with an order to the one person at the cashier and then there's a second person who works to help um with, you know, beverages depending on the time of day because it was coffee in the morning and more beer and wine in the evening. >> Okay, very good. Um, how is the how has the restaurant been financed? >> Um, that is by William Logan Patterson. He's financed it all. >> Totally. >> Completely. Yeah. >> So, no loans? >> No loans. No loans. Okay. And um and you have possession and control of the premises. >> We do. It is under the last stages of uh construction. >> Okay. And do you have a lease? >> Yes. Yeah. We've been paying on that lease since November. So it'll be nice

[50:00] to be up and running. Um, so this is always a tough thing for me to bring up, but um, a number of years ago, uh, you were convicted of a DUI. Um, could you explain to the authority what happened and how you have changed your life as a result of that experience? >> Yeah, and I'm I'm actually quite happy to talk about it. I think it is an important thing. Um what happened a few years ago was um although it is emotional to talk about um um I was drinking a couple beers at um a bar that I went to somewhat regularly and I drank them too quickly and I drove home. It was a rainy night and I just slid off the road into the banister um on 36. Nobody else was involved. Um nobody was injured. Um, but then I did get uh a DUI because of that situation. Um, and I'm happy to answer some more questions about that. Uh, but the thing,

[51:03] so fully stating how, you know, how lucky I feel that nobody got hurt, you know, that it wasn't worse than it was and that I get to be here in front of you today. Um, it totally was a life-changing event for me. Um, and this is um, for a couple reasons. First off, I got like, you know, alcohol classes. I got therapy. I got counseling. And through those modes, I found out I had ADHD. I got medicated for ADHD. Um, and I got to learn other sort of like tools um through therapy and counseling such as like behavioral therapy to kind of just learn how to process the world better and to better engage in the world. And that is something that I'm continuing to do off and on. um my insurance was off for a little bit, but I'm back on with a really lovely counselor right now. And that was really beneficial for me. And um I think as a manager owner, once again, knowing that, you know, the worst didn't happen that having a DUI

[52:02] kind of like will actually strengthen how I um interact with my customers. Like, you know, I don't want them to have to go through that. I don't want the worst to happen. And I know what, you know, I know what it's like. And it is it is hard and I wouldn't wish that on anybody. Um and then on top of that like mental health is very important. I've you know had this wonderful journey and so I've been very open with people that I know my customers and friends and talking to them about what I've been through. And with that I can say that I've had two people come to me and tell me that they have gotten some mental health help that they needed just by discussing it and kind of learning more about how things can affect them. and that's something that I would like to continue to do. >> Great. Thank you so much, Emily. Appreciate that. Um could you just just turning to another topic, could you describe the neighborhood that um Logan's Espresso Cafe will is in? >> Yeah. Yeah. So, we moved north to where

[53:00] we used to be, but luckily we still have so many customers there. some um it's the holiday neighborhoods. So, um there's like a lot of like smaller families um in that particular area and then there's like some bigger homes across the way. There's a lot of families there, you know, a lot of people that I know personally. Um my martial arts school is up there. Um there's just some other things that's um kind of an artsy neighborhood. I've done I'm an artist as well and I've done some work over in NOBO um with the artists there. So, it's a fun, creative neighborhood. We just got our library up there. Um, and it's it's wanting to grow and we want to be a part of that. >> That's great. Um, let's talk about the premises, the suitability of the premises. Um, I know that you have a patio and um, can you tell me how you are keeping that secure? >> Yes. So we do have the the entryway to the main to the main store. Um that's

[54:01] about a400 square foot um space. So it is kind of small. We don't have tons of tables. And then to access the patio where we serve alcohol um you have to go through like a door um that is inside the building. So you have to get to the patio that alcohol is served, you have to go through the main entrance. Um and then the patio is just to the north of that under 300 square feet. And it's going to be enclosed with like um like some bricks. I mean has a brick wall already and then metal fencing. >> Great. Great. And um and you can see the patio from inside. >> Yes. >> Okay. And is the liquor stored in the designated locked area? >> Yep. >> In your restaurant. >> Yep. >> Good. So tell me about your plans for opening. What what will what will your hours of operation be? 30 to 9 um Monday through Friday and no no sorry

[55:01] the hours are all a little different. So 6:30 to 9 um Monday through Thursday and then Friday through Saturday we're going 30 to 10 and then Sunday it'll be 7 to 9. >> Very good. Thank you so much. Um, so in your opinion, will the issuance of this license have an adverse effect on the health, welfare, or morals of the neighborhood? >> I do not. Um, you know, for a couple reasons. First off, I think it'll be really nice for people to have a place in the neighborhood so they don't feel a need to leave the neighborhood um to find some things they might be looking for. Um, and so I think that'll actually be beneficial, um, you know, to have things closer by, something that they can walk to, let's say, instead of maybe try to find a way to get downtown. Um, and so I'm I'm really excited about that and so are a lot of people that I've talked to up there. Um, also,

[56:00] we have a few employees who have been with us for a while. A lot of them actually don't drink alcohol. Um, and I've been noticing this lovely change over time of like this, it's like a culture of responsibility. Um, and I think that's something we're going to really want to encourage there. And it'll be easy too, I think. >> Right. And speaking of responsibility, are you trained as have you received responsible vendor training and has your entire staff or I'm assuming they will all be? >> Yes. So, I got my um certificate and my training and then I did along with this application give you guys it's a pretty brief um policy and procedures of what we are going to be doing. Um and but that was many months ago and since then I have been compiling lots of information and bringing together like all these handbooks and stuff and making a lot of information available to um our employees. But right now we have seven. And I'm actually am going back and forth

[57:00] with Ava here with Liquor Pros trying to figure out if maybe um although I just reached out yesterday, but um if if maybe I should wait until I have like 10 people to actually like have a bigger group to for everyone to get their um their training, but I do not plan on opening without everybody on staff having that training. >> Right. And a beer and wine license, as I'm sure you are aware, requires the restaurant to provide sandwiches and light snacks >> um throughout the time it will be open. Will do you plan on doing that? >> Yeah. 11 to close. Um we will have um food service available for everyone. And then I also want to have little like free snacks for people. >> Oh, nice. >> Yeah. Little little ones, you know, as much as we can. I have to say I drove by your restaurant on Sunday and it looks very nice. >> Awesome. Frank, >> um so you of course because of the training you're familiar with the liquor code and the prohibition

[58:02] regarding serving visibly intoxicated persons and underage persons and what acceptable IDs are. Is that correct? >> Yep. Um I've already ordered the handbooks for the different licenses. I'm going to also be getting um the light reader just to confirm after people have um already checked the ID physically themselves um just so everyone can >> and how do you and how do you plan on controlling service at your counter? Will you will you allow people to buy like more than one beer or or glass of wine or >> So, so far I really am wanting to keep it very strict where I actually wrote it down if you give me one moment. Um, you know, I am I haven't done this for a little bit. I did help about 15 years ago Cafe Sole in North Boulder or South Boulder get a liquor license, but I have not um been dealing with it lately. So, I just want to make sure I'm doing everything as strongly as possible. So,

[59:01] I'm wanting to say it was so cute what I wrote. Um, but basically, you order, we ID is it? And so, I want people to bring their IDs to the counter. Um, for every drink that they order. >> Okay. >> Yes, >> that's good. >> I don't have any more questions, but is there anything else that you would like to add, Emily? >> I don't think so. Let me I'm of course would love to answer any questions you guys have. Um oh here's my thing wrote order at the register you order. We ID each drink every time. And that's kind of going to be my little slogan for for everybody because as big as a handbook is, it's nice to have something small to latch on to. Um no, I hope to see you guys all there one way or another if you're in Boulder. Um it is for our community. That's why we're doing it. So, I'm ready to see it. >> Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions from the authority?

[60:05] >> Questions? Um, I have a question. Emily, do you have experience serving alcohol? Have you held a liquor license before? >> I do. I did. I was tip certified. Um I have personally not as an owner um had experience serving alcohol but I was tip certified and served alcohol for a couple years >> at like another establish >> a cafe sole. Yeah. That is the place that I helped um many years ago open a coffee shop. I mean open a their version of kind of what we're doing now. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> Member Crane. >> Uh a comment and a question. Uh the comment is I I I love your neighborhood. I think you're going to go into a very exciting, vibrant uh growing uh community there. So, a lot of opportunity for support and I'm sure you'll be well well received. I just wanted wondered who William Patterson

[61:00] is. Uh your co-owner >> who? Oh, >> William Patter. >> Yeah. William Logan Patterson. So, Logan is his middle name. He was the person who first owned Logan's Espresso Cafe uh for 20 years in North Boulder and then two years ago he's older and so he wanted help um starting the cafe again and so we partnered together. Um but basically he used to be my boss and now he is my friend and co- business partner. >> He's he's in sync with you on uh the the goals and the practices that you want to bring to Emily and Logan's. >> Very much so. And you know, he's he's not going to be running the business so much. It's more like he's going to come in for his cappuccino and he's he's like, "This is your office, Emily. This is your thing." So, he really is trusting me. And yeah, we'll be very >> He's got life figured out. Thank [laughter] you. >> Any other questions?

[62:01] Okay. Do you have anything um to close with? No, I just thank you for your time um on my side. >> Yeah, that's about it. And um and we the two of us uh respectfully request the uh granting from you of this beer and wine liquor type type liquor license. So, thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. At this time, we will close for deliberation. Any discussion? Any motions? I move that we approve the uh the license as requested. >> And I second that motion. Member Barnes. >> All those in favor say I. Member Roberts I. >> Member Barnes I. >> Brian I. >> Member Heaggerty I. >> Okay.

[63:01] >> Good luck. >> Great. Thank you so much. appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Thanks everyone. Let me go ahead and get everyone situated and I will move on. Okay. Um I'm going to move on to agenda item eight. Bear with me because this one is very long. So, I apologize for that. Agenda item 8 is continued public hearing and consideration of an application filed on October 2nd, 2025 from Whole Foods Market, Rocky Mountain/Southwest LP DBA. Whole Foods Market 2905 Pearl Street, Boulder, Colorado 8031. Whole Foods Market Rocky Mountains southwest LP applicant LP with Keith Mambbeck as president and JP Warren as secretary of

[64:01] applicant LP with Whole Foods Market Rocky Mountain/Southwest uh Inc. Corp GP general partner and with Whole Foods Market Southwest Investments Inc. Limited partner with Keith Mambbeck as president and JP War as secretary of Corp GP with Whole Foods Market Inc. 100% shareholder of Corp GP and with Heather Stern as president and with JP War Warren as secretary of Corp LP and with Whole Foods Market Inc. 100% shareholder of Corp LP and with Whole Foods Market Inc. as 100% shareholder of Corp GP and Corp LP with Michael Deal director Anthony Gallo president Heather Stern VP and secretary JP Warren assistant secretary of Whole Foods Market Inc. and with Walnut Sub Properties LLC, 100% shareholder of Whole Food Market, Whole Foods Market, Inc. with Keith Banbeck as president and named principal person for WSPL and with Walnut Sub Enterprises LLC as 100% share owner of WSPL, Amazon Fulfillment

[65:02] Services, Inc. as 100% owner of WSPL and Amazon.com, a publicly traded company as 100% owner of AFSI and so with no other owners over 10% interest with a business mailing address of PO Box 684786, Austin, Texas 78768 for a permanent modification of premises of a fermented malt beverage and wine retail off- premise type liquor license to include consideration of withdrawing the condition on prohibition of the sale of all types of fermented malt beverages and wine with the exception of kombucha. Thank you all so much for bearing with me through that one. If you're here to speak on this matter, please go ahead and raise your hand. Um, and I will start promoting here. Um, first I would like to I believe promote anyone who is here to as an applicant. So, if you're here to give public

[66:00] comment, please lower your hand and then I'll let you back in. So, just applicants, licenses, and legal counsel. Okay, everyone is getting settled. Kaitlin, just a procedural note. It's my understanding that um there's some opposition that would like to cross-examine either applicant or additional witnesses. I just want to ensure that whatever technicality was needed if they need to be allowed in at this point um to do that or however you all handle that. >> Totally. And I'm so sorry. Um I was not here for the last hearing, so I'm not sure exactly how you guys handled it,

[67:00] but my plan was to um have the their attorney um record or record their appearance and then have all applicants and licences sworn in, anyone who's going to be giving testimony, and then ask for anyone who's going to be giving public comment or cross-examining, and then have them come in and swear them in. Does that sound okay? Um, you don't need to swear in someone who is cross-examining a witness. So, they would be sworn in for their own testimony. So, you can swear them in for their own testimony, but for the cross-examination, um, the prior witnesses who are being cross-examined are the ones at issue and they would have already been sworn in, if that makes sense. >> Perfect. All right. So, if anyone is here to crossexamine, go ahead and raise your hand so I'll make sure that you're in so

[68:00] that we can and I see Mr. Derk King is here. Okay. While Mr. Derk King is getting settled here, I will have council record their appearance and then we'll start with the swearing in. [laughter] >> Thank you. Uh, good afternoon. My name is Kevin Coats. Our registration number is 25995. I'm from Dylan Dill here on behalf of Whole Foods. We should have also present um Tom Rich who's a vice president of this region for Whole Foods, Brian Haney as well as Eva Garrison to testify regarding a needs and desires matter. I believe that Mr. um Rich is is he there? Is that is that his title there? >> That's me. >> Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we had all the right folks there. But we are here and ready to proceed. Um and I will have uh one procedural matter as well um prior to starting our hearing. Thank you. >> No problem. Um and then Tom, if you'll

[69:01] go ahead and start. Just go ahead and say your name, spell your name for the record. >> Tom Rich. Uh T O M R I C H. >> And provide an address for the record. 2003 Clipper Drive, Lafayette, Colorado 8026. [clears throat] >> Thank you so much. If you'll go ahead and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the statement you're about to give before the beverage licensing authority is true and correct? >> I do. >> Okay, perfect. And do you swear or affirm that the premises has been posted for at least 10 days prior to today's hearing? >> Uh, >> if you're not the right person for that, that's totally fine. >> I wouldn't be. Ryan Haney would be the right person. >> Okay, perfect. >> Um, and Ryan, if you'll go ahead and same thing. Say your name, spell your name for the record, and give an address. >> Yeah. Hello. So, my name is Ryan Haney. R Y A H E Y. Um, since 200,

[70:01] sorry, uh, 12. I've lived at 3345 Yale Drive in Broomfield, 80023. >> Thank you so much. And if you'll raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that the statements you're about to give before the beverage licensing authority are true and correct? >> Yeah, I do. >> And do you swear or affirm that the premises has been posted for at least 10 days prior to today's hearing? >> It has. >> Great. And Miss Garrison, one more time, if you'll just go ahead and say your name and spell your name for the record and give an address. >> You bet. For the record, my name is Eva Garrison. Um, we are located at five, one of the owners of Liquor Pros, uh, G A R R E T S O N. We are located at 5515 Saddle Rock Place in Colorado Springs, Colorado. And we also confirm that the license was pro uh posted um or the the notification was posted on the premises. >> Thank you so much. You've already been sworn in. So, if you'll just confirm you've already been sworn in, then we're good.

[71:00] >> I do confirm that I have already been sworn in. Thank you. >> Of course. Um, and I will see someone's wearing anyone else in until we're ready for some public comment here >> and chair. Go ahead. >> Great. Thank you. >> Of course. >> Okay. Um, today is a continued public hearing and consideration of an application filed on October 2nd, 2025 from Whole Foods Market, Rocky Mountain, Southwest LP, DBA, Whole Foods Market, for a permanent modification of premises for a fermented malt, beverage, and wine retail off- premise type liquor license to include consideration of withdrawing the condition of prohibition on the sale of all types the ferment and malt beverages and wine with the exception of kombucha to the board. Um, has there been any exparte communication or any conflicts

[72:02] of interest with this establishment? Member Roberts, no. >> Member Barnes, no. >> Brain, no. Member Hagerty, no. >> Okay, great. Um, then you may proceed. >> Thank you. I I'll proceed on two matters. Uh certainly I'll give you an opening uh statement because this is a little bit of an involved matter as we as we know the continuation that occurred from December 17. Um and I hope everybody's okay post that day, but that was a that was quite a day. Um but in terms of um in terms of the procedural matter that I have, uh we were here on December 17th. Uh everyone was I think that's here. Um as well as Mr. Durkin, who I think has uh raised his hand to to cross-examine and be a representative essentially of the opposition group. Mr. Durkin, my understanding, is an attorney as well, um, and is fully or should be anyway, fully aware of the the Boulder procedural rules um that uh are current,

[73:02] that being the beverage licensing rules 45, Mr. Durkin filed um documentation for today's hearing um that included an opposition petition and survey and um I just want to voice that we we'll object to any admission of that. um understand that those decisions are up to the authority to make, but that the the procedural rule um that's implicated there is is that for uh 4-2 and I believe it's 4-2-1 um requires that any petition and survey be filed at least [clears throat] 10 days in advance. Purpose of that is so that it can be reviewed so that it can be looked at to see if the names fall within the neighborhood boundary as as given to us by the city as well as is to determine it what types of signatures were given and and and to vet the signatures. We haven't had an opportunity to do that and this was filed as I said at a quarter to quarter

[74:01] to three uh today. Um so um we will be obviously objecting to that survey. Um the objection also includes the fact that you know Mr. Mr. Durking was here present uh on December 17th is my understanding and so there was ample time if that was the decision to make as is to try to obtain a petition and survey. Um but we came we came to address this matter on December 17th. Um that survey didn't exist and obviously it didn't exist till very recently. So, so we will be voicing an objection to obviously any any cross-examination of of our witnesses associated with that petition and survey. Um, we can certainly recall folks if this board decides to make a decision to to um wave the procedural rules in any fashion and uh we can certainly recall Miss Garrettson as well um uh regarding that petition and survey if it's admitted but we we object to it based upon the procedure. Um so I wanted to state that

[75:00] first in terms of letting setting the the roadmap. The second part uh in terms of an opening here today. Um we will call uh Mr. Rich is a vice president of operations here in this region essentially to uh discuss with you kind of the history of this location and and it its terms and terms of the types of licenses that are there. One of the things that we're doing here, and it's in our application, it's in our it's in it's in the the page describing the narrative of why we're here and what we're doing is that we are asking to remove the condition associated with kombucha only and and have a fermented malt beverage wine retail license premise that essentially is consistent with the diagrams that is submitted as the after. So, it's a modification of both the usage and the premise itself. And your rule certainly talks about usage as being something that can might be modified as well. And the purpose of the

[76:00] reason that we're doing it is we also want to condition this approval upon our requirement to surrender the liquor store license that is next door. So Whole Foods Wine and Spirits is next door also held by this same applicant. It's a retail liquor store license and that license and this was made part of our equation, made part of our narrative and also made part of our petition um discusses that we would surrender that license within 60 days of approval of both approval of both the local and the state uh license here if in fact that's what the authority is willing to do. So that could be a condition upon this license that you can't issue it or give it to us pursuant to your procedural rules until we have essentially surrendered the license next door. Now, we're not going to surrender the license obviously if it's not approved. But but the point here is today is is that we are in fact wanting to reduce our footprint at this location. Make it

[77:01] smaller, not have liquor, have less sales of alcohol in the displayed area that we submitted pursuant to the application in order to operate just as a retail uh fermented malt beverage off premise fermented malt beverage and wine off- premise retail at this location. Procedurally, I think there's no issue with that. But that is what we were we are asking to do. And we want the authority to be well aware that essentially we will be required based upon your order to give up that license if in fact you approve the ability for us to be able to sell both beer and wine at this location in the grocery store as well as um um modify it to include the display area, the primary display area, primary display area, excuse me, that's listed within the application itself. Um but that is essentially what we're here for. So we will also call um Ryan Haney who is the store team leader at this location and he will talk about all procedural issues. Um he will talk about

[78:00] day-to-day operations. He can talk about um certainly the the individuals and his customers that are asking us to do this asking can we have this set up so that we are like grocery stores everywhere else. Um when the condition was put into place, it was because of the status of the law at that time. The status of the law was is that that there was just changing to full strength beer and the retail liquor store was right next door. So there was no need obviously at that time to to to change that setup or that dynamic. But now there is and the folks are asking for that. The law changed in 2022 where it allowed obviously to have wine as well within within um fermented malt beverage premises and and that is why we're here to essentially make this consistent with what grocery stores are doing everywhere else. Um and and and request that we'll out of the out of the retail liquor store business altogether. So, it seems to be a a win obviously for

[79:02] everybody in terms of a reduction of space, reduction of liquor in the area, and convenience for the customer. That's all in the eye of the beholder. But that's what we're asking the authority to consider. And um I thought it was important to point all of those things out uh prior to that so that when you examine or cross-examine these witnesses, Mr. Crane, I'm sorry, Mr. Rich um understands basically the big picture here and the day-to-day operations are are done by Mr. Haney. Um with that being said, um if you wish for me to do so, I will call um Mr. Crane. I'm sorry, Mr. Rich. I said Mr. Crane. I'm looking at Mr. Crane in the screen there, but Mr. Rich, excuse me. >> Absolutely. You can proceed. >> Thank you very much. Uh Mr. Rich, >> thank you. >> Look looking for you on the screen. There you are. How are you today? >> I'm doing great. Thank you. >> Perfect. Well, let me ask you, Mr. Rich,

[80:02] can you tell you were just previously sworn in, is that correct? >> Yes. >> And can you please tell us um who you are and what you do for a living? >> Sure. Uh my name's Tom Rich. Uh I am uh the vice president of the central west uh operating area for Whole Foods Market. There are six operating areas. Uh the Central West consists of uh Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada. So I'm the vice president of that area. There's 104 stores and uh I live in Lafayette. So I I do my work from Lafayette and then I travel to those areas to support the stores and the team members. >> How long have you been familiar with the store here um that's located on Pearl Street as well as the the liquor store that's located right next door.

[81:03] >> So I I started working at that store in Boulder, the one we're discussing, in 1998, about six months after it opened. Uh, and that's when I first became familiar with Whole Foods Market. Uh, you know, the liquor store opened quite quite a few years later, maybe 12 12 or 13 years later. So, I've been familiar with that space since then. >> Liquor store opened around 2011. Is that correct? >> Yeah. I couldn't tell you the exact date, but it was right around when the store got remodeled or right after it. So, should be around 2010, 111. And in terms of that space, uh, tell us tell us the current setup. What we have a grocery store and and a liquor store right next to it. How how it why is it that way essentially? Well, well, I mean, initially we when we were doing the remodel of the original store, we we expanded the store where uh

[82:01] the Barnes & Noble used to be next to us and Barnes & Noble moved into a different space in the parking lot where there used to be, I believe, a movie theater. [gasps] And uh we wanted the two spaces to be connected, but that wasn't something we were approved or allowed to do. So, the two buildings were separate. uh they're not connected and uh but you know we wanted to offer like a a full shop to our customers in Boulder. Uh you know one of our core values is uh customer [clears throat] happiness and we wanted the convenience for anybody who's shopping in the area to be able to purchase whatever they wanted. I mean I I I was as you heard on some previous uh agenda items you know uh beer, wine, champagne goes very nicely with food and that's something we wanted to um give the customers the opportunity to complement their food with. We have some folks who work in the store in the

[83:00] liquor store who have worked in the main store as well and have quite a bit of knowledge with food and alcohol and are very well skilled at recommending food that complements their or wine or liquor that complements their food very well. So that was something we wanted to provide for the community. Why is it that we are making application essentially here to give up the liquor store and to only be allowed to sell beer and wine if approved within the grocery store area? >> There a couple of reasons, you know, one is convenience. Um, having it in the same store uh allows that to happen in the same space. I think uh Mr. Haney will discuss a little bit after myself just uh you know how many customers don't know about the store next door or don't bother to go to the store next door and I think it's pretty common that folks uh you know like to shop three four five different places and but that doesn't always happen in our case

[84:01] because they don't know about the location. Another reason is the business has changed, you know, since probably COVID where um, you know, delivery became a bigger part of our business and uh, we love that. It's great to give our customers and the community the convenience to deliver food to their homes. However, that space has grown to be a uh, bigger than we originally thought it would be, and it's right in the uh, center of the store. So we basically have a business that uh is is taking over the middle of the store when it should be something more behind the scenes. And so we felt like that would be a great spot to uh bring the liquor into the store and uh just provide that convenience to customers. uh we're okay with it being a smaller footprint uh and less SKUs and you know we just want the opportunity for the customers to buy

[85:01] things in the same space that they're shopping in. I >> I heard you say bring liquor into the grocery store. Less skews, smaller footprint. >> Yeah. >> Liquor though, it's just beer and wine. Correct is what I >> Yeah, it's not liquor. Sorry for that. I misspoke. But it's beer and wine. And we do sell liquor in the liquor store, but we won't be selling that next door. And we don't deliver alcohol products, right? Just grocery products. Is that correct? >> Correct. That's correct. >> Um what's the core mission essentially? What what is the what is Whole Foods about food or is it about selling liquor? Which is it about? >> It's about food. I mean, you know, our mission statement in involves food, organics, giving people the healthiest choices so they can make the, you know, most educated decisions to eat uh healthier foods. >> Do you feel that you no longer need the liquor store uh if this license is granted with respect to the beer and wine uh to provide essentially um or

[86:00] serve the customer's needs? >> Absolutely. I mean, if we uh do are granted this license, one of the things that's exciting is that space could be a business for somebody else in the community. It's a it's a really busy shopping center and someone else can have the opportunity to run a business that has quite a few customers built into that shopping center to begin with. You >> you've been in and around the community for many years. tell us a little bit about essentially your your view of it in terms as a customer of of the uh shops and the locations that are in Boulder, how you view view essentially this request. >> I mean, I lived I've lived in I live I've lived in Colorado since 1988. I lived in Boulder till about 2003 and now I live in Lafayette. So, um I've been in or around the community for you know

[87:00] quite a long time and the store itself is very successful um you know in terms of uh the community's just uh love for it just to be frank and um I think it's a great fit like we're always aiming to satisfy and delight our customers. That's one of our core values. And you know, we feel like we're a local business that has contributed to the community quite a bit over the 20 28 years. I think it'll be in in about a month or uh yeah, 28 years and a month. And you know, on top of that, we've contributed uh or helped start quite a few businesses through the through the store. Um, Izzy soda if you recall Izzy soda. Justin's nut butter, Nusa yogurt, um, Choco Love, uh, the Fresh Herb Company that, uh, Chad and, uh, Chad

[88:02] Anderson owns. Those are all products that started in Whole Foods. That's where they got their first chance. And, um, we're delighted to be able to give that opportunity to folks. and and there's quite a few local beers that we uh offer next door as well. And we're just proud of that and we want to continue to support the community and our customers and just really wow folks when they come into the store. Boulder is an incredibly healthy community. I've seen it ranked in surveys as one of the happiest places in the United States or one of the healthiest places. Colorado is one of the healthiest places. I think Whole Foods contributes to that quite a bit. Um, and we just want to continue to provide convenience to our customers and give them the opportunity to just eat healthier foods and uh be educated and hopefully live a longer and healthier life. >> So, the sale of the beer and the wine is a a complement essentially to the to the to the food sales essentially. That's your core mission.

[89:00] >> Yeah, it certainly is. I mean, when we when we opened up the liquor store, um, without going into what the sales were, um, just to kind of give you an example, um, uh, you know, in in a local liquor store, Hazels, opened up, we lost, um, 40% of our sales to Hazels or Hazels gained 40% potentially of our sales. And so, um, we're not in it for the money, we're in it for the convenience. Um, we're, like we said, we're shrinking the footprint from 5,500 square f feet to,500 square feet. We're reducing the skew count by 60%. We're not bringing in any liquor. Um, it's not, we're not in it for the sales, we're in it for the convenience. And, um, you know, I I shop at Hazel's, I shop at the wine merchant. I love the opportunity to get great product and um I enjoy going to other

[90:02] places. I'm not strictly a Whole Foods shopper uh when I'm going to buy things that I want from the liquor store and you know I don't h have a problem with that. We don't have a problem with that. We're just looking to create convenience for our customer. >> Do you believe that these requests essentially we're making give up the liquor store, have beer and wine in the grocery store. Um change the condition to kombucha only. uh essentially will have a positive impact on the community that's in in our defined boundary that's been given to us by the city. >> I do I think people will be incredibly happy because they don't have to make uh another trip or remember to go next door or find out that it's next door. It just makes things easier and that's what we're trying to do. I think that's what a lot of people are trying to do these days is just make life simpler and more convenient. So yes, >> as a vice president, Mr. Mr. Mr. Haney is one of obviously your your employees at one of your stores. How many stores do you over oversee? >> 104. [clears throat]

[91:01] >> And how many employees does that uh cover in terms of uh uh the number of people that you essentially uh uh supervise? >> Uh about 18,000. >> And in terms of in terms of Mr. Haney obviously he can discuss with the authority any of the day-to-day operations or the issues associated with what the customers are asking at this particular location. Is that a fair comment? >> Oh, absolutely. >> Um uh are are you excited for the opportunity to at least ask to be able to do this? >> Yeah, I was I've been looking forward to this day for a long time. We're really excited. It's a great opportunity. I'm really thankful we have the opportunity. I've been listening in since you all started today. It's been I'd never knew this part of Boulder just intimately. I'd never obviously been on a call. I think it's pretty great what y'all do and um it's pretty exciting to make a difference in people's lives and you can see the joy you were bringing to some

[92:01] folks earlier and um you know I just I just want we just want the same opportunity >> same opportunity as essentially all the other grocery stores currently. >> Yeah. But I mean, just personally or as a representative of Whole Foods, I'm just excited. You know, I love this opportunity. I just I I want to do well for our company and do well in our job and I but most I want to do well for the community and um I would just be really excited to do that. We actually spent some time this morning walking the store. We're doing some remodeling in the store and um it's just exciting to make some changes that we know are going to make the shop better for the customer and we haven't been able to really talk about this because we're not sure where this is going to go. So it was just something I was anticipating today and looking forward to >> the the modification regulation that we're bound by as one of the factors being the the exercise of

[93:00] the police powers of the state for the protection of the economic and social welfare of the health peace and morals of the people of the state of Colorado essentially obviously this community here in Poland. What type of impact do you think uh the granting essentially of this modification as we filed it this double or dual modification um will have essentially on on uh those economic and social welfares? >> I'm not I'm not clear what you're asking me. I'm sorry. Do you do you see this as as as the the surrounding area essentially one of the things that the the authority considers is its health, peace and morals of the individuals in the neighborhood? >> Yeah. >> What type of impact in terms of economics and and social welfare is this going to have essentially on those items health peace and morals of those individuals are within this community? >> Uh I mean I think it'll probably be a

[94:00] better environment than it currently is. is I mean putting everything into one store just makes it simpler. I mean I think Ryan Haney is going to go into this a little bit in terms of the security we provide um in the store with our relationship with the Boulder PD and um also just surveillance. I just think it makes it simpler when it's in one space. Uh so I I hope I answered that question. >> Very good. Is there anything else you'd like to tell the authority based upon my questions that I haven't asked? um that you'd like to say to them at this point in the proceeding? >> Just thank you for the opportunity. Um yeah, I think y'all [clears throat] do do a great job. It's uh been a pleasure and a privilege to be a part of this being part of the community and uh I hope you grant us that license and uh thank you. >> I I appreciate that. I would tender you to the authority and um council for any additional questions um they may have. Thank you.

[95:00] >> Great. Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Rich? You covered all of the questions that I wrote down and I really appreciate that. Anybody else have any questions? >> Okay, you may proceed. >> I had a question. Sorry. I thought >> I know it's you up there in the corner. >> Here I am again. Uh just a couple of questions about and and maybe this is more appropriate for Mr. Haney, but uh first of all, it's not clear in my mind what happens to the uh the current liquor store space. Uh is that co-owned by uh Whole Foods and will you be involved in disposing of it or is there a separate owner such that if you vacate it, they will have their own choice as to what to do with it? Uh so we don't own the space. It's uh

[96:02] leased uh through the relationship we have in the shopping center. So the person who own you know owns the shopping center uh would have the opportunity to lease that to somebody else you know once our lease is up and the license is surrendered if you were going to grant us the license. >> Okay. Um I think I understand. So it's it's up to them what what happens to it. >> Yeah. Yes. Absolutely. >> Um and then within your own space, you you talk about uh uh I think if I understand it correctly, your delivery service is really in a well- definfined area of the store. It's it's it's very substantial. Uh you're going to transfer the the beer if granted the beer and wine uh opportunity, you're going to transfer to that space. Is that correct? >> That is correct. in this store. It's taken up more and more space. The delivery space, the space that we're

[97:02] going to use is over three times smaller than the current liquor store. But yes, you're correct. It's swapping spaces with the delivery space. >> And where I'm going with this is is the delivery space is has grown to be a very critical part of your your operation. and it involves a lot of traffic and a lot of a lot of work to your credit. It's obviously very successful. Where will that go? So, in the front of the store there is, if you're familiar with the store, and I believe there's a map that was provided in one of the agendas, there's a space where there used to be a pub, uh, and there's a seating area there now. And so that space is going to be used for the delivery space where it'll be cordoned off um from customers and that's where the delivery space will move to. There's another seating area

[98:00] next to that for customers, but that specific area will be where it moves to. >> Well, that that's helpful. Um sure. >> Well, interested in listening to Mr. Haney. Uh thank you for answering the questions. Yeah, >> my pleasure. Thank you for the questions. Okay. >> May I May I ask just two clarifying questions associated with M Mr. Crane's questions, which were all excellent questions? >> Yes. >> Oh, thank you. Um uh I just wanted to make sure that the the lease space essentially that you would give up that currently is the liquor store. Um you're you're not releasing the liquor license to the landlord. However, correct? the liquor license will be surrendered and the and the and the landlord or whoever goes in that space will be ineligible to open another one. Is that is that your understanding? >> I don't know the law. I know we're not we're surrendering the license. What you know

[99:00] >> you're giving up the license itself. >> Yes. >> As a requirement essentially of this approval by this authority. >> Yes. >> And in terms of that delivery space again I just wanted to reiterate that space that's not within this premise. It's that old pub space there. There's no alcohol that's getting delivered, so there's obviously no alcohol going onto that that space. >> That's correct. >> Very good. Well, thank you. Um, I appreciate it. I'd back to the authority. >> Right. Thank you. Um, is now Yes, Mr. Durking, I see you. Um, I'm not sure is now you wanted to cross-examine the witness. Yes, please. [clears throat] >> Um, I don't see any attorneys telling me otherwise. So, >> yeah, that's that's fine. Now would be appropriate if the authority has no further questions. >> Great. >> For the

[100:00] >> Thank you. >> We just have a clarification of who Mr. Derking is. >> Uh, yes. Good afternoon. I'm Bruce Derking and I'll I'll go ahead and spell my name. D I E R K I N G. Um, I did practice law in Boulder, uh, doing real estate law for about 30 years. I'm retired. Um, I'm appearing today representing myself. I'm not representing any other parties. I do still have my law license. Um, no one will ever confuse me with Kevin Coats. I'm not a liquor attorney and uh uh this is a very lightweight legal representation of myself, but I do have an interest in this because I own Hazels, which is in the defined neighborhood. And so I appreciate the opportunity to to be part of this today. And uh Mr. Rich, um thank you for for your testimony. I do have a few questions um for you at this time. Um, and I'm going to have to ask uh, Miss Kellogg to share her screen because I'm not allowed to share my screen because I

[101:00] have some exhibits that I want to call attention to. And if you could pull up exhibit one, Miss Kellogg, for me, that would be great because we want to talk about that first. >> And just uh, sorry, my Zoom is not is acting up, but just a clarifying question and procedural qu um clarification for the board. um these exhibits um would technically need to be entered into the record. Um and so Mr. Derking can go ahead and move prior to um actually doesn't necessarily need to move prior to discussing them, but you would not be allowed to um consider them until they were officially entered into the record. And so that means that the interested party um parties can object or not. And it is my understanding we've heard there may be objections to some of

[102:01] these. So I just wanted to and and feel free to ask me if you're um have any further questions about how to do that since we don't do this that often here. Thank you. >> May May I comment on on that and the procedure? >> Yeah. Attorney Greger, did you hear him? >> I did. Um, that's up to you all. >> Oh, you know, >> I'm sorry. I thought it was a question for you. Could you repeat your question, please? >> Yes. I wanted to, if you're willing, let me make comment about the timing essentially of his exhibits for Mr. Turkin's exhibits. And with him not being admitted just yet, what I wanted to discuss is is is if he can bring him in during his case, chief, and then he can if he needs to recall any of these individuals, recall them. >> So, normally when Mr. Dear King moves to

[103:00] admit the exhibits in the record, that would give anybody an opportunity to object and describe um the basis for their objection. And so you all would then as the board um be able to consider the objection, the basis for the objection, and then make your decision. That is the sort of normal procedural course. So I'm not sure if Mr. Coats is suggesting he'd like to object um at this point prior to Mr. Durking moving them um you know, making the motion. If that is Mr. Coat's intention or not, I'm I'm not sure. If I >> I'm sorry if I can respond. Kevin, if you or Mr. Coats, if you want to go first. I didn't mean to interrupt you. >> Please go ahead. Please. I'm sorry. >> Yeah, I I um I understand that when we talk about exhibits, they haven't been admitted into evidence until they're offered and accepted. And that's the time for objections. So, at this time, I

[104:01] haven't offered and I'm not offering opponent exhibit one. I I have a feeling Mr. coats isn't going to have a lot of problem with most of these exhibits and we might be here for the next 12 hours if we grind along like this. So my suggestion would be let let's I would respectfully ask that we could proceed and when I offer exhibits that Mr. Coats has an objection to let's address it at that time. >> Perfect. Perfect. Perfect. Thank you. >> So Miss Kellogg if you could share your screen and pull up opponent exhibit one please. >> Yes. So, I just want to clarify, make sure that I'm pulling up the right thing. So, I received an email forwarded from my manager, Lisa Daro. Um, and it's a document titled opponent exhibits, and it is 35 pages. Is that what you're referring to? >> Yeah, but just they're they're all in one document, but just the first page is all we're talking about for right now. >> You got it. Give me one second.

[105:01] All right. Can you Does that look right? Perfect. Thank you so much. Of course, m Mr. Rich, um, can you see this document? >> Yes, I can see it. >> And does that appear to be the current liquor license for this Whole Foods grocery store? >> It does. >> And can you look at the fifth item labeled conditions? Um, that's the condition that only allows you to sell kombucha and no other type of alcohol in this store currently. Correct. >> Yes. [gasps] And uh, Miss Kellig, if you scroll to the next page, you'll be at opponent exhibit two. And if you could go to the second page of this one. Well, actually, leave it on this page for a second. Um, Mr. Rich, can you see that this is uh tonight's um beverage licensing authority agenda? >> Yeah. Yes, I can. >> And if you could scroll to page two, please, Miss Kellogg.

[106:00] And so item eight, um, I'm going to read for you and I'm going to skip over the ownership information. Miss Kellogg did an amazing job with that. But but just briefly, this is a continued public hearing and consideration for an application filed on October 2nd, 2025 from Whole Foods Market, now skipping all the long ownership for a permanent modification of premises for fermented malt beverage and wine retail offer type liquor license to include consideration of withdrawing the condition on prohibition of the sale of all types of fermented malt beverages and wine with the exception of kombucha. Um, would you agree that this is an accurate description of what you're applying for and what the BLA will decide tonight? >> Yes. >> And a key part of your request is to remove the condition that only allows you to sell kombucha and not other types of alcohol. Correct. >> Yes.

[107:00] And the other part of the request is to relocate and expand your permanent alcohol sales area. >> Is it yes or no? >> Say that again. >> And is the other part of your request to relocate and expand your permanent alcohol sales area within the grocery store? Re >> relocate? Yes. I don't know if I would agree with expand. >> Okay. Um, in your application materials, you sometimes use the term primary alcohol display area, sometimes just primary display area. Um, by those, do you mean the same as the permanent alcohol display area described in the liquor regulations or do you mean something different? >> Uh, I think the primary area would be the area you were referring to as the relocation area. So, the liquor regulations talk about permanent alcohol display area and then temporary alcohol displays that can be

[108:01] in other locations in the store. Um, but in your materials, you don't always use permanent. You kind of use different terminology. So, I'm just wondering is primary different than permanent? Is primary the area that would be the where the alcohol would be displayed on an ongoing basis? um not being moved around, not temporary, but it would be the permanent that you're seeking approval pursuant to this request for. >> Well, the per the permanent space, the primary space would be referred to as that center of the store that I spoke to previously where the delivery space is. There's temporary spaces in the store that are allowed by the current law. There are limited spaces in the store, but those would be spaces that I I think would be called temporary. >> Do you know how many temporary displays you would be allowed inside the store in addition to the permanent space?

[109:00] >> I'd have to refer that to Mr. Haney to for the exact number. I wouldn't want to misspeak here. >> Okay. In your application materials, it states that the size of the store is 66,154 square feet. Is that correct? Yes. >> And how much of that area is the sales floor that's available that's accessible to customers? >> Oh boy. I'd say uh probably twothirds of that. >> So about 2/3 is customer and one-third is what? Backup house then. >> Yes. >> Okay. And uh the uh in the application materials it states that the area of your new permanent alcohol display area is approximately 302 square feet. Correct. >> Uh I couldn't tell you exactly what it says. I would have to refer that to Mr. Haney. Okay. Um Miss Kellogg, could you

[110:02] scroll to opponent exhibit three, please? Uh, Mr. Rich, um, you may recognize this. Um, this is a map of your store. Um, have you seen this before? >> Yes. >> And so, just to help us all get oriented, u maps can be hard to read sometimes. I believe the the top of the map would be north and the south would be or the the bottom would be south. So the parking lot would be kind of at the bottom below the map that we see. Um is that correct? >> Uh yes it is. And then looking at the the lower left of the map, um I believe that that area, which would be then the southwest corner of the store, that's where the outside cart corral is.

[111:01] And and that main entrance on the corner, um that's where you go in currently, you're in the produce department. Is that correct? >> Yes. And then if you were to continue north through the produce department, then you'd get to that area in blue that's labeled primary alcohol display area, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, back to the ownership issue we skipped over earlier. Um, would it be correct to say that Whole Foods is wholly owned by Amazon? >> Yes. >> Okay. I don't have any further questions for Mr. Rich, thank you. >> Thank you. May I ask a question? >> Um, for whom? >> For council. I'm just wondering the exhibit that he's referring to hasn't been distributed to

[112:00] the to the uh to the board, has it? >> Yes, this was in our packet. >> Pardon? >> This wasn't our packet. Sorry, the so the exhibits themselves have were not in your pocket. They were sent to us um today before the hearing. So they were distributed um in >> that's what I'm referring to. >> So we we don't have those 31 pages. >> You do in your email, but it was like after the hearing had already started. >> This wasn't in our packet. I remember I thought this was in our >> this diagram might have been in your packet but it's not the act this is the diagram that's part of the exhibit. >> Got it. >> So Mr. Dear King might have pulled it from the packet or had the same thing. You might have seen this before but this specific one with this specific document. No. >> Understood. [laughter] >> Okay. >> Can I can I make a clarification on the map? >> Yeah. >> Mr. Okay. Yes, you may. Oh, so the the

[113:03] primary display area is the green area. It's not the blue area. The I don't It's the area where you see the light green. That is the primary area. It's not all of the blue area. >> Thank you, Mr. Durking. I think you had your hand up. >> Uh, yes. I was going to try to answer the question that I think you all answered, so I'll >> I'll withdraw that. Excellent. Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from the board um for this witness? Um I think I have one question. So what was the square footage? And apologies if you said this. Um what was this? What is the square footage of the current liquor store?

[114:01] >> The 5500 square feet, >> the external one. >> Yes. Yeah. >> And the new area that we're looking at in green is 302 square ft. >> Uh >> why do I >> I I don't >> Okay, we can field these questions to Mr. Haney. Looks like maybe he's the appropriate person. Would know that a little bit better. >> Yeah, I think he would know. >> Okay. >> A little bit better. The the green is about 300 square feet though. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Anything else from the board? >> Okay. Attorney Coats, you can proceed. >> Thank you. Um if we could please call Mr. Haney. And Caitlyn, would you mind taking down the exhibit? Oh, thank you.

[115:09] >> Okay. Yes, you may proceed. >> Thank you. Mr. Haney, you were previously sworn. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And um could you tell us um who you are and what you do for a living? >> So, uh my name is Ryan. I'm the store team leader. store manager of the Whole Foods on Pearl Street. I I started at the store actually in 1998. Um so 28 years ago and I've been a store team leader about 17 years. I actually my first store that I ran was the um uh former Wild Oats um on Baseline in Broadway and that was my first store when we transitioned at Whole Foods Market. And so was there for about four years and I've been at the Pearl Street location for about almost four and a half years now. >> And in terms of um why we're here, well

[116:00] actually let me ask you this. You were previously sworn. Is that correct? I want to make sure that record part's clear. >> Correct. >> Um in terms of um in terms of Mr. Rich's comments, can you expand a little bit about upon that about why it is that we're making this request essentially to to surrender the liquor store license next door upon approval of essentially this primary display area and the green area in particular um as being allowed to to shelf both beer and wine uh within the store. >> I mean, in the sake of time, I won't rehash too much of it. I mean, I think you covered a lot of it. It's really, you know, to have a really complete and convenient shopping experience for the customers. Um, you know, I think ever since the laws changed and they allowed beer and wine in the store, it's really what our customers expect when they're shopping. Um, it's probably probably the number one question. I people want to know where peanut butter is all the

[117:00] time, but um that's probably the number one or two question is like, why can't I find beer or wine? Like people are looking around. They're like, "What's wrong with this picture?" Like, "I can't find it." And so, um, you know, especially with tourists, too, when they're coming into town, it doesn't make any sense. And I think people just expect that now when they go into a grocery store that they're going to find beer and wine in there. And so, you know, I try and put a positive spin on it, you know, I try and upsell it. Like, we got a really cool We're actually cool. You know, we've got a liquor store attached, too. We sell liquor, beer, and wine. you just have to go out and go down the sidewalk, you know, a couple hundred feet and and do that. Um, but I think I see the look on a lot of customers face. They're irritated by it. It's inconvenience. Um, I think a majority of them honestly don't do it. They'll they'll pick it up somewhere else, whether it's a, you know, another grocery store, a gas station, um, you know, the other options that are out there right now. And so it's uh it's an understandable inconvenience I think when you're like shopping with you know your kids or you're in a hurry. It's

[118:02] it's a lot. It's hectic going into Whole Foods Market. You know what you're in for, right? You're going to it's going to be busy. You're going to be waiting in line. And so to have to go out of the store, go to another business and wait in line. Um you know, it's inconvenient for them. And so for me, it's, you know, it's worth giving up the liquor and everything like that to to provide a better experience for the customers. And honestly, it's kind of weird to just have like a separation. I technically run two different business units right now. And so, um, I've got team members that are separated by a big wall that are a couple hundred feet down that I need to make sure I go connect with on a daily basis. Um, so they feel a part of the store with the rest of the team members. Um, so that's really it. I think it's just, you know, suddenly like when I when I came to Whole Foods, when I came to the grocery store like 5 years ago, it was the coolest thing. Like I had the beer and wine and liquor and now I'm the only store that I know of, grocery store, gas station that doesn't

[119:01] have that inside of it. And so that's what I'm looking for. I think, you know, I run I think I think the Pearl Street store is just one of the best grocery stores around. And it's it's just missing our a key piece that, you know, customers expect. How often are the customers essentially asking you why why why this setup? Why can't we buy beer and wine essentially in the grocery store section and and and not the not the retail liquor store section? >> I mean, it's a daily question. You know, it definitely spikes. I think people that are are regulars in Boulder, whether they're, you know, some of them don't buy alcohol regularly when they're shopping. Um, but around holidays, it spikes, right? Like it might not be a part of my normal shopping experience, but for the holidays, it's something that I want to add to the table. So they're kind of just like caught off guard. I didn't realize that you guys don't have that. But um you know, so we see spikes there. We see spikes when there's events in town and you know, dead in company and things like that. People that are from other states that they expect that in the grocery store

[120:01] and especially around holidays, I think from our regular customers. Do you think folks asking you on a daily basis falls into the category of essentially a request by the community that the reasonable desires of the neighborhood uh and of the adult inhabitants are not are not being met essentially and that they they want the alcohol in the grocery store? I'm just assuming based on the look of their face of like because you know obviously if they're asking that's what they're looking for the look on their face with like the ah you got to you know they to the inconvenience of going down it doesn't seem like much right but like I see the look on their face that they're frustrated by having to to visit another business to you know complete the rest of their shopping order. >> You saw that diagram that was on the screen. You've seen it before. We don't need to put it back up. But essentially the blue area is the area we call the primary display area. That's that's the area in which alcohol is like most likely going to be and that's about 1500 square feet. Is that correct? >> I don't know about the square foot. I I would say you know to um to Bruce's

[121:03] point like the whole area might be larger than 1600 square feet. I think the whole area where the green is if you >> about 300 square feet >> if you drew sorry if you drew a perimeter around that it would be close to 1,600 square feet. I think what we were referring to with the 300 I think that number got distorted a little bit but that's more of like the linear shelving of the grocery of the beer and wine displays. So like the the 30% isn't the you know or or sorry like the the 300 ft of shelving is a reduction from the 550t of shelving that we have on our current wine and spirits. Um you know the the total area if you're like measuring on the floor could be 1,600 square f feet. So like um I think that's where it's it's a little bit confusing. So like we're reducing the shelving by like 45%.

[122:01] We're reducing the total skews the number of offerings by 55% for that space. So to Tom's point like the the whole blue area that goes all the seafood that's where some of the smaller displays would be in um accordance with you know the laws around additional displays. So the four or five additional displays would be, you know, adjacent to like coolers that are alongside that um meat and seafood area that are surrounding the the green shelving that was highlighted. So not that it's required, but your your goal is essentially or to keep predominantly the temporary displays that were discussed within that blue area as well. >> Yeah, correct. you know, avoiding, you know, in compliance with everything else, avoiding doors and um, you know, problematic areas, toys, candy, all that kind of stuff. I mean, really, it's geared towards the center of the plate,

[123:01] seafood, meat department, >> as well as keeping it away from those those types of products is required also by the regulations um that are restricted, toys, candy, soda pop, that type of thing. >> Yeah. I mean, I don't do anything without running it by illegal, you know? I mean, I think that's the thing like I'm not going to build any displays that I'm not running by. We usually check, you know, Colorado laws and everything. So, um, no, I mean, it's not worth the additional sales to go after. I think it's, you know, primarily going to be in that location. >> And, and that is essentially your your statement. You're going to comply with the law, comply with the regulations, comply with the requirements as outlined in the regulation for temporary displays. >> Absolutely. Um the tell us a little bit about what's going to be you talked about the reduction in the amount of alcohol from giving up the liquor store coming over here. Obviously liquors out but also reduction in beer and wine SKs. Is that correct? >> Yeah, from what I understand I mean I haven't seen the actual planagrams but

[124:00] from what um what they've what I've been told that we're planning it is it's a reduction of the total offerings by about 55%. And in terms of um in terms of the timing of that, essentially um you wouldn't do any of this until one, the authority approved it, the state approved it, and obviously the licenses couldn't be issued until essentially um the liquor store surrendered and gone. Is that correct? >> Yeah, correct. I mean, comply with whatever we need to and um yeah, that's absolutely accurate. Um Tom talked a little bit about this. If you expand upon this, your core mission as a grocery store and why the alcohol with it. >> I lost you there first. >> If you could expand upon your core mission as a grocery store, what it is and essentially why alcohol at all or

[125:00] why why the complimentary alcohol with the core that being the organic products? I mean, it's [laughter] honestly to have the best grocery store possible in compliance with the law. And, you know, I think the foodies out there expect that compliment and expect that convenience. Um, it's, you know, it's not my goal to I mean, I I love scotch and stuff [laughter] like that. I like I mean, I'll buy it wherever. I, you know, buy it from Hazel's, buy it wherever. It's um It's fine. It's not my goal, honestly. Like my goal isn't honestly to to improve my my alcohol total sales. It's to like honestly I I think I see this as it's going to help me boost my grocery store sales. Like my grocery sales will improve as a result of having beer and wine back in the store. So, it's a convenient shop. Um, you know, I think when when I I was at the Pearl Street store when the laws changed and I I think I lost like 2% of

[126:00] my grocery I don't know if I'm allowed to speak on numbers, so apologies on that, Tom, if I I can't. But, you know, I think I lost like the rest of my the grocery store. Like, I lost 2% of my sales once beer and wine was added to some of the nearby competitors just because simply it's like, well, King Supers makes it easier for me to buy all these things. Maybe I'll go there for the shop instead of Pearl Street Who Ple Foods where I have to go to two different locations to complete that. So, you know, like ultimately that's my goal, I think, is to create a better basket for the store regardless of what percentage of that comes from the beer and wine sales. >> Let's talk about history at the store. Are you aware of ever a liquor violation at either the liquor store or at the grocery store associated with alcohol sales? >> No. And all the years that you've been with Whole Foods, have you ever supervised anyone that's had an alcohol violation? >> Uh, no, I haven't. Um, no. I think, uh, probably first got alcohol when I was at the Union Station store. Um, I think

[127:02] whenever the laws changed, forgive me, but somewhere in, you know, early in the pandemic. But no violations there, no violations at Pearl Street. And as far as I know, since, you know, Wine Spirits has operated or Pearl Street has sold kombucha, there hasn't been a violation. That's obviously a good track record. How do you do that track record? Tell us about your programs and what it is you do to make sure that you have compliant lawful alcohol sale. >> I mean, it's it's because it's a lot bigger than selling alcohol, right? Like we're protecting the brand. We're protecting Whole Foods Market. I think it's, you know, um I could go through all the training aspect like we have we we follow all the responsible vendors training. We have an instore proctor that she's incredibly passionate about whatever she's doing, whether it's, you know, um, work towards connecting with the community or being an instore proctor for the alcohol sales. She's been a great partner, I feel like, with the city with providing all of the certifications. Um, but she's mega passionate about compliance to anything. Um, she's in store proctor. She does she

[128:01] did, um, you know, we used to do the tip certification. We do the alcohol beverage training now. Um, so she certifies every year to be an instore proctor for that. Everyone has to go through the training. Um, uh, you know, we I don't I don't know how much you want me to go in depth there. I mean, we reiterate just the importance that the alcohol sales are not what's ultimately important. It's like protecting the community. It's not selling to minors. It's not putting the company um or yourself at risk um potentially by selling to somebody that's underage. So just, you know, the the beer and wine is a small percentage of our business and, you know, the compliance is by far the most important. So I don't know if you wanted me to go more into like >> I'll ask you a couple >> records and stuff like that, but that's kind of at the heart of like, you know, what we reiterate and promote. >> Is is everybody carded? >> Um, everyone over 50, under 50, I'm

[129:01] sorry, is carded. >> Everyone who appears under 50 is carded. >> Correct. And your point of sale system requires that >> correct? Yeah, we can't uh move forward without an age verification. So, um you know, we have to input the age or scan um the IDL the register in order to proceed forward. >> And you don't accept expired IDs? >> Of course not. >> And obviously vertical IDs are not accepted. >> No, no vertical IDs. I I don't know what the stance is in the state of Colorado, but it's definitely not something we wanted to risk there. You know, it's I understand we're as mentioned earlier, right? We've got CU students all over and I I can't keep up with whatever other technology or for falsification stuff is out there. So, we don't Sorry, long answer, but we don't accept those. >> What What are the hours of operation or what what are they at the grocery store? Uh the grocery store operates from 7 till 10 o'clock and the uh the adjacent wine wine spirits location is 8 o'clock

[130:01] till 9 o'clock. >> How do you make sure if this is approved that we won't have alcohol sales prior to 8 a.m. is required by the law. >> Yeah, the the registers don't allow them. So, um, you know, I mean, the area isn't, you know, cordoned off or anything like that, but the registers won't proceed with an alcohol sale before 8 a.m. >> Will the reduction of the liquor store or the elimination essentially of the liquor store um make your operation essentially more secure uh in the grocery store? uh based upon security measures. >> I hope so. I mean, I definitely think it will just based on kind of we have a ne a unique situation where we employ both offduty, you know, police officers that are they're in uniform. Um we we employ 00 a.m. till 10 10:15 every

[131:01] day, 364 days a year. Uh we also have a uniform security company that works from 1:30 till 10:00 on a daily basis. So right now we have to split them between the two locations. So the the you know um off to police officer regularly kind of bounces back and forth between um the wine and spirits store and the whole foods market store. So this will allow them to, you know, put a 100% of their time and focus into the store as well as the uniform security guard. So, you know, I believe that will we have a police car that's parked in front of the store. Um, so it essentially, you know, uh, makes it so that that person will be just at one of the locations versus, you know, split between them. >> So you'll have essentially a police officer on site as a offduty police officer 100% of the time if in fact this is approved. >> That's what we try to do. I mean it, you know, sometimes they they miss a shift or something like that. We try our best

[132:00] to get it covered, but yeah, in general, we have u things were a little wonky during the pandemic where, you know, it was tough. Police, you know, um departments were a little bit under staff, but for the most part this year, we've had almost 100% of our shifts from open to close covered by officers. >> That that must cost anor exorbitant amount of money to have offduty police there all the time. >> It's a lot. I mean, it is, you know, I think it's so I would say it's I've done the math. It's like $1,600 a day that we spend at our store. It's like, you know, over half a million,580 something,000 a year that we spend on security. I think it's something I don't see anywhere else. Um, so yeah, I mean it's, you know, Tom's a big part of that, too. You know, I started in Union Station. I started asking for more and more and the company has never told me no that we're, you know, they won't give me more. as far as security and officers to take care of the customers and team members.

[133:00] >> This additional security obviously offduty police officers. We also have additional cameras uh located within the grocery store now with the elimination of the liquor store. >> So right now we have about 100 um >> sorry to interrupt. I think we may have lost one of our BLA members. So, just confirming um member crane, are you on? >> I don't see that. Member Crane is on. He's in the He's in [clears throat] the attendees right now. Okay. Can you promote him? Is he Oh, am I waiting? I'm holding on. >> Okay, >> member Crane is back. >> My apologies. Member Crane went to look for the email of the f of the 31page

[134:01] exhibit and I couldn't find it and in the process I got lost and then dropped and now I'm back. I could hear the whole time but I couldn't come in. So, I've heard everything uh and and I'm now happily back audio and video. Still looking for that exhibit at some point, but couldn't get it out of the email today. >> And and thank you, if I may. Um I just have real quick here with Mr. Mr. Haney. Mr. Haney, based upon all that security you described and and the change essentially that we're asking for here, um do you think that's going to have a positive impact on the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the of the surrounding neighborhood that's been given to us by the city, the designated neighborhood? >> Yeah, I I believe so. Yes. I mean, we're I I think I, you know, didn't didn't complete it, but basically, we have pretty significant amount of cameras at our wine and spirits location. As we

[135:01] forfeit that license and close that location, we already have three to four cameras that oversee the current location of where the wine would be. So, we'd be adding an additional 12 or 13 cameras to that area that, you know, it's all, you know, digital. Majority of it goes back three or four months. So, >> very good. Is there anything else you'd like to tell the authority that I haven't asked you a question about? >> No, I don't think so. I appreciate you guys. This is a long one. So, >> thank you. >> I tender you to the >> Thank you. I tinder you to the authority for any additional questions they may have. >> Thank you, Mr. Jerking. Would you like to proceed? >> Um, yes, I do. I have just a couple of questions and I'll I'll try to be brief. Um, uh, Mr. Haney, you said that you have pretty much full-time offduty police officers here and a security company. Is that consistent with, uh, most Whole Foods locations? >> Um,

[136:00] no, it is. They have, uh, they have uniform security, the police officers. Uh, no. >> Why do you have it at this location? Uh there are homeless folks that are, you know, potentially live behind the store. I think there's some disruptions that happen there. So, there's a security piece for the community there. Um and you know, it's there are, you know, it's just high traffic. It's 35,000 people that come through the store. So, um it's one of our busiest locations in the country. And you know, it was added before I was at the store. You know, I'm grateful having it knowing, you know, what took place um you know, King Supers in South Boulder. And so it's something that, you know, we've we've brought up whether or not, you know, to go to um just uniform security and we don't want to do that. you know, it's a really important

[137:01] location and really busy and want to make sure we provide that for the customers, the safety there. Like it's um you know, I mean, they're they're they're not focused on walking around looking for shoplifterss. They're focused on making themsel really um noticed by the community, being really visible, having the the the car out there, which we pay for as well as being just an overall deterrent. Um, so Tom might be able to speak to that a little bit more, but um, as far as I know, that's those are >> Thank you, Miss Kellogg. Could you um pull up opponent exhibit three again, please? This is the map of the store interior. >> Yes. One second. >> Okay. Hopefully everyone can see it. >> Great. Mr. Mr. Haney, do you see that? >> Yeah. >> And can you look in kind of the upper

[138:00] right where it says premises modification after diagram, can you read the line below that, please? >> Uh, it says primary display area approximately 302 ft. And then if you look down at the map, um the area that's labeled primary display area that's highlighted in blue and has a red line around it, are you now saying that that's not the primary alcohol display area? It's only the areas that are shaded in green. I'm not sure of the, you know, primary versus permanent. Like as far as the permanent areas, the permanent areas would be green. Any area in the blue would not be a permanent um location. So looking at those areas in green, um those appear to be the gondilas and the coolers where the alcohol would actually sit. Is that correct? >> Yeah, correct. And is it your understanding that the definition of

[139:01] permanent alcohol display in the liquor regulations is consistent with only showing the areas where the alcohol is actually going to sit? >> I'm not. Yeah, I'm not. >> And so why shade the area in blue if it doesn't have anything to do with the permanent alcohol display area? I think that's referring to, you know, where the majority of of um any additional displays could potentially go on a seasonal basis in compliance with the Colorado law. Well, actually the permanent alcohol display area and temporary alcohol displays as defined in the regs are pretty different. And uh the temporary alcohol displays that have a maximum number. Um that number does uh displays that are in the primary alcohol area, primary display area don't count toward that. Um so for example, for a store of this size, um you would be allowed five temporary alcohol displays

[140:02] in addition to your permanent alcohol sales area. So when you use this different terminology like primary um it creates some confusion as to what your intention is. Um but are you saying that the only thing that you intend to be your permanent alcohol display area is the area shaded in green and that the area in blue for purposes of the liquor regulations is irrelevant? I don't know about irrelevant, but as far as permanent, yeah, that wouldn't change on any se sort of seasonal basis. It would be in the green area. You know, I'm not sure with the current hard kombucha case if that would be anything, but um I believe it would all correct. Anything permanent yearround that lived in the space would be on the green sheling. >> So, if the blue area is not irrelevant, what is its relevance? >> You know, I didn't draw that up. I'm sorry, Bruce, but um I maybe Kevin can speak to that a little bit more, but

[141:01] >> actually your attorney can't testify for you, but um >> Okay. >> Uh who who at Whole Foods um approved your application materials? >> I believe it was our licensing folks. Um Kevin and then I believe Ryan Bet his name was who is works with our licensing team. Okay, I don't have any further questions for Mr. Haney. Thank you. >> And if I may follow up. >> Yes. >> So the blue area while not irrelevant is not to define essentially the permanent area. Correct. The permanent area is just green. >> That Yeah, I stated that's correct. >> And and the blue area is an emphasis essentially of that area. And that's the area in which you want to keep it towards the back of the store is my understanding. >> Yeah. Speaking of kind of like what I

[142:01] talked about with just the center of the plate, you know, like I said, we've got some like coolers that are there around meat and seafood where, you know, we'll a lot of our stores will have a stack of one type of wine or something like that that's a complement to to ribe eyes or something like that. That might be on a promotion for for a month. So occasionally we'll have a one dis, you know, one skew adjacent to a cooler. So if you kind of look around that light blue area, you see three or four coolers there. That's where those would go. >> So essentially, it's it's giving the authority more information about where it is you intend to keep the the majority of essentially your temporary displays. >> I didn't draw it up, but yeah, that's I mean that's what we've discussed. That's where that's where it would be. So that's what I assume why why we highlighted that area. >> And this this was essentially um approved by by um the legal team at

[143:00] Whole Foods and the and the licensing team as as the area to try to give an accurate depiction as best they could on paper of essentially where this space will be, particularly the green area. >> Yeah, I believe so. Like I said, anytime I'm, you know, looking at a new area, um, it hasn't really happened with the Pearl Street store. Um, but at Union Station, for example, that all has to get run through the legal team, like, hey, is this within, you know, our boundaries or within the law that we can display something here. So, typically, you know, Ryan and our legal team would be the contact for that. >> And Green's where essentially you're going to keep alcohol on a permanent basis. >> Correct. >> Very good. Thank you. I I I don't have any additional questions. as I turn Mr. Haney back to you folks. >> Thank you so much. Um, since we were talking about that area, the blue area, um, can you define temporary? You said it might be like they have a stake, so they want to put something that matches

[144:01] that. Is that like 3 days or 3 months? >> Uh, it could be it's typically two weeks or one month. And what goes in those kind of in places like those other cases that are within the blue not during that time? >> Well, sorry. The alcohol would never go into the case. So the alcohol would never be refrigerated. No refrigerated champagne, beer, anything like that like you're talking about. So like right now, you know, you might have chicken breasts and um potatoes or something like that that is asked to be merchandise inside of the case and then adjacent to it, they're asking for one particular type of wine to be next to it. >> Okay. So, and that might go on for a week or two or few weeks. They typically we operate typically in two to four week cycles and then you know they but you know then they might call for something

[145:00] separate. They might call for a soda if it's a game day thing. If it's Valentine's Day they might call for a champagne to be added there. >> And so because I'm just trying to understand permanent primary and temporary I want to make sure like we're all on the same page. So permanent is the green, primary is a temporary shelf in the blue area. >> I wouldn't say that. I I I thought of primary and permanent as kind of the same thing that that's all within the green. Anything anything adjacent to those those coolers in the light blue area is more of a temporary. >> Okay. And then what about those yellow cases that say alcohol storage up in the upper right? >> Yeah. So those are just those are just back of Sorry to cut you off there. >> Apologize. Um no, so those are those are two potential locked cage locations. So one of those

[146:03] two will be the permanent lo or potentially both. But essentially we have steel shelving that we put locking doors over there for anything that's ambient. Um so any backstock. So you know everything that we're doing it doesn't it's not like a big liquor store. We've got all this back the house storage space inside of the cooler. So essentially you know it can only hold a case of product in the cooler. Is the distributor needs to send you four cases. The additional three cases go back into that locked area in the back. >> Oh, I understand. That's not customerf facing. >> No, no, those are all back of the house. There's cameras in the area. It's all >> this the operating procedure is that those remain locked whenever they're not being, you know, worked by a team member. >> Oh, okay. And you said that you will not have like coolers for the beer. Like you're not going to be selling cold beer. You're only going to have

[147:02] >> No, I'm sorry if I if I'm not drawing a clear picture of this. Um, so there there will be coolers in that permanent space that is green. What I'm saying that you might only be able to fit four six packs of a type of beer in there. As the distributor sends you a pallet of beer, the remainder of the pallet needs to be secured in that in that lock mouth space. Sorry. >> Sure, I understand that. Sorry. For anything that's customerf facing, are you going to have coolers like refrigerators with like wine and champagne or beer, cold beer >> for the users to then get? >> Yeah. So, sort of like the the two sides of that area that are in green, >> one side is a cooler, the other side is a cooler, and then there's an end cap cooler on each one of those. I apologize if I'm not drawing a clear picture of that, >> but yeah, kind of the center of the green area would be wine. >> Uhhuh. >> The edges that are highlighted in the

[148:02] green area would be beer and potentially champagne. >> Okay. And currently, just off the top of your head, in your current store, how many bottles of wine do you have on your cases? I don't know that I I I understood that we were going they didn't really break it down or I don't have it broken down. I'm sorry but um it was it was essentially going from like 3,800 items including liquor to 1,600 items. Um >> right. I'm curious like >> the total number of wine skews. >> Yeah. So, you said there's maybe 3,800 bottles on display >> in that >> that would include that would include

[149:00] beer and liquor. 3,800. So, >> Oh, okay. >> And what percentage of that is wine? >> I would be guessing. I'm sorry. I I mean maybe >> That's okay. How many? >> Maybe 40%. Okay. >> Something like that. >> And how many bottles can fit on those permanent displays? >> I would I would guess it's going to be roughly 60% wine of So I apologize. >> I'm looking for a bottle count. >> Yeah. So I don't know. There's 1,600 total SKUs. So if if essentially maybe 60% of that um is going to be wine, it could be in the neighborhood of whatever that math is. >> When you say sorry, when you say 1600 SKUs, is that a bottle is a skew? >> A variety. A variety. So like if it's

[150:01] got three facings of one item, it's not that's considered one skew. >> One skew, right? So 1,600 SKUs that you'll have on displayed on those shelves >> including beer and champagne. So >> okay, >> so wine could be 900 items. Let's >> Yeah, I was just choosing one to try to understand um the reduction [clears throat] that you are saying. >> Yes. So um [clears throat] so you don't know about how many number of items you will have on those shelves. >> Number of items would be 1,600. The percentage of those that would be wine is just a guess that it would be in the neighborhood of like 60%. So, it's not 1,600 SKs, it's 1,600 items on the >> including beer. >> Okay, that's fine. So, you can hold like

[151:02] 1,600 single items about. I know that we're not like exactly fine >> in there >> in the new location. Correctly >> on those new in the new location. Um, so it sounds like you're saying, let's just say we had 3,800, I think is the number you said, of items at the liquor store. >> Yeah. >> And we're reducing it down to 1,600 on your shelves. We can just But um how many of that is liquor at the other store? Let's maybe do it that way. >> I apologize for not having those numbers. I mean, I would guess 25 to 35% of it would be liquor. >> Okay, so I'm really bad at math, so I'm sorry

[152:01] that I've like asked all these number questions. Um, I So I'm not seeing like a huge reduction in maybe the bottle count at that point. Why do you think um your opponent doesn't want you to do this? >> I don't know. I mean, I've really grappled with it and I think it's um I don't I I really don't understand it. It's just, you know, I'm sure there's he has his reasons and um but I I honestly think he will be the only person in the area that will be able to sell liquor if this gets approved. And so, you know, he goes from um sorry, Bruce will go from, you know, having Whole Foods as a competitor as far as liquor goes to kind of owning the owning the kind of corner there. you know, Target, Trader Joe's, Natural Grocerers, um you know,

[153:02] everyone. He'll kind of be the only one that that offers liquor in the area. And so, I don't know. I mean, we've kind of wondered that um within the office and myself. And so, I don't know. >> You couldn't come up with a reason why maybe he's >> No, I I don't. I mean, I think it's uh potentially just a win-win. So, >> Okay, >> great. Thank you so much for answering all my questions. Are there other questions from the board? >> No initial for for me. Thank you. >> I didn't know you were on the board. >> Oh. Oh, you said board. I apologize. I My apologies. I misheard that. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. >> No worries. No worries. >> Um Okay. I'm not seeing any other questions then. Um, attorney coats, you may proceed. >> Thank you. We We'll call Miss Garrettson.

[154:05] >> Hello. >> Hello. >> Can you hear me? >> I can. I can. Um, >> okay. >> You were previously sworn. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. And tell us a little bit about are you under a time constraint here to some degree? >> Uh, yes sir, I am. I'm actually sitting in Thornton uh council chambers waiting for the Thornton authority to walk in. They were really great about letting me occupy this space so that I could do this hearing um and then jump right into the Thornon, but they do have folks starting to kind of trickle in around uh now into the hearing. So, yes. But thank you. >> And we can recall you if necessary after you conduct that hearing. Is that a fair statement? >> Yes. Yes. >> Very good. Thank you. Um tell us did did you prepare a petition and survey associated with this particular matter here which is the request uh for Whole Foods to remove the kombucha condition

[155:00] as well as um expand or or expand that kombucha space to essentially the area that's within the uh exhibits that had just been shown previously. Yes, we were hired by the applicant to conduct the needs and desire survey regarding that modification. >> And can you tell us did you conduct that survey in the manner that you normally do following following your usual practice? >> We do. So prior to the start of the survey um we get with the applicant and of course yourself in order for us to fully understand what was going to happen um to this particular location. In doing so, you reiterated once again what we already knew and relayed back to business owners, managers, and residents of what was going to happen with this license, what was going to happen with the retail store. Um, that it was going to be relinquished within 60 days. If this license was approved and for the moment they had only kombucha at that point in time, it was then going to become a uh fermented malt, beverage,

[156:01] and wine off- premise type liquor license. Um, so we did review that specifically with our surveyor so that she knew fully what she was doing when she was answering questions at the door when she presented the information. Um, and we asked for factual information only. So that was what we were provided by of course the applicant and um, council. Yes. >> And the petition and survey that you conducted, did you pre-file that with the city? >> I did. Yes, I did. And um you you met the timeline that has to be filed at least 10 days in advance of the hearing and that was the December 17th hearing. Is that correct? >> That is correct. Yes sir, that is correct. >> And um and tell us briefly if you could about you what you do, you know, your experience in terms of these petition and surveys and including your testimony in front of this board. >> Sure. So, um, I've been with Liquor Pros. I've been the owner of Liquor Pros since 2017, uh, March 1st of 2017, and we've

[157:00] conducted, um, now over 4,300 surveys within the entire state of Colorado. Um, we do have over 120 years of experience in staff with petitioning uh, for liquor, marijuana, cabaret licenses in the entire state of Colorado. We've worked in over 115 118 different jurisdictions. Um now um we were um and we also are listed under Colorado responsible vendor trainers for the state of Colorado and we also conduct distance measurements um for needs and desires um to see if there's compliance with retail liquor stores, fermented malt beverage, other types of licenses to schools and other liquor uh facilities. >> And you've testified in front of this board numerous times, is that correct? >> Yes. Um the the petition and survey packet essentially that you get you get that information from the city. >> That is correct. Um the city does

[158:00] provide us with the petition packet that includes the summary page packet, the map and the um affidavit that we are to complete. >> The map is essentially the designated boundary. >> That is correct. And um part of your pre-filing obviously includes those who went out and did the petitioning as well as um all of the signatures both yes or no uh in the petition process. >> That is correct. >> Um tell us a little bit about the results of the petition and what it is that uh that you uh determined or found um in this process. >> Yes, sir. So, we conducted the needs and desire survey on Saturday, November 29th, Sunday, November 30th. Um, because of time restraints with the weather and daylight savings, we try and uh made sure make sure that we get out on a weekend. And Tuesday, uh, December 2nd of 2025. Um, we made attempted contacts with 426 business owners, managers, and residents inside the area, and we

[159:00] obtained a total of 119 signatures. 49 were from business owners and managers. Once again, they are asked uh to identifi identify themselves as a business owner or a manager by stating so on the petition packet. Um, of the 49, we had 46 sign in favor at 94%, three opposed at 6%. We then obtained a total of 70 residential signatures. Um, 57 signing in favor at 81% and 13 opposed at 19%. We do um we combined these totals. Right now, uh we do have 103 signatures signing in favor at 87% and 16 opposed at 13%. Uh once again, Boulder packets do actually have a re um a space where you can write a reason uh why you are in favor or opposed to the particular application. Um, not a whole lot of people wrote um, a lot in there, but those that did want to express reasons of opposition, uh, we stated on

[160:01] page two of our report. Eight declined to provide us a reason. One stated enough too many. Two stated that they were just against alcohol. Two support small businesses. One is um, they just wanted it food shopping. One said parking and food access. And one state it was too easy access. If some of those reasons, some of those reasons, especially those from against alcohol down, don't necessarily speak to the needs and desires, the authority could um you know, count those as irrelevant or invalid. If they do so, then the percentage actually bumps up to 92% with 103 signatures and nine uh signatures opposed at 8%. Um, since this is a retail liquor store license in Boulder, we always find it's very helpful, especially in Boulder and to the authority, that we contact other licenses of similar um, license type. So, we did have the liquor license, the other similar fermented, malt, beverage, and wine retail off- premise licenses in

[161:01] the area. Um, and we went to all of those locations. Circle K um, stated they weren't interested. Uh, New Boulder Gas did say sign in favor. Whole Foods Tap Room was against their policy. Circle K um 2741110 did sign in favor. Natural Grocerers was against their policy. Trader Joe's, it was against their policy to sign. King Supers against policy and Target stores against policy. And once again, Whole Foods Southwest um was against policy. On top of that, we did actually reach out to the retail liquor stores inside the area as well. There are five other licenses of of similar of those types inside the area. Sunday Good um we didn't get a response from them. AOK Liquor um did sign um in opposition of that. Whole Food Wine and Spirits, of course, they're it's their license, so they declined and said it was against policy for them to sign. Hazels, we did um notify them. They did decline to

[162:01] provide us with any signature. Um, but we did notify them. And Persona Wine, which is located on 2299 Pearl Street, um they're they're more of a local wine club uh specializes in small batches and craft beer. So, we did not contact them. But given the fact that um just our raw numbers of 87% with 103 signatures and 13% at 16 opposed clearly still shows a positive need and desire for this license. And typically um licenses of this type that we've done in the state um have an approval rate of um high7s low 80s. This is actually at 87% of just our raw numbers. Um and that the it does show a positive need and desire and that the existing outlets have not yet met that need. >> This petition and survey that is part of the packet will ask the authority to take administrative notice of because it was timely filed. Is that a fair statement? >> That is a fair statement. >> And and in terms of uh in terms of the

[163:02] process, um do you always meet the requirements as required essentially of filing your petitions and survey timely with the with the city? >> Yes, we do try and abide by all rules and regulations and the time limit, the timeline that they have us uh go by, whether it's petitioning or posting the signs, any of that other information. Yes, we do. >> Any best guess on how many you've done within the city itself? I have no idea, but it's it's well over um I want to say well over 150 200 that we've done. Yeah. >> And obviously many more throughout the state. >> Oh, many more throughout the state. Yes. Yes. >> Is there anything else you'd like to tell the authority that I haven't asked you a question about? >> Uh not unless the authority has a question for me. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Any questions from the board? Yes, Mr. Derking, would you like to cross exam? Uh, >> yes, I would. Thank you, Miss Garrison.

[164:01] Good afternoon, >> Mr. Derk. How are you, sir? >> I'm good. Do you need to go to your other hearing or can we proceed? >> Um, I've got a little bit of time now. They're starting to trickle in. So, I'll I'll I'll work with you until I give you the >> thumbs. I will I will try to be efficient. Um, so you've stated liquor pros. You've been in the business a long time. You've been doing this a long time. You guys are experts at this. Um, how do you train your signature gatherers before you send them out in the field? >> When we go through that, um, our signature gathers, we ask them to remain unbiased in their approach, um, to presenting the license type. That's why we ask for factual information only. Uh, once again, we review prior to them going out. We have a small kind of like uh, meeting. That way we go through what what is what is the license type, what is going on, any unusual or in or significant information that needs to be relayed back to business owners, managers, and residents. And then we ask them to remain unbiased. When we say

[165:02] remain unbiased, that's using specific language at the door. Um when we knock in there, they identify themselves. They do have cards that that uh business cards or uh name tags that identify who they are. Um they say what they're doing. um we make sure that they actually hand the entire petition packet to them if the folks do want to look into it. We relinquish the whole entire thing. That way they can filter through all the paperwork which Boulder has provided to us um so that they can read for themselves what the issue is. And then um we do ask them um once again using specific language like in favor or not in favor. We just don't say are you good with it or maybe not good with it? Is this cool? like none of that language is used. It's always professional um verbiage. >> So when a signature gatherer then contacts a citizen, is it part of their job to describe the application in question? >> Um if there are additional questions that aren't listed on the Boulder um uh

[166:02] summary page that could be significant. Uh sometimes they ask about food. Um sometimes they will ask about uh what types of food are being there, the hours. I think you might have misunderstood my question. Just do they describe what is being applied for? >> Yes, they do. >> Okay. And do they say different things to different people or do they follow a script? >> Um, they do not follow a script, but she does. She has been doing this forever. So, her verbiage is pretty much the same thing. Uh, we get to the door, she says, "Hello, my name is Kim. I am here. I'm uh work with Liquor Pros. We are a third party petitioning company." and then she kind of goes through her verbage, but we do go over that. >> So, she says essentially the same thing to everyone or does she change it up for different people? >> She the her introduction is the same thing to everyone. Um, and then if they have any additional questions that could require a certain type of conversation, but I'm, you know, at the time I'm not

[167:00] sure what what other people ask. >> Do they? >> And if she does not know, then oh, I I do apologize. if she does not know the information, the hearing information is on the front page of the Boulder Licensing Authority. So, we do ask those folks if they do have any further questions or concerns, we do invite them back to the public hearing to address those directly with the applicant or the authority. And >> do your signature gatherers change what they say to someone based on whether they think they're more likely to support or oppose the application? >> No. And do they actively try to get people to sign the petition? >> No. No. Since we're >> they actively try to get people to sign in favor? >> Uh, no. >> I was going to ask you to read the script you used, but you said there was no script for this application. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> And you used a single signature gatherer for this um Kimberly Bobo from Canyon City. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. Um, Miss Kella, could you pull up

[168:00] opponent exhibit 4, please? And this is just your your map, Miss Garrison, about the areas that you surveyed. Um, and I just want to be sure I'm understanding this correctly. >> Does that look right? >> Um, I'm just seeing black currently. There we go. >> Okay. Um, and so in in this map, uh, Miss Garrettson, the the areas in blue and red are the areas you surveyed, and the areas in white, but within the black, dark black outline are areas that you did not survey. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> You did not survey the entire neighborhood. >> That is correct. >> Why not? >> Um, because what what we do and what we say especially in our thing in our description on a report is we do a sampling. So basically what we do is we break out into quadrants. To do a survey of the entire area to pay my my company um is going to take close to I mean you

[169:00] look in an area like that there's probably easily like 20,000 people inside an area of that um boundary line. Um the the city doesn't require any and the state don't require a specific number. However, our process and procedure remains the same through every single um survey that we do. whether the entire um um city um population is up for that. What we basically do is we break it down into quadrants. We get feedback from all four quadrants surrounding the location. If we find that there are any areas of concern, um we stop, we ask um we stay in that area a little bit longer or we get with the applicant and let them know what we're finding to let them know that hey, we need to get more feedback in the area. >> So, we do do a sampling. We do do a sampling of the areas which has been our process and procedure since day one. >> I understand. So you're saying then that your your sampling represents um the opinion of the entire neighborhood about needs and desires even without surveying

[170:02] the entire neighborhood. Is that correct? >> I'm saying we did a sampling of the area and the needs and desires that we sampled does clearly show a positive need and desire for this license in the area. Yes. >> Okay. >> That's what I'm saying. Yeah. I do apologize. That's what I'm saying. >> Thank you. >> Mhm. >> Those are my questions. >> Thank you so much. >> Are there any other questions for Miss Garrettson? >> Yes, I've got a question. Um, [clears throat] I'm looking at the the exhibit uh and um correct me if I'm wrong, but [clears throat] isn't the location of Whole Foods essentially surrounded by your samplers uh on the east and the west and the south? You got a boundary line on the

[171:01] north, so they don't go over that. But based on your experiences, is that is that a a uh a fair sample of the area that has been designated? Do you think do you think there's anything that you didn't cover? >> No, it's been standard and and typically with my experience, Mr. Crane, in the Boulder area, it's it's reasons for as as to why Mr. Derkin is here. It's competition. And so that's why we make it a point, especially in the Boulder area with our experience, to go and contact those retail liquor stores and retail stores. It's not necessarily the the if if if it is a license type um that has concerns with residents, we of course then do a larger sample. We of course did this with the Boulder Reservoir um that wasn't that was up last I think July of 2025. that was of

[172:01] greater concern. So, we went out and did a bigger sample. This one we did our standard survey, standard um selection of samples in and around the area. It was typical. We try and stay consistent with our process and procedure. Um that way we were still considered unbiased um third party petitioning. So, I do feel like this is a typical sample of what we do in Boulder. Yes. Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other questions? >> All right. Thank you so much, Miss Garrettson. >> Oh, go ahead. If I may, I have no additional questions, Miss Garrison, but I would ask Miss Garrison's going to go do her hearing if she could be excused to do that with no other questions and but also that she'd be allowed to come back in from Miss Kellogg uh in case or depending upon how um the case and chief for uh Mr. Durkin goes.

[173:01] >> I'll keep an eye out for you. No problem. >> Perfect. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, you can continue. >> We don't have any additional witnesses to call and um will you certainly will reserve uh for rebuttal. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> Okay, then um Attorney Durkin, you may proceed. >> Thank you. Um I do have a number of witnesses that I would like to call and uh my first witness is Tara Howser. >> Thank you so much. So um with um interested parties from what I understand the process that we've come up with um from a clerking standpoint is whoever would like to speak can go ahead and raise their hand. And if Mr. Deer

[174:00] King is calling names. That's totally fine. Um so we'll start with the names that Mr. Derking is calling. What we're going to do is we're going to admit those people as um one at a time. We're going to admit them as panelists so that they can turn their cameras on, which is city policy. Um and then from there, we'll have them state their address and confirm that they are interested parties. And once we confirm that they're interested parties, then they'll proceed with their um testimony and then we'll kind of move on through that if that sounds okay with everyone. >> I do have a comment on that. In the same way that Miss Garrettson is not an interested party, but provided testimony that's relevant to the board's consideration. I believe it's appropriate that I should be able to also call witnesses who are not interested parties if they have probitive evidence to offer for the board's consideration. I will defer to Sarah. >> Hi El Sarah Guyger um city attorney's

[175:01] office. It's my understanding that um public comment testimony for public hearings on an application can only be had um or heard from interested parties. Um and that is different than the applicant who um has the burden of proof with respect to meeting the um the specific factors in um the procedural rules like neighborhood needs and desires and um the um appropriate factors to be able to hold the license. And so normally and by the rules of procedure, non-interested parties do not um and cannot provide comment or or testimony

[176:00] on the matter >> if if I may. Um, so actually if if that is the rule, it's going to um basically ensure that you do not meet due process standards for this hearing. Because when you think about it, in the same way that uh Miss Garrettson was able to provide probitative important data and information, evidence for the the authority to consider. If only the applicant is allowed to do that and opponents are not, that's clearly a difference in treatment. And the applicable standards for due process require that all parties, regardless of their position on the matter, have an opportunity um to be fairly heard without discrimination. Certainly, it's appropriate for the board to consider something like someone's opinion about whether the neighborhood needs it or desires it. that's appropriate to limit to interested parties because that's the

[177:02] the group that the um the authority is considering for that. But there are possibilities of other kinds of uh evidence um expert witness testimony for example. Um, if the only people who can testify have to be residents or business owners in the neighborhood, essentially opponents are barred from uh being able to provide any expert testimony. Um, a number of the witnesses that I intend to call will be interested parties, but um, I would respectfully request that in the interest of due process and fairness, um, that I also be allowed to call experts who may not be interested parties in the sense of living or owning a business in the neighborhood, but who have probitative evidence to offer to the board for their consideration in making the determination they need to make tonight

[178:00] >> and and another note in response. So the rules of procedure section 63 um explicitly state that all parties and interest shall be allowed to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses and that's Mr. Durking. He has um stated that he is within he is a business owner within the neighborhood and therefore is allowed to cross-examine witnesses and can bring evidence. Um I believe what he is arguing is that his evidence is additional testimony from others. Um, and so to that point, what I would say is it is up to the board to determine within its discretion following vaguely the rules of evidence as the quasi judicial body whether um to permit this evidence in assuming that some of these witnesses are not interested parties as

[179:00] defined by the rules. And I can bring up that definition as well if necessary. And um I would say as well it is um appropriate to have the applicant um and the applicant's attorney appine or at least respond um on this point as well so the board has all of the relevant information from which to make a determination. And then last, I would advise the determination be made um witness by witness um for those witnesses that are not technically interested party by virtue of the residence or um you know being a member of a school board within certain number of feet andor owning a business in the area. it if I may comment I think that that reiteration of the law is exactly right that it's determined witness by witness

[180:01] and I mean it's defined not just in your procedural rules but it's applied in state statute Colorado by statute 443 311 which section 5A defines that a public hearing held pursuant to this section any party in interest shall be allowed to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses the term party and interest. It then goes on to define party and interest as any of the following. The applicant has listed number one, two, an adult resident of the neighborhood under the under the consideration. And three, the owner or manager of a business located in the neighborhood under consideration. and for the principal or representative of any school located within 500 ft of the premises for which the issuance of the license pursuant to section 4433091 is under consideration. So I I think I don't think folks get to testify if they're not parties and interest and I think that's defined by statute number one and two it's defined by uh case law.

[181:02] I think the case law supports that as well as as to to who who's allowed to participate. Certainly the applicant's allowed to call a petition and surveyor who who takes petitions and surveys from the individuals that are parties in interest, right? They go through the neighborhood as defined by the authority and given to us by the authority and ask those questions of those people. So questions associated with individuals outside the the the uh the time frames of I'm sorry out find the confines of essentially a party and witness here that we would object obviously uh to any other testimony. >> If I may respond to that um again as as a party and interest providing evidence um Miss Guyger's exactly correct um the way that evidence can be provided is often through testimony of witnesses. I don't have a problem as we go through witnesses. If Mr. Coats wants to object to a particular witness, um, we can deal with it at that time. And, uh, I

[182:01] understand the authority will will make the decision whether to admit that witness's testimony or not. And so, with that, I would like to call Tara Hower. I >> If I may, though, with respect to that, we need to predefine essentially who the witness is, what the witness is going to testify about, uh, and and whether or not they're within the boundary. I mean, >> I will qualify witnesses in the beginning of their testimony and if you'd like to object, go ahead. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Dur. >> Is the board have any comments before we proceed on that point? >> No, but I would like to hear what Kristen says. >> Okay. >> Certainly. Uh, thank you, Chair Roberts. So the process that we utilize within our beverage licensing authority to qualify witnesses is that they do provide their address as part of their um introduction and then we go ahead and verify it against the boundary map and our city um eAP regulation.

[183:02] >> Do I also ask a question here? >> Yes. Was that member Crane? >> Whether we're whether we're talking about uh factual witnesses or expert witnesses, uh if a if an expert witness such as uh a boundary, an experienced boundary uh professional who gives opinion uh on the uh and follows certain [clears throat] protocols, I don't think they have to be in the neighborhood. They just have to be able to sample the neighborhood. But if uh if the witness is being offered as a factual witness, I I would like to hear more as to why uh we should hear that kind of witness as opposed to an an expert witness who's going to provide us with opinion that we can uh take into account.

[184:00] Just a point of view. >> Thank you. So yeah, maybe um you can help us understand that um as you introduce them and they give their intro. >> I will. >> Thank you. >> So I'd like to call Tara Hower, please. >> And I'm going to go ahead and promote Tara to panelist. So you'll just need to accept that. And I will tell you that I will qualify Miss Hower as a party in interest. And Miss Hower, if you will turn your camera on and unmute yourself. Hello. Before we proceed, if you'll just go ahead and give your address so that we can check it against the interested parties. >> Actually, Miss Hower is going to be qualified as the manager of a business within the neighborhood boundary. >> Great. Can you give the address of your business, please? >> Yes. Uh 1955 28th Street, Boulder,

[185:03] Colorado 80301. >> Thank you so much. And just so that we're not um spending too much time dead air while Kristen checks addresses, I'm going to go ahead and swear you in. >> Um if you will just spell your name and say your name. Sorry. Say your name and spell your name for the record. >> And you already give your address, so that's fine. >> Perfect. Yeah. Uh so it's Terra Hower. P A R A H A U S E R. >> Thank you so much. If you'll raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that the statements you're about to give before the beverage licensing authority are true and correct? >> Yes. >> Thank you so much. And then I'll just will wait for Kristen to chime in with the address. >> I will tell you that Miss Hower, >> excuse me, Mr. Dear King. Um, records show that that she is within boundary. Thank you. Thank you, Miss. Um, Miss Hower, please tell us where you're employed.

[186:00] >> Hazel's Beverage World. >> And you've already given us the address of Hazel, so let the record reflect that. Oh, I'm sorry, Miss Hower. What's your position at Hazel's? >> I'm the assistant store manager. >> Please let the record reflect that Miss Hower is a party and interest as the manager of a business within the neighborhood. Um, how long have you been at Hazel's? >> It'll be 13 years in July. Um, were you at work on Tuesday, December 2nd last year? >> Yes. >> Did anything unusual happen that day? >> Uh, we had a petitioner come in gathering signatures. >> Would you please describe what happened? >> Yeah. Um, so she came in said that she is collecting signatures regarding a license transfer at Whole Foods. Um, I obviously said that that's going to be above my pay grade to sign off on, so I called the bosses upstairs. Um, and they, it was our HR and accounting. She got in touch with Bruce and Carlen

[187:00] Deerking, uh, to find out how we wanted to proceed with the petition. Um, while I was waiting, the petition gather uh pretty much, you know, as we're I hung up the phone and so we're talking more. Um, she said, you know, it's a simple license transfer where they're going to be closing, you know, the outside liquor store and just moving wine and beer inside. Did the signature gather say that um the application was for a permanent modification of premises for an existing fermented malt beverage and wine license including a request to withdraw an existing condition prohibiting the sale of all kinds of alcohol other than kombucha. >> There was no mention about their existing restrictions or anything regarding kombucha. She said nothing about a condition on their license restricting them currently. >> Correct.

[188:00] >> And nothing about removing a condition. >> Correct. >> Nothing about kombucha? >> Nothing. >> And while you were waiting and the signature gather was talking to you, did you get the impression she wanted you to sign her petition? >> I don't know. It seems like she was trying to put me at ease about to make it not seem quite as big of a deal, but that's >> specifically. What did she say or do that made you think that? >> Um, just reiterating that it was just a simple, you know, closing the outside. She said it a couple of times where she was like, you know, it's just a simple license transfer. >> Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions for Miss Hower. At this time, I'd like to reserve the right for redirect after Mr. codes cross-examination. >> Absolutely. You can proceed with cross-examination. >> Thank you, Miss Hower. Um, you use the term license transfer. Are you saying those are the words that they used? >> Yes.

[189:01] >> Okay. And [clears throat] you're saying also that they said they were going to close the one store and transfer to this license, transfer the other license. Are those the words you're saying they used? >> Yes. They said, "Shut down the outside liquor store and transfer the license inside." >> All right. >> For wine and beer. >> How long did this interaction take place? >> I would say it was probably five minutes. And in terms of in terms of this process, the the question to you is, do you oppose essentially the issuance of a fermented malt beverage or a modification of the fermented malt beverage uh premises and wine premises that's currently issued to the Whole Foods grocery store? Are you in opposition to that >> of the the current license, the one with the restrictions? >> Yes. Uh I don't oppose that but I'm not sure

[190:00] exactly what you're trying to ask here. >> I'm asking are you the question that that is relevant is as a manager of essentially this facility within the boundary do you oppose the modification that's being requested by the applicant? >> Yes. >> And you work for Mr. Durking. Is that correct? >> Yes. And Hazels is a retail liquor store that's been referenced throughout this particular hearing that obviously opposes uh anything being done here with respect to this application by Whole Foods. Is that right? >> Yes. Is your is that your opinion because you're employed there or is that your opinion because you think that there isn't a need um for essentially this reduction of space by closing one store and and essentially having additional space of just beer and wine in the other store. >> I would say both.

[191:01] >> I have no additional questions. I have no further questions either. Um, the next uh witness I'd like to call is Angela Hatfield, who will also be >> Sorry, >> one second. Were there any questions from the board for this witness? >> Okay, you may proceed. >> Thank you. My apologies for that. Um, next witness is Angela Hatfield, who will also be qualified as a party in interest as the manager of a business located within the boundary. >> No problem. I just want to ask the board if they would prefer that I leave all witnesses in the panelist um so that they can unmute and chat with you again or if you would like me to remove witnesses one at a time back to the attendees so they wouldn't be able to turn their cameras on or microphones. That's a question for the board, but they have an opinion.

[192:00] I don't have an opinion. Whatever's easiest for you. >> Okay, I'll keep everyone in that clicking around. Yes, >> if I may. Um, as we finish with witnesses, I'd like to um excuse them. So, uh, and most of the witnesses that are appearing are folks that have other things going on in other lives and people who are not paid professionals, but are just here on their own time. So, uh, my request would be that as we finish with witnesses, you go ahead and, um, let them be excused once Mr. Coats has determined he has no questions for them. >> Great. If you are a witness and you would like to leave, you're free to do that. If not, then I'll leave it in the panelist view until you're ready to leave. >> How would I relieve myself? Just >> you can just leave the meeting. Yep. No problem. Okay, thank you so much. >> Okay, and I do see I have one user with their hand raised. I'm going to go ahead and promote you to panelist, but if you

[193:01] could please um rename yourself to be at least your first name, first and last name is preferable and that is true for everyone who's going to be speaking today. And Mr. Dear King, if you will just um let the board know if this person is an interested party or um an expert witness or something else. is the witness at Lake Angela Hatfield um is an interested party. >> Okay. And Angela, are you iPhone 71? >> I am. Yeah. I don't know how to change it. >> That's okay. I'll do it for you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. And Angela, if you'll just go ahead and give your address so that Kristen can check for interested party. >> It's uh 1945 28th Street, Boulder, Colorado 80301. Thank you. And I'll go ahead and swear you in while she's doing that. If you will say your name and spell your name for the record. >> It's Angela Hatfield. A N G E L A H A T

[194:04] F I E L D. >> Thank you so much. And if you'll raise your right hand. >> Looks like Sorry. >> No problem. If you'll just go ahead and raise your right hand. >> Do you swear or affirm that the statements you're about to give before the beverage licensing authority are true and correct? >> Yes. >> Thank you so much. And I'll just have you hang on for just a second while Kristen converts. >> Certainly. Um, she is a qualified interested party. Thank you, >> Miss Hatfield. Thank you for being here. This is so much later than I told you it was going to be, but I appreciate you hanging in there with us. Um, can you tell us where you're employed, please? Denver Mattress Company >> and you've given the address for that. What is your position there? >> Store manager. >> Please let the record reflect that Miss Hatfield is a party and interest as the manager of a business within the neighborhood. Um, how long have you worked at Denver Mattress?

[195:01] >> Uh, 10 years in Boulder. I've been um in Boulder for about three and a half years. >> And were you working uh last December 2nd when Whole Foods Signature Gather came around? Yes. >> And did the signature gatherer tell you that um it was an application by Whole Foods for a permit permanent modification of premises for an existing fermented malt beverage and wine retail license to include a request to withdraw the existing condition on the prohibition of the sale of all types of alcohol other than kombucha? >> No, she did not. >> Did she say anything about a condition on their liquor license? No condition. No. >> Did she say anything about them only being permitted to sell kombucha? >> No. >> Did you sign the petition in favor of the application? >> I did. >> And at that time on that day, was it your impression that she wanted you to sign

[196:01] her petition? >> Um, she seemed a bit in a hurry. And um I I don't think either way she was um exactly wanting me to sign or whatever. No. >> Okay. And since the date of that, have you learned more information about this application? >> I have. Yes. And have you learned that there is an existing condition on the liquor license for this Whole Foods grocery store that permits only the sale of kombucha and other types of alcohol? >> Yes. >> And have you learned that currently they're only allowed two small displays and that what they're requesting actually is to remove the condition so they can sell all types of fermented malt beverages, wine, and wine and significantly expand their alcohol sales area. >> Yes. And did you also learn that the condition was negotiated by Whole Foods in 2018 at the time this license was

[197:02] originally issued in compromise with neighbors who opposed that license application? >> Yes. >> Given the additional information you now know, do you still believe this neighborhood both needs and desires for this application to be granted so that Whole Foods can sell beer and wine inside this grocery store? >> No. Do you support this application anymore or do you now oppose it? >> I oppose. >> I have no further questions for Miss Hatfield, but I would like to reserve the right of redirect, please. >> Thank you. Cross-examination. >> Thank you. Uh, good evening, Miss Hatfield. You indicated that you were contacted by uh the petition company on December 2nd. Is that correct? >> Yes. And how long did you talk or actually see the petitioner? >> Probably less than a minute. Um I mean I

[198:00] guess while I was signing maybe more like two minutes. >> Okay. In less than a minute time then you believe that there was a need essentially for alcohol to be expanded and within this uh boundary area uh that you're a part of or you're a manager within. >> Not a need. Um, I was under the impression, um, I don't shop at Whole Foods a lot and I was under the impression that Whole Foods actually did sell alcohol and I thought it was an update of their liquor license. They did not explain anything to me. >> So, do you understand that the grocery store sells kombucha right next to the grocery store is a fullervice retail liquor store? >> I do now. Yes. And do you understand that that full service retail liquor store, part of the request here of Whole Foods is that that license be surrendered or eliminated so that Whole Foods can be allowed to sell

[199:00] just beer and wine within the grocery store section. >> I do know, but not when I signed the petition. Why would that change your opinion then if if in fact the beer and wine essentially um it's taking away the retail liquor store that's already there as you just described and putting it in to essentially the whole foods >> because I feel like it's going to eliminate jobs. Um it's a separate store. Um I also don't like the fact that it's Whole Foods, it's a food store. Um, so I just I I don't understand why that would be needed. >> So you you don't like the fact that Whole Foods essentially has the ability to sell beer and wine products. >> Correct. Yeah. >> And is that anywhere? Is that it within the city or is that within anywhere within the state? >> Um, I mean I wouldn't say anywhere in

[200:01] the state. now. >> But in Boulder, I in Boulder I definitely support small businesses. Um, so I >> So it sounds like your big issue here and I'm just want to be fair is you want to support small businesses and you're you don't like any you don't like what Whole Foods is doing. You're not a customer essentially of Whole Foods. >> Correct. And are you aware essentially that the law changed in 2022 that allowed wine to then come in with beer at grocery stores and that was voted on by the by the uh general public? >> No. >> Were were you were you did you vote in that election in 2020? I think it was essentially 2021 2022. >> Not for that. No. >> Okay. You did you vote against it allowing allowing wine to be added to the beer that grocery stores were already allowed to sell? >> No, I I didn't vote for any of that. So,

[201:03] I don't know why this is relevant. >> Well, it is relevant in in terms of are you opposed to essentially grocery stores having beer and wine and and not just food? >> I'm not opposed to it. No. So, specifically getting back to you're opposed to Whole Foods and you're opposed to essentially whatever it is that they're doing in this particular application. >> I don't understand the need for it. >> Do have you ever shopped at Whole Foods? >> Uh, a couple times. Yeah. Okay. And uh in terms of in terms of your involvement in the community in that area as a manager, how long have you been a manager there? >> In Boulder for about three and a half years. >> And are you familiar with all the security that Whole Foods has or all of the offduty police officers that Whole Foods has at this location?

[202:01] >> I have seen them there uh when I shop there once. Yes. Do you think that's a good thing for the community? >> Um, yes. >> And do you want to see that continue? Do you want to see the the the police officers essentially offduty police officers there 100% of the time? >> Yes. I I mean I I think that police officers around in Boulder are needed. There is a lot of homeless people and um a lot of things like theft and stuff like that too. So yes, >> part I asked this question because part of the criteria in case law says that deals with whether or not individuals drink or not. Do you drink? >> Yes. >> Okay. And and in terms of being a customer, you don't you don't do you ever buy products at uh alcohol products at anywhere at grocery stores? Do you ever purchase them at grocery stores or do you always use a retail liquor store?

[203:02] >> Um not often. And I I mean I can't tell you um you know when that may be but not often now. >> So you're objecting essentially to the grocery store model having uh both beer and wine products as convenience to their customers. >> What was the question again? >> You you are objecting or saying there isn't a need for the grocery store model that allows for beer and wine to be sold to its customer. >> That's correct. Very good. Thank you. I appreciate your time. I don't have any additional questions and appreciate. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Redirect. >> Um, >> Miss Headfield, thank you. I I'm sure that was a little bit painful and [laughter] uh [clears throat] despite uh maybe efforts to put words in your mouth, I'm just going to ask you in your own words without feeling any pressure to say anything in particular that anybody might want you to say. Just one more

[204:01] time, give us your opinion about whether this is a good idea or not and why, given all the information you know um that you've learned since the date the signature gatherer first came into your store. Um, well, I mean, for me, it's just really like not understanding the need for it if it's a separate store right next to Whole Foods anyways. Like, you know, it you walk into Whole Foods, you get your food, and then you go to the store right next to it where you do have to have an ID to actually physically go into that store. Um, and I just I don't understand the need for it. And um I also like, you know, I I think that um a lot has to say about small businesses in Boulder and um yeah, I I just think that it's not needed. >> Thank you very much.

[205:00] >> Any questions from the authority? >> Not seeing any. Okay, you can proceed. Um, Miss Hatfield, we'll let you go. Thank you so much. I know we impinged on your evening. Um, thank you for being here. >> Yeah, of course. >> Thank you. >> The next witness I'd like to call is Tiffany Drury, who will also be qualified as an interested party as a manager of a business in the neighborhood. >> Thank you so much, Tiffany. If you can use the raise hand function so I can easily find you. >> She might be on phone too. I don't see any phone. I don't see a Tiffany in here. I feel like I did earlier, but I don't see one now. >> I think I don't see any phone >> earlier. I saw one earlier, too, and I don't see one now. >> Yeah. >> Okay. She had told me she was having

[206:02] some difficulties. So, I will skip over to the next witness if that's acceptable and if she comes back on, could you let me know? >> Sure. >> Thank you. Uh, next witness I'd like to call is Freda Wear who will be qualified as an interested party as a resident of the neighborhood. And I see that Freda is already in. Um, Freda, just so that we can check interested party, can you please give your address? >> 2969 Shady Hollow East, Boulder, Colorado 80304. >> Thank you so much. And while Kristen is checking your address, if you can please say your name and spell your name for the record. >> Brea. F R I E D A Wear. W A R E. >> Thank you. And if you'll raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that the statements you're about to give before the beverage licensing authority

[207:00] are true and correct? >> Yes. >> Thank you so much. And I'll wait for Kristen to chime in on your address. Sorry about that. Yes, this uh individual does uh qualify. Thank you. You may proceed. Board. >> Thank you. Um, Miss Wear, thank you for being here and for being so patient. I know this has gone late. Uh, can you tell me, um, you've already given us your address, but but would you, uh, one more time just say where you live? >> Um, I live just southwest of the intersection of 28th and Belmont. >> Okay. And do you own or rent your home? >> I own it. >> Okay. Again, let's please let the record reflect that Miss Wear is an interested party. Um, how long have you lived there? >> Uh, almost 26 years. >> And how long have you been in Boulder? >> Uh, 33 years. Okay. Are you aware um of

[208:04] the application by Whole Foods for a per permanent modification of premises for an existing fermented malt beverage and wine retail license to include a request to withdraw an existing condition on the prohibition of the sale of any type of alcohol other than kombucha and to expand the alcohol sales area? >> Yes, we were. And given how long you've lived in this neighborhood and everything you know about this neighborhood, do you believe the neighborhood needs this Whole Food store to be able to sell beer and wine inside the grocery store? >> I do not think the community needs it. >> Do you believe the community or the neighborhood desires for them to be able to sell beer and wine inside this grocery store? >> I do not. >> Given that, would you say you support or oppose the application for them to do that? I think that it >> those are my questions for Miss Wear at this time.

[209:02] >> Cross examination. >> Thank you. Thank you, Miss Wear. Um, do you understand that in this application that there's a grocery store that's a Whole Foods on Pearl Street and right next to it there's also a retail liquor store that's a Whole Foods retail liquor store. >> Yes. And do you understand that the Whole Foods retail liquor store will essentially go away if this is approved? In other words, the they will reduce the uh amount of product sold to just be in the grocery store um beer and wine if in fact this application is approved by the local authority. >> Yes, I understand. >> So this request essentially is not an expansion of alcohol within the area. Do you understand that? >> Yes. >> But yet you still feel that there's not a need. So in other words, you're saying that the there there's no need for us to

[210:00] be able to continue to operate in this area because because um why >> I don't think that grocery [clears throat] stores should sell liquor. >> So and I appreciate that comment. your your you your your your position is is that really you don't want Whole Foods to do this or any other grocery store to do this to be able to sell um beer and wine. >> Correct. >> And when you use the term liquor, you you understand it's not spirits. >> I understand that it's just >> beer and wine. Yeah. So you're you're opposed to essentially um any grocery store having the sale of beer and wine? >> Yes. >> Even though that is the the the law currently. Do you understand that that they're allowed to? >> I understand that. I voted against it. >> You voted against it. Okay. Thank you. And um on occasion, do you consume an alcohol beverage yourself? >> Yes.

[211:00] >> And when you shop, do you shop at do you shop at Hazels, for instance? Do you shop at a retail liquor store such as Hazels? >> Yes. >> Are you a regular customer of Hazels? >> Yes. >> How is it that Mr. Durking reached out to you to ask you to come here today. >> Uh he a friend of mine he uh works I guess he's retired so he a [clears throat] friend of mine knows him and they work together at one point and just came up. She asked me about it >> and he approached you to ask you to come and testify against Whole Foods. >> My friend did. your your friend approached you. Who was the friend? >> Reita Jolly. >> Reita Jolly. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Does Rene Reita Jolly live in Boulder? >> Yes. >> And did you meet with Mr. Durking uh

[212:02] with respect to uh his request that essentially you come and testify against Whole Foods? Um, we had a call where we went over um what it was what the whole thing was about. I mean, I didn't even know that Whole Foods was trying to do this. >> Understand? And in those discussions, we don't have to discuss exactly all of the call, but essentially in in those discussions, did you discuss that the current status of the law is that that grocery stores and uh grocery stores, convenience stores are allowed to sell um beer and wine products? >> Of course, we went over that as background. >> Did you express to him that you don't like that? >> Yes. And and did you express to him that you voted no on the proposition when it came through in 2021 2022? >> I don't I don't think No, I don't think we discussed how I voted.

[213:02] >> You would be against >> I'm sorry. I know we didn't discuss it. >> You didn't discuss that. Thank you. I appreciate it. Doesn't matter if this is Whole Foods or anyone. Essentially, what you're saying is you don't want any grocery store to be able to have beer or wine products in the first place. Is that a fair statement? Yes. >> Very good. Okay. I appreciate your time. I don't have any additional questions. Thank you. >> Redirect. >> Thank you, Miss Wear. Again, I I know that was a little bit painful. Thank you for bearing with us. Um the the couple things I want to ask just to clear up any implications is um were you compelled to be here by anybody or co coerced to be here or are you here of your own free will? >> I'm here of my own free will. And you swore an oath to tell the truth tonight. Have you told the truth? >> Yes. >> And is it your understanding that grocery stores uh get to sell beer and wine automatically or do they have to apply for a license that's discretionary

[214:00] uh for the local board similar to the hearing that we're having? >> Well, I know now. I'm not if if you'd asked me before, I'm not sure what I don't know if I knew. >> Fair enough. I thought the question seemed to imply sort of a byite. Those are all the questions I have for Miss Wear and uh thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Any questions from the authority? >> Okay. >> I understand that Tiffany Drury may be back on. >> Yes, that is correct. >> I'd like to call her next, please. >> All right, Miss Drury, I will go ahead and promote you. He'll just accept that promotion. And while she is being promoted, um, Mr. Derking, are you do you know if um, Tiffany is interested party or a different type of witness? >> She is an interested party as the manager of a business within the neighborhood. >> Thank you.

[215:02] And All right, perfect. >> No problem. Um, I see you're on. You're unmuted. I can see your camera. Will you just go ahead and give us your address so that Kristen can check it against the interested party? >> Yes. I work at 2710 Pearl Street. Um, Boulder Crawler Colorado 80 302. Sorry, I've got a crazy dog. >> That's okay. No problem. Um, and while Kristen is checking that, if you'll just go ahead and say your name and spell your name for the record. >> Yeah. Tiffany Drury. T I FF A N Y. Last name is Delta Romeo Uniform Romeo Yankee. Thank you. And if you'll go ahead and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the statements you're about to give before the Beverage Licensing Authority are true and correct? >> Yeah. >> Thank you so much. I'll just um give Kristen a second to check the address. And >> Yes.

[216:00] >> Hi Chris. >> Hi. So, um, Miss Drury is a qualified party of interest. >> Thank you. Board, you may proceed. >> Thank you, Miss Drury. Thanks for, uh, joining us late. Um, can you please tell us where you're currently employed? >> I work at Boulder Orthodontics. >> And what is your position there? >> I am um, front desk, so like scheduling coordinator. >> You You have a manager title though, is that correct? Um, we actually don't have a manager of our building. >> So there's not >> I'm going to object essentially as this individual is not qualified pursuant to the state. >> The uh bit of information that I'll provide is that she signed a petition for your signature gather, Mr. Coats. And so, um, on that petition, I believe Miss Jury, um, someone wrote in manager. Um, so

[217:02] I would still like to ask Miss Jury questions given that Whole Foods submitted a petition representing that she and her business have signed in favor of their application when in fact that is not going to be the case. Understand? Are you still objecting? [clears throat] >> I'm trying to find her on the on the uh petition form. Can you please point me to where this >> um the business is Boulder Orthodontics and it was December 2nd >> page number maybe Um, I do not see numbers on these pages, Mr. Coats, but the first business signing on this is Panda Express. And if

[218:02] you go down to the very bottom, Boulder Orthodontics, Tiffany Drury, there's an address, a check in favor, a signature, and it says manager, age 34, and a date of 1225. The petition date at the bottom is 12225, 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. >> I see that. All right. So, I will uh I I won't object at this point to her testimony uh as she is qualified within the petition itself and certainly subject to obviously the examination that Mr. Durkin is providing. >> Great. Thank you. You can proceed. >> Miss Jury, how long have you worked at Boulder Orthodontics? >> It'll be three years in July. >> And you were working on Tuesday, December 2nd when Whole Foods practitioner came around. >> Yeah. And at the time the signature gatherer approached you, did she say she was serving the neighborhood regarding an application by Whole Foods for a

[219:01] permanent modification of their existing license um to remove a condition allowing them only to sell kombucha so that they could sell all types of fermented malt beverage and wine? >> They did not. >> Did she say anything about Whole Foods having a condition on their current license? >> No. Did she say anything about Whole Foods only being able to sell kombucha inside the grocery store? >> No. >> Did you sign the petition in favor of the application? >> I did. >> On the day you spoke to the signature gatherer, was it your impression she wanted you to sign her petition? >> I felt like she was kind of just kind of getting as much signatures as possible, whether that was like for or against. Um, she also came at a pretty busy time. It's always busy in our location. Um, so I was trying to understand what she was there for and

[220:00] um, kind of understand everything that she was like telling me with trying to check in and answer phones and everything else. >> I understand. And since that date, have you learned additional information about this license application request? Yes. >> And have you learned that in fact there's an existing condition on this liquor license that only permits Whole Foods to sell kombucha inside the grocery store and that they're seeking to remove that condition so they can sell all types of beer and wine? >> Yes. Now, >> yeah. And are you aware that it's also a request to expand the area where they're the permanent alcohol display area? >> Yes. And are you aware, have you learned since then that this condition was negotiated by Whole Foods in 2018 in compromise with neighbors who opposed the original license application? >> Now I know that.

[221:02] >> And given the add additional information that you've learned, um, do you still believe this neighborhood both needs and desires for this application to be granted so Whole Foods can sell beer and wine inside the grocery store? Um, no. >> And given what you now know, do you still support this application or do you oppose it? >> I oppose it. >> Thank you. Those are my questions. >> Press. >> Thank you. Miss Drury, you said that um the petitioner came in at a very busy time. >> Yes. >> And and how long was your interaction with the petitioner? I don't know, maybe like two, three minutes. >> And at this busy time, are you do you recall everything that the individual said? >> I remember that they were trying to um change their liquor license.

[222:01] But as far as like every single detail, I couldn't tell you word for word what she said. >> You you can't remember every single detail that the petitioner did. like word for word for word. No. >> And you said that they were trying to get an answer. I wrote it down. Um but it was whether for or against. In other words, they didn't they didn't uh try to get you to mark four only. Correct. >> So they were they were they were fair in terms of how they presented it to you then. Is that is that in terms of for or against? Yes, I do believe that it would have been more fair to have all the details, >> but as it as you said, you can't remember word for word what all the details were. >> Yes. >> And in terms of in terms of this process

[223:00] that we're here today, do you understand that Whole Foods has a grocery store? Right next to it, it has a retail liquor store. >> Yes. >> And you understand, do you understand that the retail liquor store, what essentially is being proposed here is that it goes away and that and that only the the grocery store then will sell just beer and wine, a reduced amount essentially of just beer and wine. >> I understand that now. Yes. >> Okay. And that changes your opinion from from to against in terms of need. I don't think it's needed. Like there's like okay liquor right down the street. We've got Hazels. So, you just assume that the grow that the that the retail liquor store just go away and that Whole Foods not be allowed to sell beer and wine.

[224:03] >> I guess I wasn't like exactly sure of how everything was going to go because they didn't say we're closing the liquor store. We're expanding on this. I >> I just want to be clear. I mean, you're saying that there was a need essentially to modify the premise to expand their their license as the detail that you've described. >> Yeah. >> But finding out that they're going to reduce their space by eliminating the next door liquor store. >> That changes your opinion that now there's no need. >> I don't think so. No. Okay. >> Are you a customer of Whole Foods? I don't shop at Whole Foods. >> Do you do you shop do you ever purchase beer or wine products at grocery stores? >> No. >> Are you a customer of Hazels?

[225:01] >> I do go to Hazels. I It's not very often. I don't live in Boulder. So when I do like have like a get together that I'm going to bring something, I do go to Hazel's. >> And how long have you been how long have you been at the place that you're working at currently? >> Almost three years. >> Three years in July. >> And are do you oppose grocery stores uh being allowed to sell beer and wine? I don't see why there's a need for it. >> So, you think there's no need for any grocery store to be able to sell beer and wine? >> No. >> No. Meaning you agree with that that you don't believe >> I don't believe that grocery stores need to sell beer and wine. >> Thank you. I appreciate that.

[226:02] >> Do you have any dislike of Whole Foods? No, I not against Whole Foods at all. >> Understand. >> You met with Mr. Derkin. Can you tell me how it is or or communicated with Mr. Derkin to be here tonight? Tell me how that came about. >> Um, he came in and asked if I had signed this petition. I told him that I did. And he asked if they had informed me of everything that was going on, like the condition of their liquor license and them wanting to modify it, and I had told them no. it. But you're still saying that at the time you they came in, you believed that there was a need

[227:00] essentially for this grocery store to have beer and beer and wine, but now there's not based upon your meeting with Mr. Durkin. I when he was showing me the layout of the store, like he was showing how much of the food section was going to be like replaced with liquor. And with it being a grocery store, I don't see why that large of a section needs to be taken up by beer and wine. >> Did Did he explain to you that the retail liquor store as a condition of this modification would go away? >> No.

[228:01] >> I don't have any additional questions. Thank you. redirect. >> Mur, thanks so much for hanging in with us late and going through that. I know that was kind of painful, but I appreciate you being here. I don't have any further questions. >> Can I ask prior to our next witness? Um, thank you and thank you, Mr. Um, how many more witnesses we're anticipating here? >> But but before we get to that, I have a question for her. I have two questions for her. >> Oh, please. Thank you. I apologize. I didn't mean to get in the get in the way. Thank you. >> I just didn't want to lose her. That was all I need. Deal with >> We lost her. >> Um, which was my next question about if anybody had questions. Um, >> okay. >> Would you like me to see if she can jump back on?

[229:01] No, you that's not that's not fair to them. >> Um, okay, Mr. Let's see. Mr. Co, you had a question. >> I I did. And I'm sorry if I I didn't mean at all that she could be excused. I was just asking the question. In terms of additional witnesses, how many? >> We have a number of additional witnesses to call. And then I believe there are some other interested parties who are not part of my presentation who wish to speak as well. I'll try to move along quickly but it takes time with all the cross- examination and everything. >> Is there any though for the authorities sake an idea of number here and that's >> Yes. Um there there are a number more. I'd say we're about halfway through. So you think another three? >> No, I would say one, two, three, four, five, six more plus myself.

[230:01] And the only reason I offer that is is that essentially the the same rule cited with regards to party and interest does say that the local license authorities discretion may limit presentation of evidence and cross- examination so as to prevent repetitive and [ __ ] cumulative evidence or testimony or or cumulative evidence or testimony or examination. So again, my concern is is that this is some attempt to backdoor in the petition that the authority hasn't ruled on yet. Um, in terms of in terms of Mr. Durking's own uh opposition petition that was given us given to us today at a quarter to 3. I will uh assure you that the witnesses to come will be dissimilar to the ones that you've heard from so far. >> Thank you. >> I also can just advise the authority.

[231:02] I'm sure um they're aware that they have um that discretion within the rules and can make that determination um witness by witness and testimony by testimony. And definitely it is important to keep in mind in mind given um the number and the hour but um that is certainly within their discretion. >> Can you clarify I don't what's in our discretion >> to um disallow um cumulative um testimony and duplicative evidence or testimony. So, if you feel like witnesses are repetitive or saying similar things or you feel like the cross-examination or direct similarly or making the same points over and over again or you feel like testimony is speculative um or completely irrelevant, you have that discretion as the board to make

[232:00] those determinations. >> Great. Thank you. Um and since Mr. Jerk King said that that they will not be the same. Um, let's go ahead and proceed and if we need to revisit, we will. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. The next witness I'd like to call is Steven Tibo, who is a party in interest as a property owner within the Divine Neighborhood. >> Thank you, Mr. Tibo, if you'll go ahead and raise your hand. I don't see anyone with the name Stephen Tibo in the attendees. Can we move on and if they rejoin, I'll let you know. >> Oh, he has sent me a text saying the hearing went too late and he had to leave. That is too bad. >> Um, in that case, I will >> May I just comment on that though? Uh, in terms of So, and I get it. he has to leave. But the the statute does say resident or or manager or owner. Um it

[233:02] doesn't say owner of property. That's owner of a business. So Mr. Tibo may not have been qualified anyway. But thank you. Please continue. >> Yeah. I I uh I'm not going to argue that point with you because it won't matter. [laughter] >> Understand. My next witness uh is Linda Gibbons um who is qualified as an interested party because she not only owns property but also a business in the defined neighborhood. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And Linda has raised her hand. I've promoted her to panelist. And Linda, I see you. Perfect. We can see you. And then if you'll just unmute so we can hear you. >> There you go. >> Thank you so much. If you will just go ahead and um state your address so we can check that.

[234:00] Um, I own a business at 2305 Canyon Boulevard, uh, Boulder, Colorado 80302. Or would you prefer my residential address? >> That's up to you. My residential address is 625 Highland Avenue, 80302. >> Okay. And then, um, while Kristen checks those, if you'll go ahead and, um, spell your name. Say your name and spell your name for the record. L Y N D A G I BB B O N S. >> Thank you so much. Um, and if you'll go ahead and raise your right hand. Do you swear or from that the statements you're about to give before the Beverage Licensing Authority are true and correct? >> Yes. >> Thank you so much. I'll give Kristen a second to check the addresses and then you may proceed. >> This witness is a qualified interested party. Great. Thank you so much. And you can

[235:00] proceed. >> Thank you. Thank you, Miss Gibbons, for hanging in there with us tonight. Um, can you please tell us, um, what business you're engaged in? >> I do real property leasing, property management, um, and real estate. >> How long has Gibbons White been in business? >> 40 years this February. >> Congratulations. How many employees do you have currently? >> 20. >> And uh let the record reflect please that Miss Given is the party and interest. Um in addition to uh well I guess you you have mentioned 2305 Canyon as your address. Um and do you own that property? >> I do. >> And in addition to that one, do you own or are a partner in other real estate properties in Boulder? >> I do. Um, in particular within this defined neighborhood boundary, which is Valmont on the north, um, Arapjo on the south, 20th on the west, and Foothills Parkway on the east, um, are there any other properties or

[236:01] businesses you own in this neighborhood? >> I own Water Street, 2595 Canyon Boulevard. Between other business owners, property owners, tenants, friends, employees, acquaintances, how many people would you estimate you personally know in this neighborhood? >> In the neighborhood, I would say 70ish. >> Okay. As a real estate professional um for many years, as you said, um have you developed expertise in uh retail real estate? >> I have. In your experience, what's the impact on a local liquor store when a grocery store in their vicinity starts selling beer and wine? >> Again, I I'm going to object essentially to the testimony for for qualified witnesses relates to needs and desires. It doesn't relates to pretent additional impacts, those type of things. In other words, a party in interest is eligible to testify

[237:00] regarding whether or not there's a need and desire in the area for this class of license or this type of license to either be issued or modified. Mr. Coats um has certainly not abided by the rules of evidence strictly in his testimony or his examination of his witnesses. Um in his cross- examination, he's been attempting to testify for the witnesses. I'd just like to get some relative probative information in front of the board. And when a witness has expertise about the matters the board's going to consider, I would encourage you to allow it to be included. Mr. Coat seems very obsessed with procedural and technical reasons to try to prevent you from getting information. I'd just like you to get the information in an efficient way so we can move on with this hearing. >> I would my response to that would be competition is not a valid objection. and and so what what and that's essentially what this is about. So so this testimony I think is pretty clearly

[238:01] defined within what a party and interest can testify about. Now obviously I followed all of those rules including calling a petitioner that this authority has heard from numerous numerous times before related to parties and interests. So if this person is going to testify with respect to parties and interest, that's one thing. But if they're going to talk about their opinions associated with with impacts, effects, those kind of things, I don't think they're eligible to do that because it's not part of the party and interest uh defined statutory base. So I I'm not I I I disagree with with Mr. Derkin. I certainly it's up to the authority but um but I but I think I think at least the the statute's relatively clear. >> Mr. Coats would like you to adopt an extremely narrow definition of needs and desires. I believe a neighborhood can determine what they need and desire that that could include whether or not they value local businesses, what the impact

[239:00] on the neighborhood and community might be. and pretending that those aren't the issues that really matter to real citizens might be a legalistic approach, but if you're actually trying to get to the substance of the matter of does this neighborhood want this, it's relevant information and respectfully, I'd ask you to allow me to proceed with my examination. I don't have that many questions. We've spent more time arguing this than it would have taken me to finish with the witness. >> Um, I tend to agree. I think needs and use can be more than just people who live there. And I think we should hear this witness. >> May I proceed, >> please? >> Miss Gibbons, I'm going to repeat that last question. Um, have you developed expertise regarding retail? Oh, I guess we answered that one. What's the impact on a local liquor store when a grocery store in their vicinity starts selling beer and wine? >> It can be devastating. And for a commercial property owner, um,

[240:01] if the retail liquor store in their center were to go out of business, how easy or difficult would it be for them to find another tenant for that space currently? >> In this particular market, exceedingly difficult creating more vacancy in a community that needs less. >> In your view, would it be a net positive or a net negative for the neighborhood if this Whole Foods began selling beer and wine inside the grocery store? a big net negative >> as a business owner and a property owner in this neighborhood. Do you believe it would be a net positive or a net negative for the business community if the Whole Foods starts selling beer and wine inside the grocery store? >> Bigger net negative. And with the long history and deep involvement in the neighborhood you talked about and the many people that you know personally, do you believe this neighborhood needs and desires for this Whole Foods to close their liquor store and move the alcohol sales inside the grocery store and sell beer and wine inside the grocery store?

[241:00] >> I do not. >> And do you support this application or oppose it? >> Oppose it. >> Thank you. Those are my questions. >> Cross. Thank you. How long have you known uh Mr. Derky? >> 30 years, I would guess. >> Have you worked professionally with Mr. Derky? >> I have in the past. >> How many times? >> Well, I've never worked with him in the past. He represented me on and represented landlords that I represented many many years ago. This opinion sounds as if you're concerned about the impacts this is going to have on landlords. >> This is about impacts on the community. I am a strong proponent of Boulder and I think this is a bad idea for the

[242:00] community. Do you think it's a bad idea for uh grocery stores to have be allowed to sell beer and wine at all? >> No. >> How about just wine? >> How about what? >> How about just wine? When wine came in in 2021, did you think that that was a bad idea? >> I don't have an opinion about it. So, just so I understand it, your opinion is that eliminating the retail liquor store that's held by Whole Foods next door and allowing the grocery store to sell the full range of beer and wine products is going to be a net negative to the neighborhood. >> It'll be a net negative to this community and a net negative to this this neighborhood >> and it's bad for competition. Is that your is that your statement as well? I believe it'll drive vacancies in the area, but that's a sidebar. >> Thank you. I don't have any additional

[243:00] questions. Thank you. Appreciate your time. >> Redirect. >> I don't have any further questions. Thank you. >> Um before I ask the authority, um I have some questions. Um you mentioned the words devastating and net negative on the neighborhood and super net negative on the community. Can you give us some data please about this? >> Um I look to you as the expert. >> I could give you data um but it's irrelevant because it is it's it's vacancy numbers and that's not what we're talking about. I mean, what we're talking about here is is whether there's a need for Whole Foods to sell beer and wine within their grocery store, and that if they do, will it be negative for the community? And I believe it will. >> Could you give me some sort of like

[244:00] proof or evidence in your background to help you form that opinion in this case? >> Well, I've lived in Boulder for 46 years. I've been doing business here for like I said in February 40 years. Um I believe an Amazonowned Whole Foods um reigging on their current license and expanding it within their store is is not a good thing for our community. I I don't have any data points like numbers for you. I just I meet and and work with hundreds of individuals and hundreds of business owners and I think the prevailing view is that they don't think it's needed and they think it won't be a positive for this community. I mean, there are lots of liquor stores. There's lots of locallyowned liquor stores. There's there's a ton of places to go. You can buy beer and wine at King Supers. You can buy beer and wine at

[245:00] Trader Joe's. Is it necessary for Whole Foods to join that and reig on their existing license? I don't think so. >> And their existing license being that they can only sell kombucha. So you're right because they're asking for a change in that. I guess what I'm trying to learn >> from somebody [clears throat] is um >> in this case >> that this could drive vacancies. And I'm trying to understand the effect here on which stores or store what how will this directly impact vacancies. So >> I believe that if Whole Foods is allowed to sell beer and wine inside the store, it becomes such a great convenience that locallyowned liquor stores will suffer further and many of them in the immediate area and even in the expanded area will likely close.

[246:02] And I I don't believe that's good for the community. >> Right. But I guess what I'm trying to understand is how will it moving um from a full liquor store >> store >> to >> wine and beer inside. [clears throat] >> So that is already existing. >> Yeah, that's a big question. And you know, I think what's proven to be the case is that when you're shopping for groceries, you're shopping for groceries and that's your mindset. And once you leave, then you can select a liquor store to go to. But I believe that the convenience factor of once you're in a grocery store, if you see a bottle of wine, especially displayed in the way they say they're going to display it, hyping the champagne next to Valentine, you know, you know, fusing the food and the wine makes it [clears throat] so convenient that you'll buy it almost if you hadn't thought you needed it. So

[247:01] it's pretty soon in your bag and you're out the door. you're very unlikely then to go to a locally owned liquor store. So now you're you know you purchased your you purchased at Amazon and I just I feel like it's not what Boulder's about. Do you think that those people who were looking to complement their meal with a beverage were going further than next door to the adjacent door to to buy? >> I don't know. I can't answer that question, but I have a lot of friends in the area and they didn't tend to buy their liquor next door. >> I don't know why. I never once went in there, but anyway. >> Okay, >> I think that's all my question. >> Okay. >> Anybody else from the board? >> Yep.

[248:00] Um, following up on your on your questions, uh, first of all, I'm struggling with how is it that the Well, let me ask you a different way. Do you think that the the uh authorizing Whole Foods to sell wine and li and and and beer within their current store >> and the uh the uh elimination of their authorization to sell liquor and wine and beer next door is going to result in more liquor sales in this community or less Rick liquor sales or stay the same. >> I I don't know for sure, but I'm going to guess it'll result in about the same sales of beer and wine,

[249:00] but that those sales are going to happen within Whole Foods. >> Okay, that's a fair fair statement. Here's my second question. Um, if if someone is not going to go next door to buy beer and wine or liquor now, but they want it, they're going to go somewhere other than Whole Foods when they're buying their groceries in order to get that beer and wine. >> That's what I do. That's what a lot of my friends do. Um, >> I live near the wine merchant and so, you know, I get home with my groceries and I say, "Gee, um, oops. Wouldn't we like a bottle of wine? I live very near there, so I can go buy Anyway, you get the picture. >> And and I see them getting back in their car and driving to some place >> and getting alcohol. >> And that's fine. It's done. I do it. Everybody else does it from time to time. But, uh, I would guess that if

[250:01] people are buying, uh, that beer and wine at Whole Foods instead of going home and then getting back in the car and driving somewhere else, that that there's going to be a reduction in traffic. There will be there will be convenience to them. I I assume that if you ask them, would you would you rather get it all in one place or would you, you know, would you like to go into Whole Foods and then march out and go over to to to uh >> Well, I guess a lot of my friends are supporting local business and so they go to AOK, you know, they go to Hazel, they go to the wine merchant and they feel really good about supporting local business. >> Yeah, I agree with that. >> Maybe on their way home. I don't know. And we see a lot of local businesses here at the beverage licensing board and try and support them. >> Yes. >> But there's also the the people who who uh might want to do it all in one place. Uh okay. Just asking. >> Yeah. No, I think you're right.

[251:00] >> Thank you. >> A lot of people will do it. >> Okay. Um any other questions from the authority? Okay. Then um I believe you have already dismissed this witness. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Miss Gibbons. >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> And you can proceed. >> Next witness I'd like to call is Dr. William Burman. And I'm going to talk about him a little bit because Dr. Burman will testify as an expert in rebuttal to evidence that Mr. Coats presented. He is not a party in interest in terms of living in the neighborhood, but he is an expert witness who has information relative to some topics Mr. Coats asked his witnesses about um specifically health and safety of the neighborhood. Um Dr. William Berman can tell you about himself, but he's with Denver Public Health and he will not be expressing an

[252:02] opinion for against this license. he would just be providing probitative information for the authority about health and safety issues related to the application. >> I'll just make the same objections that I've made in the past. I won't belabor the point. I don't know if this testimony is relevant to what the issue is and that's need desire. >> My rebuttal to that is it's it in the same way you asked the questions of your witnesses, Mr. Coats, about these topics. It's the same topic. Um, I don't believe that someone has to be a party in interest to have probitative information about health and safety issues. And in fact, Dr. Burman is a statewide expert on these issues. >> It's the health and safety of the surrounding neighborhood. That's the issue. >> That's that's what he'll testify about. >> Okay. I'll leave it certainly to the authority, but appreciate it. >> Guys are making this tough tonight. [laughter] >> Sorry for that. Sorry for that. Um

[253:00] I would like to hear the expert. Um but maybe does the authority do do other members have and I can explain why. Uh maybe we should deliberate this. Um member Barnes, I see you came off mute. >> I agree with you. I'd like to like to hear what he has to say. Um >> Okay. I think in terms of helping us make a healthy educated decision that um we should hear it and if it goes beyond the scope of questioning that um [clears throat] your team put on Mr. Coats then we'll revisit that and please object at any point. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. >> I also just want to pipe in for a couple of procedural points. Um, just to let 15, um, we have four members of the BLA

[254:00] present this evening, is my understanding. Um, if any one of those members were to leave before the conclusion of the hearings this evening, we would have three remaining. And by the rules of procedure in the city for all boards and commissions and the BLA, um we would need a unanimous vote of three to approve or specifically deny um the application this evening. So I just wanted to to pinpoint that in the event there were any members that had plans or were intending on leaving early. Um and then just to make a record that um regardless of what evidence comes in this evening, it you know the BLA should be well equipped to and just a reminder to only consider the factors it is

[255:01] legally um permitted to consider with respect to applications. Um, and just to keep that in mind, regardless of what you hear this evening, if you have any additional questions for me or need clarification on that, feel free to reach >> um I guess I'm confused on the we would all need to vote the same way if there's like we need three to one vote or like I don't >> so if there are only three remaining BLA members and this is new for me as well. It's the first time I'm covering BLA, but it's also new for me um as a rule because normally three would be a quorum and you only need a majority. But there is a odd rule in our procedures um in section 27 that says of the authority shall constitute a quorum and the authority shall act only on an affirmative vote of at least three members. Um, and that is directly from

[256:04] the Boulder Revised Code section 2-3-1C. That also requires um three members to vote um to act. And so if one of you were to leave this evening, you would have three remaining and that would mean that you need unanimous. If all four of you remain through the hearings this evening, you could do a three to one as long as you have majority. And as you know, an even split would be a fail. >> Is that new? Is that new? Because we've I've never heard that before. >> I'm reading um the procedural rules section 27. Um I'm not sure when these were passed. Um, and I don't believe that's new. This section of the code is it looks like it's from 1981.

[257:00] >> I know that last hearing when our fourth we had five and two would end up dropping off and we only had three and no one said anything about that. And I was on this board for four or five years now and we've definitely had where we don't have it filled and there's only three of many meetings with only three of us. So I'm I'm definitely there. So, you can have three and hold the meeting. That's a quorum. That's no problem. Um, but the the rule is acting on an application, you would need all three to vote >> the same way. >> Yeah, it says only on an affirmative vote of at least three members. And my Zoom is acting up. So, I apologize if I'm going to have to restart, but I'm going to stay even though now you can't see me. As long as you can hear me. Um, I

[258:01] I don't know what to say. I've never heard that. Kristen Caitlyn, is that like new? Um, well, Sarah's more an attorney than I am, as in she is one and I'm not. But, um, no, the reason that it's never come up just as a person who has historical knowledge of the board is because you've never had a split vote when there's only three of you. >> So, um, that was just, yeah, that was just a preemptive thing. And I apologize if we opened a little can of worms, but it doesn't change anything. you know, that's the only reason that you've never heard that before is because historically it hasn't been very often that there's only three of you, first of all, and second of all, um there hasn't ever been a split vote with the three that I can remember. So, >> may I ask um are we losing a member? I mean, is that a possibility here? Because we have four right now. >> Yeah, I brought it up because I was warned that that might happen. Um, so it's speculation and I wanted to just

[259:03] preemptively bring that up so everyone's aware of what would happen if somebody did drop off and also the fact that um it appears this is this meeting is going to go pretty late. So yes, >> I don't I'm not really sure what to do. Um, this has been this is obviously community service for us. Matters come before us. I find it only fair that everybody gets heard. I'm not comfortable making a decision or voting one way or the other without both parties feeling heard. Um, our meetings are long because they put a long agenda. So, um, I'm pretty sure our last hearing 00 p.m. I was contacted by the city's attorney off the city attorney office telling me that this one would go past 11 p.m. tonight as well. Um, so with that said, and I don't know what to do except

[260:00] proceed with what's fair to our presenters. Um, so can we I guess let's try to move quickly with in mind that everybody still gets to be heard because that's only fair. Yes. And Chair Roberts, just to clarify, um you every it can proceed as normal when there's three members. So there's nothing >> as long as we vote the same. Like I don't understand >> if you don't Well, there's other options at that point. I would imagine I can go over with you. Um I don't think you would if there's not if there's three members, you don't have to stop the meeting or anything like that to clarify. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. >> Yes. Yes. That's a quorum. We can hold the meeting with a quorum. That's what the rules say and that's what Sarah was saying. I think her zoom went out a little bit. Okay. Yeah, it looks like we Yeah, we lost her. But I'm just clarifying what she said. >> Okay, I'm back.

[261:00] >> Oh, there she is. >> Okay, just to clarify, there is no problem with however long we go this evening and that is a commendable position to take. Um, certainly taking evidence um and everyone should feel comfortable doing that. I was just preemptively letting you know there is this rule. So if somebody were to leave early and they were debating whether or not to leave, this may be information they can use um to make the decision to stay rather than leave if possible. Um, so you know, it was just a public service announcement, not meant to, um, you know, open any other can of worms, but I'm here, um, to answer any questions on that if needed. >> Okay, great. Thank you. And hopefully we will all stick around because we committed to. Okay, with that, um, let's get back on

[262:03] track. Attorney Derek King, would you like to call your next witness? >> Yes, Dr. William Berman, please. >> And Mr. Burman, if you'll go ahead and raise your hand so I can let you in. And I think that perfect. Hello, Dr. Berman. Um, because you are not testifying as an interested party, um, I will have you give your address, but we won't need to check it. If you'll just go ahead and say your name and spell your name for the record, and then um, give an address for the record. >> William Berman, that's B U R M, and I live at 1560 North Ogden, Unit E, Denver, Colorado

[263:03] 8203. Thank you so much. And if you'll raise your right hand, do these were or affirm that the statements you're about to give before the beverage licensing authority are true and correct? >> Yes. >> Thank you so much, Dr. Burman. Go ahead. >> Dr. Burman, thank you for being here and for hanging in as we went later than we expected. Um, can you please tell us what profession you're engaged in? >> Yes, I'm a physician and I've worked in public health and infectious disease my entire career. >> And how long have you been practicing? uh close to 40 years >> and uh can you just give us a little more about your professional qualifications and experience over those 40 years? >> Yeah, I think the most relevant experience is that I was the director of Denver public health for 10 years from 2011 to to 2022. And as part of being the director of public health, I spent a great deal of time evaluating the factors that result

[264:01] in injury and poor health in communities across Colorado and specifically in Denver. >> So would you say you're knowledgeable about the public safety and health impacts of alcohol sales? >> Yes, it's been an area of focus for mine for about eight years. >> [clears throat] >> Are you presently involved with or engaged in any efforts to promote alcohol safety and reduce harm caused by alcohol? >> I am. I'm a founding founding member of a nonprofit called the Colorado um Alcohol Impacts Coalition. >> Thinking of Colorado overall, just zooming way out, um what what are the major alcohol issues in Colorado at present? >> I think you can summarize them as we drink hard and we pay the price. Um, so we rank towards the top of states in alcohol consumption. It varies in different analyses, but it's number eight or number nine in in a number of analyses in per capita alcohol

[265:01] consumption. And when I say the pay we pay the price, the easiest way to illustrate that is that the alcohol-related death rate in Colorado is double that of the country as a whole. And it's increased substantially over the past 10 years, approximately doubled. And are you aware of any research or data relating to youth and alcohol access in Colorado? >> Sure. The best source of data about youth access to alcohol comes from an annual survey done called the Healthy Kids Colorado survey. It's done on middle and high school students across the state and it's the the most recent data available is from 2023 survey. And uh what does that data say about alcohol use in Colorado and and any problems related to that? >> I think the most uh concerning data is the percent of of students who are in the survey say that they've engaged in

[266:01] binge drinking in the past 30 days and that's defined as five drinks within a couple of hours. That's 12% for Colorado was a whole 19% for for Boulder County. and and I Roberts you said to talk speak up and so it is the discretion the authority and I get it if you want to listen to to everything that's that's being discussed but this really is not relevant to the proceeding of need and desire particularly as it relates to for instance underage drinking statistics because because you've already heard the testimony we haven't had a single violation and there's and and and again these things are all legal We're talking about a legal thing being allowed to sell beer and wine from a grocery store. So, so I'm not sure how it's relevant to these type of statistics, these type of issues and problems associated with alcohol to

[267:00] essentially this criteria that the board is going to consider. So, I'll state that and I appreciate your comments and I'll try tried to make it as quick as I could. I'm happy to talk about the relevance if the board would like to hear that. >> I think I understand uh maybe where this is going and I am interested if it has to do with youth access. >> Thank you. So, Dr. Burman, if you could finish what you had started to say about um youth access to alcohol. >> Yeah, I I gave you the data on binge drinking. The other the other question that concerns me is there's a question about is it easy to get alcohol and in the state 51% of again these are high school students said it's easy to get alcohol if they wanted in Boulder it was 61%. >> Okay. >> Miss Kellogg could you please um put up opponent exhibit five please? >> Absolutely. Give me one second.

[268:10] Does that look correct? >> That's correct. Dr. Berman, um, this is a picture taken inside a Whole Foods grocery store in Longmont showing a temporary alcohol display immediately adjacent to the selfch checkckout area. From a public health and safety perspective, do you have any thoughts or observations about this type of alcohol display? I'm concerned about greater availability uh is associated with greater consumption and greater consumption leads to the kind of serious health consequences, serious public safety con consequences that have been discussed. So greater availability is a problem from my public health lens. >> From the perspective of youth access to alcohol, you can see in the background of this photo, this is close to the exit door. So, a selfch checkckout station

[269:00] where there's 12 approximately registers being monitored by one employee and then the exit door immediately uh beyond that. Um, with that type of setup and display of alcohol, do you see any impacts in terms of minor access to alcohol? >> I'm and I'm not I'm really not trying to prolong this and I apologize, but we're talking about an exhibit that hasn't been admitted. We're showing and displaying an exhibit that hasn't been admitted and we're talking about another store in another location that's not here within this defined neighborhood. So I I that's my objection. >> I haven't offered the exhibit into evidence, but I believe it is helpful in Dr. Burman's testimony making sense for the for the authority. >> Again, my opinion is that increased availability increases the chance of underage sales. And so, yes, it concerns me. >> Okay, Miss Kellogg, would you move to opponent exhibit, please? >> Sorry. Um, just to interrupt, um, the

[270:01] board just needed to make a ruling on the objection before proceeding. So, there's this exhibit. It hasn't been admitted to the record. It's on the screen. Mr. Durking is asking questions about it to a witness. Um, you've heard an objection from Mr. post that it is irrelevant and a picture of a store outside the jurisdiction. So the BLA just needs to make a determination on that objection to either sustain it or overrule it and allow Mr. Derking to proceed or not >> to proceed showing this photo or to proceed um I guess is the objection the the objection is the photo. >> The objection is a photo of testimony regarding the store at another outside. Yeah, I don't need I I I would agree with that. Um I think that we could hear factual information about grocery stores and the how this

[271:02] grocery store will be set up versus how they um show other grocery stores without this exhibit. >> I I can do it verbally. So, Miss Kellogg, please remove that uh exhibit at this time. Dr. Berman, I want you to imagine a grocery store. Um, and near the selfch checkout station, there are case stacks of wine and immediately behind the selfch checkckout station there is the exit door. Um, would you find any concerns from a youth access to alcohol perspective from having alcohol displayed like this in a grocery store at a selfch checkckout station with 12 or more registers monitored by one employee and the exit door immediately behind? >> Yes. >> And what is the concern? >> It's it's greater availability is associated with greater consumption and

[272:00] greater complications. >> Okay. Dr. And I'm now going to ask you to imagine a big box type store. Um, think of like Walmart, Target, Costco, that sort of store that also sells groceries. And imagine that as you walk into that type of a store, and it could be a grocery store as well. Um, almost immediately upon walking in, there is a temporary alcohol display, could be beer or wine, but it's stacked right in the main aisle where pretty much everyone who walks into the store will be confronted by that and has to walk around it to continue to shop. From the perspective of people who have alcoholism or who are recovering from substance abuse, do you have any concerns about that type of alcohol display? >> Yes, I'm a primary care provider as well. I take care of lots of patients with alcohol use disorder. Um I think it it is problematic for them. >> In your professional opinion, um for a

[273:01] neighborhood, would it be a net positive or a net negative for the public health and safety of that neighborhood for a grocery store to sell alcohol inside the grocery store rather than in an adjacent separate liquor store where all the employees are over age 21? unaccompanied minors do not shop. There's no selfch checkout and people who enter that store are going there specifically to purchase alcohol. >> It's the same objection. I mean, there's so many irrelevant things related to this hearing in that question and so many speculative things with respect to this. We have presented nothing that said that we're going to put alcohol in front of the store. We have said nothing that that indicates that we're going to do anything other than follow the law associated with temporary displays and permanent displays. So, so I I I I'm making this objection because I feel like we're wasting this doctor's time and he >> So, that's my objection. >> I would sustain it at this time. It is getting a little bit um out of

[274:01] [clears throat] this scope. >> Okay, fair enough. Um with that, Dr. Burman, uh that ends my questions. Thank you for being here. >> Certainly. Thank you, Dr. Bur. >> Cross. >> I have no cross. I just have a quick a quick question. You kept using the term availability. Do you mean that miners are more likely to use a fake ID and get away with it? Do you mean theft? What do we mean availability? >> I was speaking in a broader sense, not specifically about minors. the easier you make to buy make it to buy alcohol. Alcohol gets bought more and there are more resultant complications because of it. I wasn't trying to make a comment about a very specific situation and fake IDs and things like that. I have no specific knowledge of that. >> Okay.

[275:01] >> Have a couple of questions when you're done. Sorry. Um, uh, yes, member Crane. >> Very short questions. First of all, are you in favor of alcohol being sold in grocery stores in general? >> No. >> Okay. Second, uh do you have a a qualified professional opinion on whether the uh uh closure of the liquor store adjacent to this Whole Foods and and the establishment of selling wine and beer at this Whole Foods will result in more or less sales of alcohol within this area of Boulder? >> I don't. >> Okay. how to put together that opinion. >> That's all I have. >> Great. Thank you so much.

[276:02] >> Okay, we can >> please proceed. >> We could let Dr. Rman go. Thank you, doctor. Really appreciate you being here. >> Sure. My next witness is Tom Willis, who will also testify as an expert in rebuttal to testimony provided by Whole Foods witnesses. Mr. Willis um is not a party in interest, but he's a professional land surveyor who can testify about maps and area measurements. I'm just wondering uh you know what I'm going to leave that to the board to ask Ashley the question about relevancy on the map. >> Yeah, I would need a little bit more relevancy. >> So if we could it might help if I can pull up an exhibit we've looked at earlier which was a map submitted by Whole Foods and which Mr. Coats did not object to when we talked about it before. or if we could pull up opponent

[277:01] exhibit three, please. >> And I I I did object to opposition exhibits particularly because they had not been admitted. Now, this is the same exhibit that's in ours. So, I understand this one. >> Yeah, exactly. This this is your own document um submitted on behalf of your client. Both Mr. Rich and Mr. Haney testified about this map. They testified about areas. There's square footages listed on this map. Mr. Willis has professional expertise regarding the prior testimony that will rebut information submitted to the city and his testimony is relevant in determining the truth or falsehood of information submitted by this applicant that's probitative to the decision the board will make. You're talking about the space the like the square footage >> square footage measurements. Correct.

[278:05] >> Um I feel like that door was opened because we have been discussing this and we asked specific questions around this. I'm not sure relevance at this point but I do feel like the door is open. I [clears throat] I guess I object to the relevance at this point because this display area clearly defines the area, right? And it clearly defines basically the green is where the alcohol is going to be kept and where the alcohol is going to be stored. So I I don't understand why we're continuing to go down that path on a cumulative level. >> My response that is Mr. Willis is going to provide testimony that will contravert testimony given by Whole Foods witnesses. Um, additionally, I'm going to pull up another exhibit, which is simply a state liquor regulation that

[279:01] will show that some of the testimony given by Whole Foods contradicts state law. And so, it is highly relevant to the board in determining what you're approving. Um, the applicant has been changing their story fast and furiously from the map and applications they submitted to their two different witnesses tonight. And I think the board would like to hear from a professional um, who actually is in the business of establishing correct measurements. Mr. Willis is not going to testify in favor or in opposition. He's simply going to provide factual information about correct measurements that will be helpful to you in understanding the state law that I'm going to get into later. C can we at least know what the state law is? >> It is the alcohol regulation related to temporary alcohol displays and permanent alcohol displays. Mr. Coats has made a big deal out of objecting to exhibits. He's had these exhibits for a long time, the exhibits that we're talking about here, because uh I know for a fact that

[280:03] the licensing staff provided them to him weeks ago. the so the testimony previously related to temporary versus permanent displays. It said that predominantly that blue area is going to be used for temporary displays in the area, but not 100%. So, I'm not sure what the relevance is in terms of this state law, which which which again we have to comply with. We've we've got testimony that we'll comply with. We know we have to comply with. We know what the numbers are associated what's allowed for temporary displays. This is this shouldn't be an attack on the fact that we can have temporary displays. This shouldn't be an attack on the fact that that we can have a permanent section if approved by the authority. So, I'm not I just don't quite follow what what >> Yeah, that's not what it's about. Mr. Willis is going to testify to very different numbers than what whole foods folks testified to. It's directly one for one controverting evidence. Party A puts up a witness who says the sky is green. I put up a witness who says the

[281:00] sky is blue. That is just basic. There's nothing irrelevant about it. The amount of time that Mr. Coats is taking up tonight trying to keep information away from the authority on these technical grounds is causing this hearing to go really long. We could have been finished with this exhibit and Mr. Willis by now. >> I chair >> I asked the chair how this relates to the needs and and desires of the community. I mean, the licensing is up to the state and to the local authorities on on this kind of an issue, I think, but maybe I'm wrong. I think um yeah, I I'm not quite sure I understand the the part of they submitted something that goes against state guidelines. I feel like that's I I'm not sure I follow that. >> [sighs and gasps] >> The reason why it feels a little

[282:00] relevant is only because we belabored how much square footage is actually allowed to hold liquor versus what the size of the store currently. But I they are bound by state laws. And so although maybe I don't agree with temporary displays, there's nothing that I don't know how we um how [clears throat] we would get around I and not me. I don't know why I said that, but like yeah, I'm not sure. I understand. >> I I don't know if you'd like to hear from me, but I I could explain. I feel like there's a misunderstanding and Mr. Coats maybe has misunderstood as well. I'm not disputing um the issue about where they're going to have temporary displays. That's not what we're talking about. What I'm going to say is Mr. Willis is going to provide a very focused, relatively straightforward

[283:01] professional surveyor uh information about correct and accurate measurements. I will explain why those measurements are relevant referring to the liquor regulation in question. And one of the things that will show is that the square footage testified to by Whole Foods uh employees um is inaccurate in a couple of respects. Number one, it's inaccurate just as a matter of simple measurement and mathematics. And two, it's inaccurate because it does not the the definition of the permanent alcohol display area does not comport with what they're showing on this map. what the authority would be approving if you approved this map um would not comply with that liquor regulation. And that's the point I would like to be able to make to you. Excluding this information, I don't see how it helps the authority make a more informed choice. And in fact, it could compromise um the due process of the hearing by preventing a party from rebutting testimony provided by another party.

[284:04] >> I I don't see Oh, sorry. Please go ahead. I apologize. >> Well, you go ahead. >> No, you please. You >> Well, [laughter] I was just going to say that I don't I disagree about with respect to due process. The due process is defined for this quasi judicial hearing by state and local rules and laws. And this is a limited hearing as um member Crane has has brought up with respect to the needs and desires and um the factors the BLA needs to consider for this modification and um if uh Mr. Durking can make you know an argument with respect to the relevancy of the square footage um to those factors then that would be one thing. But if the BLA believes as a body that that's irrelevant to the needs and desires and and the burden of proof on the applicant, um then it would be

[285:01] irrelevant and that would not be a due process um violation to exclude within your discretion uh evidence that again is cumulative, duplicative and the like because Mr. Durking has had an opportunity to present evidence um and that specific evidence. you'd be making a ruling that this is either irrelevant, in which case he has no right to present that evidence, or you'd be making a ruling, assuming you're excluding it, that it's duplicative, in which case Mr. Derking has already presented the evidence um you know, one time or more than one time. and and I I agree with 100% of everything that said and and regardless of of of measurement that area accurately depicts where the alcohol is going to be kept and and it shows and it was testified to by two witnesses as to as to that area. So that's the area we're going to be

[286:00] bound by. So regardless of of what's there in relation to the rest of the store, right, the testimony coming in that it's going to be obviously similar or less beer and wine that's even in the liquor store now. So the question is in terms of a measurement, how that ties in anything related to where the alcohol is going to be kept and what the type of the alcohol is going to be sold because that's what the requirement is under the code is what it shows. Doesn't say anything about dimensions. It doesn't say anything about square footage. It talks specifically about placement and display and area and storage and that map speaks for itself and shows Mr. Coats um his witnesses and and in his question questions himself have repeatedly claimed that they're reducing the size of the alcohol area and kept focusing on how small it would be. And even though the testimony given by Mr. Haney was a little confused, um that was a point that they tried to make. I'd like to be able to rebut that point. Um I don't believe this is duplicative. Um

[287:01] I couldn't have brought in um the information I want to bring in on cross-examination. I need to bring in direct examination. Um I don't have someone who works for Whole Foods who wants to testify for me about this map. So we've engaged a professional who's in the business of looking at measurements. And when he provides information, if the authority feels that it's irrelevant, you can disregard it or you can give it very little weight. Or maybe there'll be some information that you find probative. And I do think it relates to needs and desires because whether the community, whether the neighborhood needs and desires this license change to happen um relates to how much alcohol there's going to be. Um you heard witnesses talk about their concern about removing food from the grocery store and putting in alcohol. So, are we talking about 302 ft² or are we talking about 5,700 ft²? I think the authority would like to know. Mr. Willis can help you determine that. And I I don't see how excluding his testimony will help the

[288:01] authority make a better decision. Um, it uh [sighs and gasps] I would have to um I would have to side with um Attorney Derking on this one simply because the witnesses for Whole Foods couldn't answer my questions about how much can be displayed. And to me, I look at that and see 1 2 3 4 five aisles of wine and that does seem a little excessive. So I'm I am trying to understand how much is going to be on display. And so with that, because the Whole Foods witnesses couldn't answer my questions, I would be inclined to hear this witness. Uh members from the authority, do you have any objections, comments?

[289:00] I agree. >> Thank you, Member Burns. You may proceed. >> Thank you, Tom Willis, please. >> Um, would you still like the exhibits up? >> Yes, please. >> Give me one second so I can admit Okay. And I'm actually going to stop sharing for just the time being so that I can see what is happening here and we can all see Mr. Willis. Uh Mr. Willis, if you can unmute and turn your camera on. Perfect. Thank you so much. Um since you are not an interested party but an expert witness, I will not ask your address. um for the purpose of determining witnesses w I'm

[290:01] sorry interested parties but if you could please say your name and spell your name for the record and give an address for the record. >> Okay. My name is Tom Willis. That's T O M W I L L I S and my business address is 3825 Iris [clears throat] Avenue Boulder 80301. >> Thank you so much. If you'll raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony about to give before the beverage licensing authority is true and correct? >> I do. Yes. >> Thank you so much. And board, you can proceed. >> Thank you. Mr. Willis, would you please tell us what profession you're engaged in? >> I'm a professional land surveyor. >> How long have you been working in that field? >> Uh, approximately 40 years. >> And what's the name of your company? >> Flat Iron Surveying. Uh can you tell us a little bit more about the company and the history and the type of work that you do? >> We've done um land boundaries um square

[291:02] footage analysis um we um measure buildings and become get square footage of um [clears throat] buildings and boundaries and we also do construction staking and measurements of that sort. Okay. Um, Miss Kellogg, could we have opponent exhibit 3 back up, please? >> Yes. One point. >> And Mr. Willis, you've seen this before. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Yes. >> And uh you were engaged to um look at the measurements on this and independently confirm them. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Yes. You can see the exhibit says that the total square footage which um is indicated by the area in dark black is 66,154 square ft. When you calculated it um

[292:00] what uh square footage did you get? >> 66,12. >> So that's um the black line is a little bit um thick. So >> yeah, pretty close. Yes. And what method did you use to calculate that square footage? >> We um measured the um perimeter of the [clears throat] black line and um calculated square feet. >> And did you also calculate the area of the box that's highlighted in blue? >> We did. Yes. >> And what's the square footage of that area? That one was um 5,749 square ft. >> Okay. And uh did you also calculate the area of just the green boxes shown on this map? >> Yes, we did. >> And what's the area of those? >> 824

[293:01] square ft. >> Okay. And in your professional opinion, what would you say is the accuracy of your measurements? Like what what would be a reasonable margin of error? Um since we didn't actually do on the ground measurements, it's um within 10%. Okay. So you see the map says primary display area approximately 302 square ft. Is there any chance at all that the area in blue or the areas in green make up 302 ft? >> No. 302 square feet would be a square 15 feet by 15 feet. >> Okay, I have no further questions. >> Cross. >> Thank you. Mr. Willis, were you shown the blown up version of all the green area on the second page of this exhibit?

[294:02] >> The blown I've only seen this exhibit. This is, in other words, that's specifically what I'm asking. This is the only thing that you were shown. No other maps than this. >> No, we were asked to be um measure the square footage of this um map, this exhibit >> and and 15 by 15 is 225 square feet, is it not? >> 15 by 15 is 300. I'm sorry. It's been a long day. Well,

[295:07] 225 square feet. Sorry. >> Okay. So, that's your math. So basically what I'm what I'm asking you is um and again confirming this is all you saw from Mr. Derking, right? You didn't see any other exhibits or the second part of the exhibit that went with this? >> No, I did not. >> Very good. I have no additional questions. >> Mr. Willis, um, when you looked at this map, um, I know there's a scale on it, and, uh, were you able to accurately determine the areas of the blue and the green with this map, or did you need a map that was more zoomed in? >> We didn't need need that with dimensions. We um, imported this into AutoCAD and we could um, scale it to the dimensions that were

[296:01] shown on the um, drawing. Okay, thank you. No further questions. >> Um, are we saying which part is 225 ft? >> I use as as an example of um where the primary display area is approximately 302 square ft. Mr. Derking was asking me about that and I was just trying to explain how um a size would get you close to 302. That was an example. Sorry. Probably a poor example, but it's late. >> Okay. Any questions from the authority? Okay, you may proceed.

[297:02] >> Thank you, Mr. Willis. We can excuse you at this point. Thanks for hanging around late and sharing your information with us. >> Thank you. >> The next witness I want to call I I know is the one Mr. Coats really wants to debate. Um, but I'd like to call Adam Johnson. And I'm happy to provide some reasons why the authority should listen to this testimony. U, Mr. Johnson is not a party in interest. He is being called as an expert to rebut testimony and evidence submitted by the applicant. specifically information related to the applicant's neighborhood survey. Both reviewing the report submitted by the applicant and providing expert testimony about red flags and um issues and concerns as a professional surveyor that one can see from looking at that report. Additionally talking

[298:02] about um what actions are generally accepted in the professional neighborhood survey field when a survey may be in question to do a test sample to find out if the information of that survey can be replicated. We are not submitting this survey um as a separate survey to prove something to the authority. rather we're submitting it to rebutt evidence submitted by the applicant. Uh Mr. Coats made a big deal out of not having had it early. Um one of the things you'll hear later in testimony is the applicant's behavior about how this application was pursued and attempting to make sure that known party opponents did not know about it until as late as possible. Um it is true that had the December hearing proceeded on schedule, had we not had

[299:01] the windstorm, um we did not have adequate time to test the survey results. So it is true that this is evidence that wouldn't have been available had it been at this hearing in December. However, um as known party opponents, we didn't even know about the application in time 10 days before the hearing. An applicant is in a very different position than an opponent. And they know what they're doing months in advance. They can hire their lawyers, they can hire their survey people, they can schedule it, they can do it in such a way that they've done all that work before the opponents even know what's going on. And the hearings come up so fast. And Miss Darrow and Mr. Ramirez know this as a fact. I I was certainly in a panic mode in those few days before the December hearing because I couldn't even get copies of the information submitted by Whole Foods without submitting an open records act request. Um we had absolutely no opportunity to

[300:00] test the information they were submitting to the board. And I submit to you and I'll provide testimony later uh that that was by design. Um, since the hearing was continued, we did have the opportunity to engage a professional to take a look at this survey and provide some rebuttal evidence. Um, I did not receive that report until today. I did check in with uh, Miss Darrow about whether I would be able to share my screen myself, what was the appropriate thing to do. Um, and I provided it to the city. I assume they provided it to Mr. Coats. Um it wasn't done uh with the intention of making it difficult for people to check, but it was just the time that we were able to get that put together given that we didn't have months in advance to plan for this like the applicant did. I believe the testimony and the written evidence that we would like to submit from Mr. Johnson is highly relevant. Um, as the board

[301:02] knows on needs and desires, for the most part, the vast majority of the time, you're relying solely on these surveys. And it's rare that you actually hear anything other than the testimony of the survey companies whose job it is to get 90% results and who deliver that over and over and over again. You've already heard some witnesses earlier tonight talk about anomalies in what the signature gatherer um for Whole Foods was saying and doing and the results of the petitioning raised red flags aside from that which might confirm that testimony. Additionally, the sample surveying that was done to see whether the results could be replicated will show that the petition submitted by the applicant is highly doubtful. And if anything, if if really the applicant is completely certain that their results are valid, um, we could

[302:02] continue the hearing and survey the whole neighborhood in an unbiased way and probably get the right answer. I'm sure Mr. Coats won't want to do that. I would have no objection to continuing the hearing and getting more data because I'm confident that the survey results they presented could not be replicated and I'd like to provide the information that we have, the expert testimony and the exhibits for the board's consideration. Um, if Mr. Coats wants time to go through the addresses and check all these people and see whether they live within the neighborhood, I have no objection to continuing the hearing to next month. But I would like to submit this evidence because I think it's highly probative and highly relevant to the needs and desires determination. >> Please proceed. >> Well, may may I may I may I voice my objection actually? >> Yes, >> please. Thank you. Um those statements are well guys in an attack on on Whole

[303:02] Foods for I guess not giving enough time and notice which is wrong. We gave all the time and notice and complied with every single rule you have associated with filing our application, preparing for hearing, posting and filing petitions. Period. So really, it's an attack more on the city's process. Okay? Because the city basically is outlined in its in its beverage license and authority rules of procedure, which Mr. Durkin is aware of. He has a license. He's an attorney. He he he's held as is just a common citizen business owner. He he's held to the same standard as an attorney, but he is an attorney. And it and it and it reads subsection 4-2-1, petitions permitted. It reads clearly, "Petitions may be circulated by the applicant firm or corporation retained by the applicant or any party in interest

[304:00] opposing or supporting the issuance of the license. Petition shall be submitted to the licency clerk no later than 10 days before the public hearing. Petitions are not the only means of establishing real requires reasonable requirements for the neighborhood, the desires of the adult inhabitant." So it was due 10 days before per rule, but this argument that he didn't have time to do it. Remember this hearing got continued. So he was on notice of this and all of the rules back from December 17th. He certainly within 20 days or 25 days or and that doesn't even include the days that he had to prepare for the hearing knowing about it prior to to December 17th >> could have hired a petitioning company and could have could have put on a petition. So, we've played by the rules, right? And and and Mr. Durkin has constantly gone back to due process and discussions about that. it would be unfair to us to basically to to to take away essentially uh the rule

[305:02] and say, "Oh, well, it's okay for you, but it's not okay for the applicant." And so, we're asking no testimony associated with needs and desires from this particular witness because it didn't follow local procedure. 45. So last minute is is is not on the applicant, it's on it's on the opposition. So I'd ask the authority to to eliminate this testimony, eliminate this exhibit and not and not hear it. >> May I respond to that? >> Yes, please. >> So the the distinction I'd like to draw is we're not offering this petition to oppose the license. We're not saying we petitioned the entire neighborhood to prove to you that the neighborhood doesn't need and desire this. Rather, what Mr. Johnson will testify as a professional and as an expert in this field that when results from a survey

[306:02] petition have red flags or have questions, there are known methodologies that can be used to test that. In the same way that a scientific research paper um another researcher doesn't do the entire experiment but can do a test sample to see if the result can be replicated. Um so the rule that Mr. Coat sites really doesn't even apply to this. This is about rebuttal. They've pres provided testimony and some of the testimony we heard for the first time tonight. again excluding the evidence, excluding any chance for the authority to hear about potential deficiencies or abnormalies in the petition effort. I don't see how that helps the authority make a better decision. After you hear the testimony, you can take it to wait if you feel that um it doesn't meet the standards or you could choose to disregard it and not allow us to um admit the petition results. Um, but I

[307:02] would ask you to please hear from Mr. Johnson so you can at least make that determination of whether we've provided evidence that the board feels the authority feels probitative to rebutting the evidence presented on behalf of Whole Foods. >> Brief response. >> The rule does not distinguish between case and chief and rebuttal. Your rule clearly says petitions have to be filed in advance of 10 days in advance of a hearing because it gives the applicant or for the that matter the opposition witness the same opportunity to review it to question it to look at it to see what it is that's being challenged. And that wasn't done here. That wasn't done here. So, this isn't just a rebuttal from the standpoint of trying to challenge the testimony of of of Miss Garrison. He had that opportunity through cross-examination to do that. He has that opportunity through calling specific witnesses such that he did

[308:01] associated with with participation in the in the petition. This is trying to call an expert witness to rebut a statement to rebut. The comment is to rebut, but it doesn't make any difference. It doesn't make any He's supposed to give us that advanced warning. He's supposed to, in other words, make this a level playing field on petitions and methodology of an expert associated with that needs and desires analysis. And he and he didn't do that. He had opportunity to do it. He knew it. He could. and he I I don't know if he knew, but I'm pretty sure he did that that the rule exists and that the rule has to be followed with and that and that he was certainly taking a big risk saying that well this is just rebuttal. Fact of the matter is the rule doesn't distinguish between rebuttal. It doesn't distinguish between rebuttal and case and cheat. It's specific as it relates to petitions. They need to be filed 10 days

[309:00] in advance and that's to give everybody a fair chance and opportunity here. We don't we don't want to continue this or do this again. We're we're we're not asking for that. We're asking the fact that we had to follow the rules. Mr. Durkin should have had to follow the rules as well. Part This isn't me making this argument in dece December 17th. I'm sorry. Yes. December 17th. This is making this argument 40 days later when when he had all of this time to be able to submit this information to the authority, submit it to council for the authority to submit it to the city to have it be vetted for the information that it contains. So we'd object to that >> to the timing. >> Oh, go ahead. Um just to the extent it's helpful in addition to the rule about the petitions which is true they need to be submitted 10 days in advance it's my understanding that the boundary setting hearing for this matter was noticed on November 9th 2025 and set um at the

[310:02] November 19th hearing and that you know um as we've already discussed the um hearing for the prior December 17th or 18th hearing date was noticed on December 7th. Um, and so there were quite a few notices prior to the December 11th rescheduled notice for this hearing. Um, so there was time to create and submit um additional petitions and to comply with the rule just so you have that actual background. >> Thank you. Yes, >> if I may, the the things I will add is that, you know, the the not the constructive notice, you know, putting it in the newspaper, putting a sign in the window, it it's a legal nicity we call a legal fiction that that actually tells anyone anything useful. Um, the reality, and Miss Darl and Ms. Ramirez

[311:00] know this, is that I actually found out about this when their signature gather came to Hazel's, and the following day I heard about it. At that time, um, there was no way that we could have even possibly had any chance of doing any petitioning. And even once I found out the hearing was scheduled, I immediately started trying to hire petition companies. But here's an interesting fact. Um, petition companies who do liquor petitions don't do opposition petitions generally. That was my experience. Took a while to find someone who could do it. And then people can't drop everything and go do them. So the expert that I have and the results that we have, we obtained as quickly as we could and I have said before and I'm happy to say it under oath, I I received the final report today. Um so it wasn't like we were sandbagging or sitting on this. Um also in the testimony you'll hear later about Whole Foods having conversations with me last April. Um so

[312:04] it's not like we didn't all know about this. Mr. Coats never sent me anything. The only way I was able to get documents related to this were to submit open records act requests to the city and I got documents literally a couple business days before the hearing. Um the staff has been wonderful. I give them credit. Um but the suggestion that there's some kind of level playing field between the applicant and opponents is um that that is incred it's I it just doesn't hold water. So respectfully, I would ask you to at least hear from Mr. uh Johnson and if you decide the testimony is irrelevant, you can disregard it. Um and whether or not you allow me to admit the exhibits or some of them, maybe not all, not all of them are petitions actually, um I think it is probitative and it goes back to are you only going to hear Whole Food side or are you going to hear the opponent's side? And that's the whole nature of due

[313:00] process. You hear from both sides. Mr. Coats would really like to use evidence and procedure to have you only hear one side. I'd like you to hear the whole side. >> I I I just want to say this isn't using evidence and procedure, right? These are your rules. This is this board's rules. This isn't this isn't a procedure that's that that relates to to evidence for this hearing. This is your rule. And Mr. Durking knew at a minimum about this hearing on December 2nd. Right. That's that's at a minimum. I mean, I understand Council Miss Gger has indicated that they should have known it back in November when when the first hearing was set for boundaries and notice went out. But at a minimum, when liquor pros, the testimony you've already heard, went in and talked and you'd heard it from two witnesses actually, went in and talked about the petition, that was December 2nd. So that's that's 50 days ago, you

[314:00] know, and and so again, I guess the question is is are we just going to not follow the rules with Whole Foods or is this going to apply to everybody? the late submission of >> Absolutely. >> I guess I am confus when uh let me just back up a second. Are we looking at a new survey or we're looking at a an analysis of their survey? >> You're looking at a new survey that talks about their methodology. >> No, I actually I dispute that. Um, the report starts by critiquing and the testimony will start by critiquing the liquor pro survey and report and bringing up anomalies and things that from a professional perspective jump out as questionable. And then we're going to talk about the methodology they recommended to do a test of those results. It's not a new

[315:02] survey to compete. They didn't try to survey a representative part of the whole neighborhood. They just picked an area and said can we replicate these results? So it is not a onetoone like they have this survey and we have our survey that's different. Mr. Johnson and the Black Diamond outreach report are a critique of liquor pros uh survey the applicant survey and provide information that goes to the weight and credibility the authority may want to give that >> if I may. You're not looking at the petition because it hasn't been admitted yet. Okay? And I'm by no way saying that it should be admitted based upon reading this first statement from the petition and survey that Mr. Mr. Durkin is applying for. But it says purpose and scope of engagement. At the request of the client, a sample neighborhood car canvasing and survey effort was conducted to assess whether the proposed modifications whole fields market liquor license satisfies the reasonable

[316:02] requirements, needs, and desires of the neighborhood. goes on goes on by by page two it talks about its own methodology uh and by page two it talks about the metrics and then what the results were this is a petition and survey this is not this is not [laughter] I get it it's a petition and survey it's clearly done it states that it is and and it was done and again I'm back to this is just unfair it's unfair to drop this on my lap and say quarter to three Hey, deal with this. We're We want to get this in. >> Why Why is it so late? Why [sighs] Why happened? Why didn't you have this in time? >> Yeah. As as soon as we knew that the December hearing wasn't going to happen. We fully expected we were going to have to proceed in December and the windstorm caused the hearing to be continued. It was right over Christmas at that point. it was difficult to get a hold of people

[317:01] um and identify someone who was willing to do this survey. Opposition liquor surveys are not a profitable business like applicant liquor surveys are. Um there's at least three companies who specialize basically do their business is to do liquor surveys for applicants that it's a ready steady business. But in the same way that defense attorneys don't do prosecution and you know people kind of pick a side and stay on it understandably, uh, liquor pros and folks like them don't do opposition surveys. Um, and so as an opponent, it's very hard to find someone who can do this. Um, I did a bunch of networking. I finally found Black Diamond Outreach, Mr. Johnson's company. I engaged them. Um, I asked them to proceed with all speed. Um it took time because they've got to get canvasers and get out and do the neighborhood and find people and a lot of people aren't home. It's hard to get to a sample. But again, it was not to do a competing survey. It was to

[318:00] review the survey that was submitted and do a sample. And they do have to try to replicate. And so that means they have to follow the same general approach so that it meets the city's requirements and and meets what the applicant surveyor should have been doing. Um and that's its relevance. Um if this hearing um were continued to February, I have no objection. Mr. Coats can have all the time he wants to go through that survey and contact everyone he wants and find rebuttal witnesses if he wants. Um it just wasn't possible for me to have it to you sooner. That's a tactic, right? I I we don't want to continue this, but that but that but that is a tactic. There was plenty of time. There was 50 days to do this. Mr. Durkin could have done a petition and survey himself. All you got to do is follow the rules and go to the city and ask for the forms, right? He could have put one together himself. He could have he could have he could have put one together that follows the rules himself. He doesn't have to have a third party do

[319:00] this. He could have testified about it himself, but he didn't do that. Why? Why didn't he do that? Why do we think he didn't do that? He didn't do that because this looks a lot better for him [laughter] if I don't have an opportunity to really vet it until right now while I'm conducting a hearing, while Miss Garrison's conducting a hearing, while the city hasn't even had a chance to vet it and look at it. But the fact of the matter is this could have been handled differently. It could have been handled 10 days in advance. He could have hired a petition and survey company. He hasn't even indicated what day it is that he contacted this company. It could have been done in advance. Those are the rules. He knows the rules. He could have followed the rules himself personally without this company. So I I think I think that the authority is opening a bad door here for the authority itself in terms of not following its own rules associated with petitions and survey if in fact lets this one in. Thank you.

[320:00] I mean honestly an opposing survey a need what is what's the other a pro survey a >> applicant >> an applicant thank you um a needs and desire survey an opposing survey we already know what the outcomes are going to be right I don't honestly know why we even do them so I don't think I guess I need to know like substantially we know that u Mr. Derking yours is going to oppose it. We know what the problems are with surveys. We heard your witnesses. We we know let's I mean surveys are not surveyors are kids. I don't know. I surveys don't hold a lot of water in my cup either way. So I don't care if we hear it or not. I'd like to hear what the board says. Um, member Hagerty, um, I tend to side

[321:00] with, um, the the attorney for the applicant. Um, period. >> All right. I I agree. >> Yeah, >> I agree. And I I I for for at least two reasons. one is there if you wanted to do an opposing survey and and uh you did refer to them as opposing surveys uh you could have you had you could have started before the 17th of December. So I I think it's unfair. I haven't received anything. I know I keep hearing about a petition that was filed today or documents that were filed today. I got off the call to go and find him and I couldn't find them. I don't have any uh any documents that anybody filed uh up 00 today. So, I'm I I feel like

[322:01] it's that's another another reason why you file things on a timely basis. I'm sure it's there somewhere. I'm sure there's a a reason why it didn't come to me, but that's why you have a timelines. The final thing I'd say is I notified the the BLA staff back in December that uh I would not be here in Jan in February. So if you continue this hearing, you're going to lose one of the board members. I'll be in Africa. And it just and I'm sorry about that. I want to finish this. I feel like a lot of effort has gone into it by the board. I feel like it's fair to move forward at this point. I feel like I will I will add one other thing is is is Mr. Durking is representing himself as as an attorney and I think the board is is and the chair has been cognizant of that and tried to be very fair with them. So

[323:00] there I add it all up as there's very good reason for the board to insist on moving forward and not not considering this and I don't think that the the contrary uh elements are there. So that's my position. >> Thank you. Um with that [clears throat] with u the words of the board then I think we should move on. >> Okay. Well, I'm going to I I don't know if you want to say that a little more specifically for the record, but you're you're excluding the testimony of U Mr. Adam Johnson. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Then, um next, um and I promise I'm wrapping up here. Thank you for your patience. Um I have just a little testimony of my own to add. So, I uh as I said, I'm appearing prosay. I'm happy to swear in at this point. It will be quick and it's mostly about the

[324:00] exhibits and a little bit of background. >> All right, I'll go ahead and swear you in if you'll just say your name, spell your name, give an address for the record. >> Yep. Um, my name is Bruce Deerking. D I E R K I N G, 195528th Street, Boulder. That's the address of Hazels, which I own. I'm a party in interest. >> Thank you so much. Um, and if you'll raise your right hand, >> 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. And then Kristen, if you'll just confirm that that address is within the boundary. >> Yes, [clears throat] I can confirm that that isn't in the boundary. >> Okay. Just a little bit of foundation for exhibits if I could please. And uh it would be helpful. Um, Miss Kellogg, if you could pull up my exhibits as I talk about them.

[325:01] >> Yep. Just give me one second. Sorry, I have too many screens up in here. I'm I'm looking for it. There we go. [clears throat] >> You could start all the way at the top, please. [clears throat] Um, opponent exhibit one is a copy of this whole food store current liquor license. I received this from the city through an open records act request. Um I offer opponent exhibit one. >> Um exhibit one admitted. >> You would just um need to ask if there are any objections.

[326:00] >> All right. Are there any objections? >> I apologize. We object all of the exhibits. Um but well I guess we have to go through them one by one to determine what I object to or what I don't. Right. So um I think I think I don't object to that first page. I don't object to um the agenda which is I think the next two pages. Um I believe my objections obviously are exhibit 10 which is what we just had a ruling on the petition and survey. I object to number seven as we've had no one here come and testify associated with that and that was I'm just going to interrupt just procedurally. It would be um better if we just follow the order of you know exhibit by exhibit. Mr. Jerking can move to admit the particular exhibit and then the BLA can call for any objections and rule you know at that time to >> totally understand. He's called to he's called to admit all of them. So I'm I'm telling you

[327:00] specifically which ones that >> I have a problem with and which ones I don't. You want me to continue to do that or >> why don't we do it exhibit by exhibit. Um so exhibit one. Um any objections? >> No objection. >> Okay. Exhibit one admitted. >> And Miss Kellig if we could go to exhibit two please. This is the agenda for tonight's BLA hearing. I received this from the city from the BLA website. I offer opponent exhibit two and evidence. >> No objection. We could go to three, please. Um, this is the premises modification after diagram submitted by the applicant and included in their application materials. I received this through an open records act uh from the city and I offer opponent exhibit 3 into evidence. All >> objection. Go a please.

[328:03] Four is the surveying map um included with the applicants pack packet showing the areas liquor pros surveyed um offer opponent exhibit for end evidence. >> No objection. >> Exhibit five is a photo um I myself took uh on December 10 last year in a Whole Foods store. This is the Whole Foods store in Longmont, Colorado. Um, it's probative because it shows an example of the type of temporary alcohol display um that is common in a Whole Foods store uh for exhibit five into evidence. >> I object to this exhibit. I believe the testimony that came from the doctor, the authority uh didn't hear the testimony regarding this particular exhibit um as it's in a different location, not in Boulder, and it relates to um issues

[329:00] associated with with opinions, I guess, about temporary displays. So, I would object obviously to to its relevance. >> In as much as Mr. Coat's client doesn't currently have the ability to stack wine next to a selfch checkckout store in Boulder. It would have been very hard for me to produce a photo within the neighborhood. Um, this is an example of a typical Whole Foods store. I believe it's relevant. You can take it to weight if you feel like in Boulder they're going to do something completely different than what they do in their other stores. >> It's not illegal to stack the wine there. We're we've even said that we're not going to stack it there. It's been said it's not going to be at the front of the store. Nonetheless, it's not relevant. It's not illegal. It's not out of the out of the confines of the rules. So, it it it's not relevant to this proceeding. >> Hey, rather than just continuing to argue, um, Chair Roberts, I'll just let you rule, please. >> I think you could have gone to another uh Whole Foods Boulder store and found this exact picture, but that is besides

[330:01] the point. I don't think it's relevant for this exact location because we can't prove that this will actually be done at that location. >> It's um I I hear you. It wouldn't have been in the neighborhood even if it was in Boulder. >> Um the other thing I'll say is I I do have some testimony I will give that will relate to this exhibit, but in the interest of moving things along, I'm going to skip it. >> So I will not offer five. And if I will not offer six, but if we could go to seven, please. Um, this is a letter that I received just today. That's why I included it. Um, I realize it's hearsay, but I provide it because it pertains to some of the same issues that you heard from some of the witnesses. Um, Snarfs uh in the neighborhood did sign the petition. I spoke with uh Jimmy Cidell, the owner who goes by Snarf, and he he was shocked to find out one of his

[331:02] employees had signed on behalf of his business. He said no one has the authority to do that. Um I told him the name. He said that guy's a sandwich maker. What what are they doing? So here's an example of a letter from a business owner saying, "Hey, you can't put a lot of weight on those things. You've probably already heard that. For what it's worth, I offer opponent exhibit 7." This exhibit was another one that was 45 today. Not so we would obviously object to it as it as it's akin to the petition itself. But nonetheless, we'd object because of the timeliness of it. [sighs] Um, I think it surfaces a wider issue with the issue with surveys, but with it being untimely. Did it was just sent to you today or did

[332:00] you seek this out? >> You can see the date on the letter. I did speak to Mr. Sidel a few days ago. Um he's traveling and this was the soonest he could get it to me apparently. Um again I wasn't sitting on it. I included it and forwarded it the day I received it. >> So it's it's dated today, right? So um 45 the day based upon a request to the department to the to the clerk's office essentially for anything that Mr. Derking was going to submit. Um, members from the board, can we um discuss >> if you'd like any assistance? >> Yes, >> I'm happy to help advise. Um, >> just so the board's aware, accepting the exhibit into evidence does not mean that you need to consider it um at face value. you have the discretion

[333:01] to um take whatever weight and consider it in whatever context you'd like. Um and with respect to hearsay, you are aware that while that is a rule of evidence, it's um very loosely applied in the administrative hearing context like this. And so, you know, it's not a black and white, you know, you accept it 100% at face value. um you can do whatever it's at your discretion. So, just want to clarify that >> and I I 100% agree with that comment. >> So, my I I I don't have a problem with accepting this if we I understand the circumstances. But if we accept this, this doesn't mean that we accept all the others that are not given prior to whatever it was 245 or 250 this afternoon. >> I think we just need to decide exhibit

[334:01] by exhibit if it's >> relevant or not. >> Thank you. You said it better than I did. Um, it feels um it feels relevant to me based on the issues with the petitioning conversation that we had. Um, but like I said, I think this is actually a bigger issue that you're bringing before us and not necessarily like but I wouldn't admit it to evidence unless there's objections. >> I agree. >> Okay. [clears throat] >> Then can we move on to exhibit eight, please? Um, exhibit 8, um, is a string of email chain, um, that, um, I received, I was a

[335:02] party on back in 2018. Um, this was, uh, printed from my files and it shows the correspondence back and forth between Mr. Coats and myself and another attorney named Jim Bimeford, who at that time was representing Harvest Wine and Spirits. And in 2018, what happened was um and it was in Whole Foods testimony, uh prior to that, uh Colorado had the 32 beer law. So if you had a fermented malt beverage license, you could sell 3.2 beer. Um that changed in 2018 and people who could sell 3.2 beer could sell any kind of fermented malt beverage and the and the licenses just automatically converted. This grocery store did not have a license um at all at that time. And when they sought one, there was community opposition from myself and others. And there was a negotiation that occurred, which this correspondence reflects, um, whereby a compromise was

[336:00] reached. And the agreement was that we would drop our opposition to the issuance of this license, and in exchange, Whole Foods would agree only to sell kombucha, and it would be limited to two 6-foot linear display cases. And that's what they've done ever since. Um, in about April of this year, late March, um, I was contacted by Mr. Coats and on April 1st last year, we had a Zoom call, um, with a gentleman from Whole Foods whose name was Ryan. Um, I have to find his last name, Mr. Coats, and I will get you that name. Um, Ryan Bet. And at that time they they said, "Hey, Mr. Deer King, uh we know we had this agreement, but you know, we'd now like to close our liquor store and move the alcohol sales inside the grocery store and we think this is a win for you cuz we're not going to sell hard alcohol. Um you know, and so you, you

[337:01] know, this should be great for you." And in that call, I explained to them the many reasons why, um I didn't think it was a good idea. And among those are one of the things we've learned since the passage of Prop 125, which by the way Boulder voted against, um, it passed statewide by less than 1% and the grocery chains spent 30 times as much as the independent liquor stores could come up with to fight it to win by less than 1%. Had the spending been remotely equal, it would not have passed statewide, I believe. But, you know, using money and power, they were able to force through this change of law. And what Prop 125 did was it said every place in the state where there's an existing fermented malt beverage off- premise license, automatically, overnight, no local review, no neighborhood survey, no community input, doesn't matter whether your city voted against Prop 125, um those licenses automatically upgraded

[338:01] and allowed to sell wine. And why was it written that way? Was it written by the legislators? No. It was written by the corporate lawyers for the grocery chains who wanted to change the law and then they spent the money it took to buy a change of law to benefit themselves. And the stores that got it, what a home run for them. Uh the thing that we've seen since it went into effect, um it used to be that wine sales in Colorado um were almost exclusively in liquor stores. >> There was a small amount Hey, please don't interrupt me. um there was a small amount of sales happening from some of the um liquor licensed drugstores, but in general, grocery stores couldn't sell wine. And what we saw since that time um was a radical change in uh how how wine is sold where what we hear from our distributors is now a majority of all the wine sold in Colorado is being sold in chain grocery stores and not

[339:00] independent liquor stores. So I shared that with them of how moving it inside the grocery store I know and and frankly they know will explode their wine sales. Their amount of alcohol sales for beer and wine will be greatly much much greater inside the grocery store than the totality of their sales in their adjacent liquor store. And the reason is a liquor store is a liquor store is a liquor store in terms of competition and convenience. Hazel's and AOK and Harvest can compete with Whole Foods liquor store because they're not a better operator of liquor stores. They're good. It's a very nice store, but it's a onetoone competition. But as soon as you move the alcohol inside the grocery store, the dynamic completely changes because now your target customer is someone who came for food. And we all go to the grocery store for food every single week. And that impulse buy that having the alcohol in this huge alcohol store within the grocery store and these temporary displays scattered throughout

[340:00] the store, it shifts purchasing uh behavior in ways that it is impossible for a retail liquor store to compete against. There's no way we can compete on convenience. We can compete on selection, service, price. We cannot compete with grocery stores on convenience. So I know for a fact their sales would explode. They would probably be selling two or three times as much alcohol if they're allowed to move it inside the grocery store. It's why, and I know they dispute this, but I'm going to tell you, I believe they intend to have that 5700 square ft area be their alcohol sales area. And I knew they would do this. This is a flagship Whole Food store. Um, if they move their alcohol inside and close a liquor store, they're not going to put up a couple of small displays. Let's not kid ourselves. So, I explained all that to them. I said, "Hey, not only is this going to be a lot worse for my business, and yes, that's some self-interest, although I think that our neighborhood kind of likes Hazels, and I think our community does, and I know the 50 employees really like having jobs there." I told them,

[341:01] "It also wouldn't be good for our community because what you're talking about doing is taking something that you're doing the right way. You're selling alcohol the right way now by having an agegated environment where you don't have underage shoppers. You don't have underage employees. You don't have selfch checkout. You have a product where people go for a destination to buy that. That's the right way to sell this regulated product. Moving in inside the grocery store is a loser for the neighborhood in the community. Increases teen access, increases people being confronted with alcohol when they just want to buy food and maybe they have alcoholism or they're recovering from substance abuse. There's a lot of reasons why this isn't better for our neighborhood. it would not make Boulder a better community. And I told them that and they were disappointed. And I said, "Well, why do you want to make this change?" And Mr. Bet said, "Well, Whole Foods is really good at running grocery stores, but we're not good at running liquor stores." And you know, I think

[342:02] that statement is really telling because if you think about what makes it harder to operate a liquor store than a grocery store, it's all about public safety and responsibility. It's very very easy to run a liquor store other than those issues. That's the thing that makes our business so tough. But we sell a product that's potentially dangerous. It's potentially harmful to our community. And so we have to start with that reality of this is not just another product. This is not food. It is not the same as green beans and produce and meat. it is a product that has potential consequences and I believe should be sold differently. So I told them all that and uh they were disappointed and the way we left the meeting I certainly expected and Mr. Coat is a very fine probably the best liquor attorney in the state or if not one of his partners is um I certainly expected as a matter of professional courtesy from Whole Foods and him that

[343:00] if they decided to go forward after that meeting they'd at least give me a heads up. They didn't do that. Um, I believe, you know, that it wasn't by accident. Let's let's be honest. They didn't want me to do exactly what I'm doing now. Um, and so, you know, they tried to sneak it through. They applied in such a way that, you know, they didn't notify me. I don't have the ability to watch every single newspaper to see if there's something coming through that I should be worried about. But, you know, they reached out to me when they thought they could get me to agree, but as soon as they wanted to steamroll me, then then they didn't have the courtesy to reach out. And I think that that's kind of disappointing. I don't blame Mr. Coats because he has to represent his client, but I I blame Whole Foods. Um I think the neighborly thing would have been to say, "Hey, we we appreciate your thoughts, but after considering it, we disagree and we're going to go forward anyway." I would have been able to go find a survey company. But the honest answer is in the time that I had, first I was in a panic that I had a few days to try to get ready for a hearing. No chance to think about a survey. And then when the hearing got continued, I did

[344:01] start working on it as quickly as I could. Um, Whole Foods doesn't get a survey done in two weeks. You know, Mr. Coats doesn't do surveys himself. So, um, the notion that I had all this time that it isn't really accurate. That all that aside, um, the point of this is that this condition is here because there was an agreement. There was a compromise between the applicant and community members. And there's other community members you haven't heard from and shame on me for monopolizing your time. But you will hear from other community members who say, "Hey, we had an agreement and now they unilaterally want to change that because their interests have changed." And I think it's important for the board to realize this isn't a new application. You don't have an obligation to remove their condition. They don't have a right to have it uh removed. Some of the comments made it made tonight made it sound like uh they think they have an entitlement to sell alcohol and this is just a little process you go through. I believe this board is here and the reasons why

[345:00] we have citizens appointed to this board in Boulder is so you can think about what's really good for our neighborhood as you're thinking about needs and desires. They're not just words. They really mean something. Do we really need this? Do we need this liquor store to close and move the alcohol inside the grocery store? How could we possibly say that's a neighborhood need? Um I submit to you that um based on the compromise and the facts that this is highly relevant to what's being asked tonight that opponent exhibit 8 should be submitted into evidence. Um I so this is the communication back in 2018 about the agreement >> correct about the kombucha only condition >> agreement um I would move to admit that just because it's part of the timeline. Oh I'm sorry any objections?

[346:00] >> Well yeah let me make comment because and I and thank you and sorry to interrupt you Mr. jerking, but that was really testimony associated with the exhibit more than just whether or not it's to be presented. But nonetheless, nonetheless, okay, this exhibit is exactly what you the chair chairperson just said and that is is that that it's from back from 2018 and it set the condition, right? It could set the condition and it was an agreement as to what the condition would be for the authority to place on the license and it's very clear that the condition includes the language at the bottom of it. any proposed change to the size of the designated storage areas will require the lency to apply and receive approval of a modification which is exactly exactly what we're doing. So I can talk to you in in closing about about how because Mr. Derk's testified about it about how why it is that we didn't we didn't need to contact him again after he told us he wasn't interested in in in in this process of what we're doing, right? We followed all the rules associated with that. But but

[347:00] I I I guess what I'd say is is I have no objection to the admission of this particular exhibit only as it relates to setting what the condition is, right? And the condition is is that language the condition will read as follows. That's what everybody agreed to including Mr. Durkin who said that works for me. When he said in his testimony, he just said that then kept him from objecting to the hearing. It was set by the so we certainly have the right as the condition allowed to change the condition and he can object to that. There was no agreement obviously for him not to object this particular time around. Right? Talked about that didn't work. But the fact of the matter is is that I I agree to the admission of this particular exhibit because it sets the entire condition including the last sentence which allows us to be here and do what we're doing. And I will also articulate to the authority that the last few pages of our packet packet for this hearing gives you the gives you the

[348:00] findings that were given to given to us by the board back in 2018 which sets that condition exactly as the same length. So I think the more controlling document is actually the findings themselves which were pre-filed pre-filed timely uh with the clerk's office and those and those findings essentially were the board's findings saying that the condition does allow essentially this process to change that condition if in fact um uh the authority sees fit. Thank you. But in terms of in terms of that limited admission, I have no objection to it. >> Okay. Uh then exhibit 8 admitted. >> We could look at exhibit 9 please. >> This is um liquor Colorado liquor regulation 47951. This uh was obtained from the Colorado um Department of Revenue Liquor Enforcement

[349:01] Division website. I did reformat it and add the highlighting. Um, I'm going to testify about this exhibit later because it's relevant particularly to the map and to um the fact that some of the testimony from Whole Foods representatives um conflicts with the requirements of state law. Um, so I would offer exhibit 9 into evidence. >> No objection. [snorts] >> Exhibit 9 admitted. We've previously talked about 10 and you said you were excluding it. So I will not offer that again. Um so we can ignore exhibit 10. Now that the exhibits have been dealt with. I do just have a few other things to talk about if I may. I'll try to be quick. Um and thank you for your patience. You can imagine this is a big deal for myself and my business. Um so I I hope you understand why we're putting in the effort that we are. and thank you for your patience and

[350:01] openness to hearing from us. >> Mr. Derking, I'm so sorry to interrupt. Do you still need the exhibit shared or can I >> I do not. You may. Yeah, thank you. >> Of course. >> I just want to tell you a little bit about the impact um wine and grocery stores has had on Hazels. Um you know, it it to there's just no other way to put it than it was it was just a punch to the gut. And uh we have been in, you know, retreat mode, heavily retreating uh ever since. Um, collectively our sales are down over 30%, we were down again last year. Um, we've downsized. We've cut expenses. As employees leave, we typically don't replace them. Um, we're doing everything we can to stay in business and be able to be relevant and serve Boulder. Um, but I'll be honest with you, I I don't know um how it's going to go. Um, I worry that we can't withstand another grocery competitor right in our neighborhood. Um, I know Whole Foods may say, "Well, it's not fair if King Supers and Trader Joe's get

[351:00] to do it and we don't." But the way I'm looking at it, the way I'm telling you, they they have a liquor store. They chose to do that. Um, I understand why they want to close it. They can save money, less rent, less employee costs. They can move it inside the grocery store, increase their sales with less costs. Huge win for them. Um, for the consumer who's really concerned about convenience and likes to get alcohol at the grocery store, it's a plus for them. I don't see how it's a plus for anyone else in our neighborhood or community because what's likely to happen is one or more of your local liquor shores is going to go away. And I I think you're going to hear from AOK and and Harvest tonight as well. I don't know that that Hazels can withstand it. It's it's more than the death by a thousand cuts. I mean, we're just bleeding and I just can't afford it. And it's why I've told them we didn't want it. I'm I'm happy to compete with them in their grocery store. I don't want them to move an alcohol store inside the grocery store. You heard from Mr. Willis about the

[352:01] size. And and Miss Kellogg, I apologize. Actually, I do need to refer to exhibit 9. So, I am going to ask you to p put that back up. Um, >> no problem. Just give me a second. >> The size of their permanent alcohol display area. The permanent alcohol displayer has to comport with the definition that's in the liquor rules. And when you get to that, you'll see um in the middle of the page under B and then 2A is highlighted. A permanent alcohol display is defined as the shelves, aisles, coolers, displays where alcohol beverages are located within a single distinct area of the licensed premises that is consistent with the diagram submitted with the application or modification of the licensed premises. It's not just the shelves the alcohol sits on. If you ask me what's the size of the uh alcohol sales area at Hazels, I'm going to tell you it's 20,000 square feet. It's our sales floor. I wouldn't go measure the space

[353:01] on the shelf that the product takes up. And so the applicant has grossly underrepresented the actual impact it's going to have on their store and the amount of space that's being devoted. Despite their testimony tonight, I believe that the blue area when that map was created was intended I mean it's labeled primary display area. That was intended to be their permanent alcohol display area. And yes, they were backpedaling and and testimony was changing quickly as they realized they had some issues. I submit that testimony was not credible and that if you look at the map and the measurements and the definition, that area is much closer to what you heard from Mr. Willis. And putting that in perspective, the sales floor at Hazels is about 20,000 square ft. So if they have a 5700 square f foot essentially alcohol store and that includes the aisles and the things around the green areas. It's not just the area where the alcohol is actually sitting. That's a really big store. That that's bigger than most small liquor

[354:00] stores. So this is no small thing they're talking about. And when they talk about, oh, we're downsizing, everybody in the business right now is cutting SKs. We're all having fewer products. And that's really related to changing consumer demand. Um, alcohol sales in general are down nationally. So, some of what we're experiencing at Hazels and and other stores, it's mostly Prop 125 for us in Colorado, but also there's just a general industry um decline. And a lot of that relates to um a moderation movement and a health movement around alcohol, which are actually good things. I mean, it's not so great for business. If we didn't have Prop 125, I I think we'd have no trouble adjusting to it. But one of the realities is um fewer labels and fewer brands are controlling the sales. And so um having fewer SKUs doesn't mean they're going to sell less alcohol. They're going to sell more of the big brands and the store brands that really move. So I asked you to take a look at this and and understand that this is the

[355:00] definition that applies. It's not just where the alcohol sits. And if you approve this, the permanent alcohol display area is going to be a lot bigger than the 8, I believe 60 square ft. Um 824 ft that Mr. Willis measured of those green shelves. Um nothing was 302 ft. I don't know where they got that. It sounded like from Mr. Haney's testimony that they meant linear feet and they just put it on their map wrong. Um, but as the board, what you approve is really important. And this is important because if you'll scroll the the second page of this, please, Miss Kellogg, when it comes to the temporary alcohol displays, um, you'll see that the regulation provides that within the permanent alcohol display area, they can have an unlimited number of temporary displays, and they don't count toward the total. A store of this size is going to be allowed five temporary displays throughout the store. So that's at entry, at checkout, deli, meat

[356:01] department, but within this temporary alcohol display area, they're allowed an unlimited number, and that's important. The only thing is that they can't make it so tight that you can't traffic can't get through. Um, but if you've been to stores that really merchandise aggressively, um, you can do a lot of alcohol displays in that area. So, I would submit to you that um when you look at all the testimony that you've heard tonight, um there should at least be substantial doubt in your mind uh about the needs and desires really supporting this neighborhood uh the needs and desires of this neighborhood supporting this application. Um you know, you've heard from multiple people in the neighborhood. Um, you're hearing from me that this is going to become uh a real negative and a problem for our business. Um, with that, I will uh end my testimony.

[357:02] >> Thank you so much. Um, since I don't know, do you get to cross as a do >> I believe that I do, but I'm not going to. >> Okay. Thank you. I have no no cross. Thank you. >> Okay. I have a couple questions. Um and I'm sure the board does too. This compromise I just want to back up a second to really understand. Was there like a was there like a length of time on this kombucha compromise? What how long was that supposed to be followed? >> Yeah, there wasn't any discussion of it having a shelf life. And remember at that time there was no notion of wine being sold in grocery stores. that wasn't even a thing. >> I see. >> Um, fermented malt beverage licenses are under um a part of the state revised statutes called the beer code. So, who would have ever thought you'd be selling wine under the beer code? Um, we all thought we were just talking about beer products. And my understanding was that

[358:02] it was this was a permanent agreement. Yes, the language says if they want to change the condition, although it does talk about expanding or moving the display area, they have to apply. But did I think that a few short years later they'd be saying, "Hey, thanks for the license. Now we're going to steamroll you and remove the condition." Um, I think I I believe had they not agreed to the condition, the board would have had a hearing very similar to this in 2018 and that the license would not have been granted at all. Um, you know, Mr. Coats is a great guy and and up until now we had a pretty nice relationship with Whole Foods and it was cooperative and friendly and neighborly. Um when they wanted to have a a pub inside their grocery store and they wanted to change some things to get a license so they could serve beer inside the grocery store, they reached out and cooperatively we worked out a compromise on that and things were fine. The problem came up when they wanted to do something and I didn't say yes. And then it was like, okay, well, well, now we'll

[359:00] just go to war and and we'll just ram it through. I don't believe it's consistent with the agreement that was made. I don't believe it's in good faith. And in my closing argument, I'll get into this, but I think when the board considers the option A or option B, um you'll see that there's a great option for this neighborhood um to be served and frankly for Whole Foods to continue doing what it has been doing very profitably and successfully without you granting this application. Um, [clears throat] okay. Um, are there other questions from the board for our for Mr. Chair King? >> I have a couple short um but uh maybe others do as well. Um uh just just for clarity sake uh Mr. Derking uh uh in your opinion have they

[360:01] has uh Whole Foods abided by the agreement and uh uh uh abided by the requirements that were incorporated into their their uh their license >> I mean prior to this application. Yes. Um, >> okay. That's that's really >> that's all I I want to know on that. The only other question I have for you is you you're you're speaking as an expert on on retail and I I give you a lot of credit for that. Um, Hazel is a great store and and I'm sure you have a very satisi satisfied and loyal customers. Um the you offered the perspective that when uh alcohol comes into a grocery store as was permitted by the state in the form of wine and uh and beer that sales go up dramatically and I I bet you're right. Uh but doesn't

[361:03] that uh reflect the desires of the neighborhood that that's uh that that's something that consumers are responding to um when they're given a different option? >> Yeah, it's a good question and I I hear that argument. You know, you hear people say that people vote with their dollars and uh and yet I would argue that alcohol is different. Um, you know, for example, uh, I I think if, uh, other kinds of regulated products were sold more places and had fewer restrictions and lower barrier to access, more of them would be sold. Pharmaceuticals, firearms, marijuana, you know, all kinds of things that have potential harm. It might be good for sales. And you could argue people are are voting with their dollars. But I would argue that needs and desires of the neighborhood are more than just maximizing the sales of the store, but they're looking at the broader benefits and safety because it

[362:01] is a regulated product. And you know, the fundamental premise there there's a tension here between those that believe alcohol should be sold in grocery stores and those like myself who who don't um is that you know, they would argue it it's another type of food product. It has a little extra restriction to it, but it can be and should be sold alongside food because it's consumed alongside food often. The other argument to that is no, it's a regulated product. It has dangers and potential harms different than food and it should be sold differently. And historically, post prohibition, and this is not just true in Colorado, nationwide, alcohol was largely separated into destination stores. and that started to become eroded mostly because of chain retailers wanting to capture those sales and move those things into their chain stores. Um, personally I don't think that's a good thing for society or our community or our neighborhood. And I would feel that way even if I didn't own Hazels.

[363:01] Um, but I do think that one of the downsides sometimes of convenience is it can be a race to the bottom where everything is a chain store and you don't have any unique local stores anymore. And you can think in Boulder about other types of stores we've lost over the years. I'd like to believe that our independent liquor stores contribute to our neighborhood and community and they're worth keeping around. Good. >> Well, thank you. Um, I don't have any other questions. Any other questions? Okay. Um, would you like to close? >> I believe that perhaps you want to get other witnesses who are not from me and then allow Mr. Coats and I to do closing arguments. >> Oh. Um, public comment. >> Is that what who you mean by? >> Yes. I I believe um Mr. Kang and Mr.

[364:00] Calling um probably both want to testify. >> So, if you can raise your hand if you would like to um speak on this matter. Caitlyn, you were muted, so I just said it for you. Thank you. I have a barking dog. Oh, I was hoping he would be done by now, but okay. I apologize if you can hear barking dogs in the background. Um, yes, if you are here to give testimony and you are an interested party, please go ahead and raise your hand and I'll be happy to admit you so the BLA can chat with you. I'm not seeing any raised hands. Once again, I'll call one more time. If you're here to give testimony on this matter and you are an interested party and you have not given testimony, please go ahead and raise your hand. Um, chair, I'm not seeing any hands

[365:00] raised. >> I'm not seeing any hands raised either. Maybe they fell asleep. >> May May I ask you, Miss Kellogg, just to see if you have Alex Kang or BJ calling? They they both um are store owners that I know were planning to testify and they both are um uh English is their second language. So just to be sure they're not getting lost in the not understanding the process. >> Um I do have attendee under Alex King and then I'm sorry what was the other name? >> B calling. B I J A Y K H A L I N G. He's with Harvest who's on the agenda later for their own items. I would think he'd be here. >> Yeah, BJ is also here. Okay, Alex has raised his hand. Um chair, are you good to proceed with this? >> Yes. >> Okay, perfect.

[366:05] Here we go. And Alex, I see that you're in. If you can unmute yourself and turn on your camera. Alex, I'm not sure if you can hear me, but if you can unmute yourself and turn on your camera, I've requested it. So you should just have to accept. >> Hello.

[367:00] >> Hi there. >> Yeah. Hello. >> All right. Just so that we can um check your address as an interested party. Can you please provide us with your address? >> Address 2690 22 28 Street. That's AOK liquor. Thank you. And um if you will go ahead and spell your name, say your name and spell your name for the record. >> Yeah. Alex Kang. A L E X K A N G. >> Thank you so much. And if you'll raise your right hand, >> do you swear or affirm that the statements you're about to give before the Beverage Licensing Authority are true and correct? >> Yes. >> Okay, great. I will wait for Kristen to confirm your address and then the board can proceed. >> He is confirmed as a qualified interested party.

[368:05] >> I'm sorry. Did you were you able to hear that? >> Yes. Sorry, I was muted. Thank you. >> No problem. And Mr. King, you can proceed with your comments. >> Uh yeah, I just made my statement >> so I I can read here. Uh I've been operating the AOK liquor since 2008. I'm v I'm by father closest liquor store in approximately to Horut. It's only two blocks away. [clears throat] More than 17 years I have devoted myself to this business. There have been challenges along the way but the recent situation has been the most difficult I ever ever faced.

[369:00] Our sales have dropped by about 20%. Compared to two years ago with the wine cell declining the most. And I'm also a father of three childrens and last year my oldest son enter Boulder. It's a proud moment for our family but the cost of tuition has added a significant financial burden. On top of that, labor and rent and utilities have continued to rise throughout Colorado. making it even harder for small businesses like mine to survive. Few years ago, Food changed it liquor license to sell kombucha in their grocery section and now it seems they

[370:01] are seeking a pool beer and wine license. They are large corporation and headquarters in Texas with various of location across the US. While I'm a local small business family with only a single store here in border, this raises an important question. Should not the B should city C city be protecting small local locally owned businesses at the current phase? It feels like only large corporations will be left standing. Boulder locally already has many places to purchase liquor from. This would only ramp up consum competition and drive out the local businesses. The neighborhood does not want or need

[371:03] whole food to sell beer and wine inside the what is supposed to be a grocery store. People often say that in capitalist society those with the most resources win. Unfortunately, that idea is becoming more and more real. I love my store and I dedicated most of my working life to it. I want to continue doing what I do. But if the sales continue to decline and I'm forced to close my doors, that sad alone is terrifying. I sincerely hope we can create an environment where small businesses can continue to survive and where our

[372:02] community can support a healthier and balanced marketplace. I totally oppose whole food request for the full beer and wine license. >> Thank you for the listening my position. Thank you. [clears throat] >> Thank you so much. Thank you. >> Are there any other community members who would like to speak on this matter? Not seeing any. I'm not seeing any either. I'll just call one more time. If you are here to speak on this matter, you'll want to use the raise hand function which is at the bottom of your screen. It's the little hand.

[373:02] I'm not seeing anything. Oh. Oh, it's Mr. D. >> I was just going to request, could you please just say B calling Harvest Wine and Spirits again? I I don't know if he understands the procedure of what you're saying. If he doesn't respond to his name, then we should move on. But if you would give him that courtesy. He told me he intended to testify. >> He does have his hand raised now. So, I'll go ahead and promote. >> Um, PJ, if you can unmute yourself and turn your camera on. >> Okay, perfect. And Mr. calling if you will give your address for the record so that we can um

[374:04] check the interested party. >> My address is 3075 AO Avenue Boulder 80303. >> Thank you. And while Kristen checks that out, can you please say your name and spell your name for the record? My name is BJ Khaling. B I J A Y K H A L I N Z. >> No problem. And if you'll go ahead and raise your right hand for me. Do you swear or affirm that the statements you're about to give before the Beverage Licensing Authority are true and correct? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Um you can as soon as Kristen chimes in, then you can go ahead and continue with your test. He is with a qualified and interested party. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Colin, you can proceed with

[375:00] testimony. >> Okay. Uh I'm been under this business since 2022. Uh it was all right in the beginning. Now this grocery is carrying beer and wine has been really hard for us and it is been like like the just the owner of the AOK he said I'm also about to be closed soon or something you know it's been really financial burden for us. Yeah, it's been diff difficulties and myself's been dropped about o over 50% because of the wine cuz I have a lot of wines that's why beer and wine. >> Great. Thank you so much. Anything else you'd like to share?

[376:01] >> That's all I guess. >> We appreciate your words. Is there anybody else for public comment? I don't see any more hands raised. I'll do one last call. If you're here to give public comment on this matter, please go ahead and use the raise hand function at the bottom of your screen. I don't see any more hands. Okay, then let us proceed to closings. Attorney Coats, I believe that would be you. >> Yes, thank you. And then I will reserve some time for rebuttal as well of Mr. Turkin's comment. >> Okay. >> But I think what's important to consider here is is what was done back in 2018 and the exhibit that Mr. Derking submitted is consistent with exactly

[377:00] what the order says which is at the back of your the back of your packet which you know states any proposed change to the size designated display areas will require the license e to apply receive modification of license premise. It's why we're here. We're playing by that rule. And when that condition was created, that condition at the time was based upon the law at the time and based upon the circumstances at the time. The circumstances being there was a retail liquor store already in that location. So, Whole Foods didn't go and ask to uh ask to to also have beer at the location as well other than the kombucha products because the retail liquor store was already there. That condition is is what we're requesting to go away and and condition this particular license approval of just having the grocery store be able to sell just beer and wine um with a surrender of essentially that

[378:00] liquor store store license. um that that circumstance uh doesn't exist now or we're asking that it not exist. The other thing that's different is is the law. You know, the law at the time that that condition came into play basically allowed for grocery stores to um sell uh full strength beer. Um the modification that was filed at that time, that's why the going from 32 to that we only asked for the kombucha. Um but the the law changed, you know, and the law changed certainly to allow for wine as well in the grocery stores and that has been pointed out by some of the council members was a proof of need and a desire for it by the community, right? The voters voted on it and they voted for that setup so that grocery stores could have beer and beer and wine as part of their sales package complimentary to food sales with other restrictions within the code. Certainly the 20% rule.

[379:03] Um and and the liquor stores were were then allowed at that time to to have grocery store products in their stores. But the on based upon the same limitations, the 20% rule going the other way. So, so that the circumstances have changed and we're here to play by the rules. Now, as Mr. Durking testified. He was contacted by Whole Foods and myself to say, "How do you feel about us surrendering the liquor license and and applying essentially for um the ability to sell beer and wine within just the grocery store? He didn't like it because he didn't like at all issues associated with grocery store having the product in the first place." And that's been the presentation tonight. I mean, the the entire presentation is is a is an objection essentially to what the voters voted on and allowed back in 2021. It's been a

[380:03] competition-based objection, not an objection based upon needs and desires. As as you've heard, the discussion is this is going to reduce certainly the number of SKUs, reduce the footprint of alcohol. You're you're taking out all of the liquor out of the liquor store and you're basically combining it to a space here in the store. Now, this issue of primary versus permanent display, the permanent display is green. That was testified to the area that surrounds it. Primary display is where they're going to attempt to try to contain alcohol to the largest extent they can, even with temporary displays. There's been discussion and talk about that being up front. I don't know how any of that was relevant. The discussion was we want to keep it in the back for security purposes back in that area. And and I think that the authority can consider that. It can consider that this isn't an expansion of alcohol sales. This is a reduction of alcohol sales within the area. There was already a need for the liquor store. There

[381:00] continues to be a need for that products that they were selling. And essentially, they'll meet that need based upon what's shown in the petition and survey. Anyway, based upon what's shown in particular what the customers want, and that's convenience. daily basis customers are asking can we buy and buy beer and wine products within the defined boundary area uh within within the store of the grocery store area or display area. Can we can we buy beer and wine products and why can't we? And convenience, right? That's convenience is important. Well, convenience is is what the voters voted for. It's not a valid objection to need and desire at this point. Inconvenience. And that's what and that's what essentially the liquor store owners within the community are objecting to is is they say we like it that it's inconvenient for these these individuals at grocery stores to have to leave and come to the liquor store. We're not even we're we're not even

[382:03] attempting here to to to open a new liquor store. We're not attempting here to even open a new beer and wine store. We're consolidating essentially is what this is. Now, we can't take the alcohol and put it there, right? We have to sell it down based upon the rules out of out of the retail liquor store, but in other words, they'll lose that inventory. Um, but but the fact of the matter is is they want to start with your approval, the ability to be sell beer and wine as being demanded and asked for by the customers essentially that go to that location all the time. And I think the petition and survey support that. I don't think that any of the testimony you heard from anyone, other than folks changing their mind after talking with Mr. Derkin about it, most of those all related to either I don't like Whole Foods, I don't like Amazon, or I don't I I I I I I don't I I I don't like I don't like uh the ability uh of of of Whole Foods essentially to

[383:01] to hold to hold that class of license. didn't talk at all about essentially the fact that they're giving up the license for the retail liquor store side. They didn't want to acknowledge that that part of it. Now, Mr. Durkin acknowledges it and he talks specifically about it and he says he doesn't like it. He doesn't like this circumstance at all. He doesn't like anything that the grocery stores are doing this point associated with beer and wine. And I understand that it's a competition argument. He doesn't like it. I don't I don't think there's any evidence to support that this is going to continue to compete with him. This is going to reduce the competition to him. I think it's what the evidence he's speculated it won't, but I think the evidence has suggested that it that it will. It will reduce essentially the footprint, not make it bigger, but certainly not it's already there. So, so I think I think that that that to argue here that this has any type of

[384:00] negative impact on the community or any type of negative impact on the the um needs and desires of that particular area, the factor that we're here to consider, I think is is just wrong. And I and I think Mr. Mr. Durkin is and his a couple of the other liquor store owners are making an argument that we just don't like it because this is something that the grocery stores are doing. Now, one of the things that Whole Foods is doing here, and I think this is lost in hours of testimony from a go, is is that, you know, they provide a very good secure place at this this location. And that's a very, very, very positive impact to this community, right? What they provide there is offduty police officers, right? Offduty police officers. Any [clears throat] they have some and they share their time between the liquor store and the grocery store. they'll be 100% now in the in the ret in the grocery store and and and having and having essentially nearly

[385:00] round the clock as Mr. Haney talked about sometimes they they'll miss a shift. But having officers in that community, I think that really strengthens that community at that at that area at that the surrounding area and they've had no issues obviously associated with sales of alcohol to minors. They've had no issues of sales of alcohol to visually intoxicated persons. All of that's just speculation and discussion which I don't think is relevant to this board. Now, I certainly understand you wanting to hear the evidence and you did and we appreciate obviously your patience and everything that happened tonight. It was it's been a long long hearing, very very long hearing, but uh we we're asking the board to do what we think makes sense and that is is allow allow Whole Foods to be able to sell beer and wine out of its grocery store to eliminate the liquor store as a condition essentially of that request. And um I would ask to reserve a rebuttal for any additional comments as I believe that Mr. Turkey um uh is allowed to make a a statement as

[386:00] well. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yes, Mr. Derky. >> Thank you. Um, the evidence before the BLA tonight clearly shows that one, the applicant has not met their burden of proof to establish that the Divine Neighborhood both needs and desires the removal of the kombucha only condition and the massive expansion of their alcohol display area. They propose two, there are significant problems and errors both with the application itself and with the neighborhood survey that do not justify granting an approval. Uh needs and desires. It's important to keep in mind that the applicant bears the burden of proving by preponderance of the evidence that the neighborhood both needs and desires what they are requesting in their application. The burden of proof is on the applicant, not the opponents. You heard from several persons and interests with deep ties,

[387:00] long histories, and major stakes in this neighborhood that our neighborhood does not need nor desire this Whole Foods to sell beer and wine inside the grocery store. I could have called more witnesses, but as you heard, Mr. Coats was already objecting to what he called duplicative testimony. Testimony he didn't like. You heard from residents, business owners, property owners. You heard from business experts. You heard from a real estate expert. You heard from one of the most highly respected public health and safety experts in the state. What evidence did Whole Foods provide to support needs and desires? One thing and one thing only. A survey which you heard testimony about having serious flaws. Number one, all the testimony about the signature gather says she was not telling people the actual application. She was misrepresenting what the application was. You heard that from three witnesses. Moreover, she was actively lobbying for signatures,

[388:00] at least in the perception of Ms. Hower. Um, on cross-examination, uh, Mr. Rich for Whole Foods admitted that the description in tonight's agenda is an accurate description of the application. But that's not what the signature gatherer told people. She said it was a merger of license. It's no big deal. It's just this ongoing thing. the kind of language you use when you're trying to get a particular result rather than when you're um asking for an unbiased opinion based on all of the facts. They didn't tell people about a compromise. They didn't tell people about a kombucha condition. They didn't tell people about asking to remove that over the objections of the same neighborhood members who opposed the license in the first place that resulted in that uh condition. Um uh I believe that given the testimony you heard, the applicant's neighborhood survey um could be disregarded in its

[389:00] entirety, but at a minimum you should take it into account in terms of weight and credibility that there's no credible way of believing that the signature gather was accurately representing the application and providing facts. Um, we were not able to provide the information that we would have liked to provide because it wasn't admitted. So, I won't talk about that. Um, but I will ask you to consider the in-person testimony. Um, the amount of effort somebody puts in to appear at one of these things, especially having no idea when you're going to be on um, as a community member, it's significant. Um, the paid professionals are always here. You know, they're they're getting paid. They're going to be here. They're going to hang around. average community members who are not being compensated, have no real dog in the fight other than caring about their community. It's a much bigger ask and I would encourage you to put a lot of weight on the people that you heard from. Um, I brought up the material mistakes in the application. Um, there's no way that map accurately reflects what

[390:01] they're doing. The the testimony has been all over the map. Mr. Coats was trying to clean up his client's testimony. I submit that from that map. You wouldn't know what you're approving. U this is one of the biggest companies in the country. They have the money to hire the very best people and yet they submitted an application that is obviously wrong and they kind of said, "Oh, it doesn't really matter." And the testimony cleaned it up. Um I think on itself that would be a reason to deny the application. You need to know exactly what you're approving. And per state law, per the liquor regulation we cited, whatever is the primary display area, which now apparently is the aisles around this, they can have an unlimited number of temporary displays that don't count toward their five, they're allowed to have throughout the store. Now, Mr. Coat says, "Oh, well, there aren't going to be any of anywhere else in the store. We said maybe in the back." Hey, go look at grocery stores and big box stores all over the state and tell me what you see out there. Um, I I don't think that that's credible. um a huge disconnect

[391:02] between 302 ft and 5,749 square ft. Um what they're talking about understandably they're going to close their liquor store is basically putting an alcohol store within the grocery store. Um but that means it's space that they don't have available for food and that's something our neighborhood needs and desires. Whole Foods is a great grocery store. I buy food there frequently. Um I love their produce. I love the fresh meat and fish. I don't want to see them taking out groceries and health food to put in alcohol. We have plenty of places to do that. They operate a perfectly fine liquor store. I think they do a nice job there. They have adult employees. They don't allow uh unaccompanied minors. They don't have selfch checkckout. It's a destination store that's selling alcohol in a responsible way. Um finally, as you weigh these matters, I would ask you to consider the history and background that led to the condition. Uh Mr. Coats keeps bringing up language in the condition about

[392:01] modifying it. But I want to call your attention to actually read the language because here's the exact language about change and I'm quoting exactly the condition. Any proposed change to the size designated display and storage areas will require the license to apply for and receive approval of a modification of its license premises. No language there says removal of this condition and allow us to have a full license and sell everything. Um, that was never part of the dialogue or conversation. Certainly not within my concept. Nor did I know that Whole Foods was going to go spend $1.7 million and all the other grocery chains spend a bunch of money and end up with $20 million to rewrite Colorado liquor law to put wine in all their grocery stores um, without any local review or approval. Boulder voted against it, by the way. So, if uh the vote of the people expresses needs and desires, then Boulder doesn't need it or desire it. Um

[393:01] I think there's a reason why we have a beverage licensing authority made up of citizens like you. Um you have an ability to really think about what our community and our neighborhood needs and desires. Um sure, you know, granting this application, it would increase Amazon Whole Foods profits. It would make it marginally more convenient for the shopper who wants to buy groceries and alcohol and would prefer one stop and one checkout. Other than that, how does it benefit our neighborhood and community? Um the cost is our local businesses, our children, the health and safety of our community. Um, and I realized, you know, something as I thought about this, you know, in most cases when the authority considers denying a license application, it's a really hard thing to do because of the impact on the applicant. I mean, if you have a restaurant that can't have a liquor license, as we heard from the crepe restaurant earlier, like they may not be able to make it. They they need those rings and that ticket to stay in business. If somebody's applying for a

[394:01] new retail liquor store license, you can't even open and operate without a license. But what happens here if you deny this request? You're just preserving the status quo. Whole Foods can continue operating their liquor store as they've done for the last 15, 20 years profitably and sell alcohol that way and they continue to sell groceries in their grocery store. Um there really is no huge downside. Yeah, they they don't maybe make quite as much money. They have to pay a little more rent. They have to hire a few more employees. but to the benefit of our community, our local businesses, our kids, our health and safety of our community. But what happens if you approve this? Very likely you'll lose one or more of our local liquor stores. Our kids are going to be faced with more alcohol in grocery stores. And doesn't matter how many offduty cops you hire. You're still putting alcohol in a place where um underage unaccompanied underage people regularly shop. And for people who are just trying to buy food and

[395:00] don't really want to be confronted with alcohol, they're now not going to be able to go to one of the few stores in Boulder where you can do this. It's a wonderful Whole Foods just the way it is. So for all the evidence before you tonight, again, I submit that clearly the preponderance of the evidence says the neighborhood does not need and desire this. But even if you think it's a close case and you're kind of on the fence, the burden of proof is on the applicant. So unless you feel that they have proved by a prepoundonderance of the evidence and the only thing they have in their favor is this flawed survey, then you need to deny this application. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Um yes, >> rebuttal, please. Thank you. >> I think one of the critical things to point out here is we're here for needs and desires. That's it. The other thing that's important about that is is that Mr. Derking continually comes back to the speculation,

[396:00] speculation, all speculative arguments about why it is that this is going to hurt retail liquor stores, ignoring the fact that we're closing our retail liquor store. The the diagrams that have been submitted, he hasn't touched on or talked about the second page to those diagrams, which shows and you have it. you have it in your packet shows the entire space outlined in green about where all the alcohol will be displayed. This the testimony has been is not going to expand alcohol sales in that area. So it comes down to an issue of of what's reasonable versus what's not reasonable. It's reasonable to believe that the needs and desires here are going to continue to be met about exactly the same as they are now if the authority approves this. And it's reasonable to allow Whole Foods to

[397:00] continue to operate in a manner or can in the future operate in a manner that lets them be better at their business. Their core business is obviously sale of organic foods, but pairing that with complimentary liquor sales is something that the community wants. And the suggestion that there's no need and desire for it, the only thing is the petition and survey, which has over aundred signatures in favor of it, ignores that. And that's an important distinction, the number of signatures that are in favor versus the numbers that are opposed. He only had a few here folks that are opposed today and they're opposed obviously with again speculative reasons that are biased by Mr. Mr. Derky. But nonetheless, being able to continue to sell those products as a as a complement to alcohol sales is not expanding this market. It's not making this market worse. And it's a reasonable request. It'll make Whole Foods better.

[398:01] It'll make the area better. It'll make the area better in terms of alcohol sales, which is what we're here to discuss. The the the opposition testimony essentially falls into the category of we don't like it. We don't like it because we don't like what the what the law allows. And I think that's not a reasonable ground essentially to deny this application. We have proven by prepundonderance of the evidence a need and a desire for this particularly with the articulation that it's not going to expand alcohol sales within the area. And it and I think that testimony has been pretty clear. I think Mr. Hy testified in terms of where the area is, where it's going to be kept in compliance with the law and that they'll follow the law. They'll follow the law associated with temporary displays. They'll follow the law associated with with compliance and alcohol sales

[399:01] avoiding them to minors or visibly intoxicated persons. They'll continue to comply the law. Why? Why continue to comply with the law? Why do we what evidence do we have to support that? Because they they've been in compliance with the law for all of these years, right? They've operated in a in a in a in a lawful manner. and you haven't seen Whole Foods in front of you uh for for either of these spots for any type of violation or or indiscretion. Essentially, they've operated properly. So, they're coming to you to ask the authority to essentially allow them to continue to be a great store. And I think it's speculative to think that this is going to have an impact even though it's not really the relevant inquiry upon the liquor stores in the area. So we're asking the authority to to grant this agreement and to grant grant not this excuse me grant this request. This request being to modify

[400:04] our license consistent with the floor plan with the agree with the agreement that we will surrender the liquor license of the retail liquor store within a 60-day period of approval. And that condition that was put into place regarding kombucha only is changed to essentially remove the retail liquor store. And that condition when it was put into place contemplated the law at the time and contemplated the the facts at the time which was the retail liquor store was there. Mr. Durking's comments about a dialogue of it meaning more than that. It didn't it says what it says within within the condition and that condition that condition was based it was a condition by the authority. Right? It's not an agreement with Mr. Derky. It's an agreement with essentially an agreement saying if you if authority if you

[401:01] approve this license, this condition should be on the license. All conditions are modifiable and that's why we're here asking to essentially put Whole Foods in a position that they can reasonably operate this business as a whole in this area. So, we very much appreciate your time tonight. We appreciate your patience. We appreciate I appreciate you listening to my rambling on and and I and I have no ill will against Mr. Durking as well. He's made nice comments about me. All the same comments comments are and you heard them from from our our vice president who indicated that it's a great store over there at Hayes and it's probably the biggest liquor store in Boulder and it's probably the bestrun liquor store in Boulder. And the fact of the matter is is this isn't going to impact that liquor store. You don't have any evidence of it. So, we'd ask the authority to uh to approve essentially our request. Thank you.

[402:02] >> Great. Thank you so much. At this time, we will close for board deliberation. Um Okay. That was intense. Um, I have so many thoughts. You guys there? You guys still awake? >> Yeah. >> Where do you want to start? [laughter] Yeah, >> that's a good question. Um gosh, just like stepping back and looking at everything that's been presented to us. Um [clears throat] maybe we start start there. We can start um

[403:04] I guess we should start with is there a motion? Well, uh, I'll make a motion. I'll I'll make motion to approve the the application, um, in court in in its current form and happy to talk about that. >> Since there is a motion, we would need to see if there is a second before we can deliberate. Um, I I second that motion. >> Okay. All those in favor say I. Member Roberts. No. >> Member Barnes. I >> crane. I >> can I just clarify? Are you not

[404:02] discussing the motion before you're voting on it? >> You know, I offer this and no one ever takes me up on making a motion. [laughter] I do think we I Well, I guess we'd have to uh see. Um yeah, I mean I don't know. Maybe not if I mean I would >> Yeah. When was the discussion supposed to take place there? Like >> Yeah. before you vote, after you make the motion, you can you need to discuss it before you vote. It is generally the standard. I would also suggest if you are in either case um I'd recommend that you justify whatever position you're taking by specifically referencing the criteria for um this particular hearing which are the needs and desires and potentially good moral character of the applicant which are the only ones at

[405:01] issue the hearing. Um well the reason um do you mean that I would at this moment be opposed to it >> is because I felt that um I felt that the public really spoke out and we didn't have anybody speak on behalf of Whole Foods. And I'm not saying they have to bring witnesses, but their display is egregious. It's incredibly large. They want to place an entire liquor store in there. Five aisles is a big space. And the um those end things I've watched I live next to a Whole Foods, a different one. There's liquor everywhere. It's one of my biggest uh regrets was passing it as as a board

[406:02] member and passing um King Supers as well. I am seeing the effects on our local liquor store in my neighborhood. Um I don't think that the survey holds any validity. Um that's just how I feel about those surveys. So, I just sometimes I mean I know that I've expressed this before that I don't believe that they ask the right questions. I don't believe that they are doing anything other than trying to hurry up and get through things to gather signatures. That's my point of view. I'm just throwing it out there is is where I'm coming from. Um [clears throat] I don't know though if there's like room for compromise here, right? like a shelf. But we approved this in another grocery store and I don't think I understood how big these aisles are.

[407:00] Um, my concern for public health and safety is currently in the current situation, you have to be in age to get in. And once it's in the grocery store, anybody's hands can touch it. I don't care if they have a dedicated officer, which I love that they have and unfortunately we need that. Um, that officer's I mean that officer is not going to keep kids from stealing that liquor. And so I am against uh wine and a lot of beer in grocery stores unless it is um [clears throat] restricted to a small space. I'm annoyed that I kept hearing them say all night that they downsizing, but they're not. Okay. They couldn't really

[408:01] answer my questions. That blue area I believe is intended to be an entire liquor, wine and beer place. Um otherwise there would have been like more forthcoming about the intentions in that space. I do believe that we skirted over temporary. Oh, it's just temporary. Oh, a week or two. I shop at grocery stores. I am a shopper at the Whole Foods that has wine. like those temporary displays go for months and I don't know if I can consider my own experiences in this or not, but this is my this is what I'm living. Um, being on this board, I'm probably more aware of that kind of thing. So, that's kind of like where I am. I really didn't hear much in support of this, but I heard a lot of um [clears throat] opposition. So, that's that's really where I'm I'm having trouble with it.

[409:01] Um, I care about the the other businesses I don't that are within that needs and use area. Um, [clears throat] I don't fault Whole Foods for being here and changing their mind on kombucha. I have no issue with that. They're growing. They're doing their thing. I get it. Um, but we didn't hear anyone in favor of them. Um, and it was very discouraging the witnesses that we did hear about the survey and it kind of validated how I feel about those surveys. Um, they talk about how they are good at food sales and not alcohol sales, but they want to put an entire alcohol store in their food store, which would reduce the square footage of food being sold. I mean, they specifically said, "No, oh,

[410:00] we don't really sell that much liquor. We're not in this business. We're not doing this." But they want five aisles. Five aisles. No one's watching those five aisles. Do you know who's watching those five files are the teenagers? Um, yeah. So, I guess that's kind of how I where where I'm sitting and I am happy to be uh persuaded and I definitely want to hear what you guys think. >> Can I just clarify? Sorry for the record, Member Roberts and I understand the discussion about the display. I'm wondering if you could specifically connect your thoughts to um the the reasonable um needs of the neighborhood and um the desires a little um more directly for the record if I'm sure I know it's a little >> Thank you. >> Let me try. Let me try. Well, I didn't

[411:02] hear any needs from the public, but I heard a lot of um or desires. I didn't hear one one shopper um tell us that they want this. Um and I didn't um Yeah, but I heard a lot of reasons not to. Does that kind of clarify? Um I guess for clarification, so Whole Foods did present the petition and um with the signatures you're um mentioning that you were um had issues um with I think I don't want to put words in your mouth about the validity of the petition. If you could go on uh a little bit more specifically about um >> yeah about that in particular um that would be helpful. >> Sure. Well, we did have three witnesses

[412:00] that were confused. Um I believe that that the petitioner was probably only there for two minutes. um the um evidence from um was it Snarfs >> the letter saying that wait my I mean my uh employee can't sign he's a sandwich maker um those are just like a few of those people um I just believe that those surveys are to get signatures I mean I'm on I've been on the street. I've been asked for things. They just want a signature. I I don't find a lot of value or um validity in [clears throat] that. Just sitting on this board for the past 5 years. I I don't I don't know. I've seen a lot of those and I've questioned numbers on them. Miss Garrettson knows me. I have questioned her and I know that's why she

[413:00] was so thorough with this one in discussing businesses because I have questioned why they haven't asked businesses in the past. I guess it's just like over time just seeing so many of these come before me and looking at the numbers and just being like, yeah, okay, that's just not real. I don't know. I don't know what else to say except >> I don't um Yeah, that's uh I don't know. I guess experience. >> Yeah. Um [clears throat] yeah, member Henry, I I Yeah, all all super valid points. Um yeah, and I think the petitions Yeah, we've we've heard enough of them and it's Yeah, you can kind of Yeah, come to your own um conclusions and especially kind of hearing some just confusing, right? And I think that's >> probably maybe on more of the the you know, seemed like it might have been the experience. One thing that I'm I'm going back to is you know how does Proposition 125 fit into this

[414:01] um you know knowing you know and the point was made you know they are like acting within state law right and it's it was you know 50.6% yes 49.4% 4% no is how that how that passed statewide and then in c in Boulder it it was kind of the flipped um [snorts] so you know if that if that you know does the does the bold how Boulder voted on 125 does that supersede this how the state ended up voting on it um or should that inform our opinion um on you know what Prop 125 allowed for the grocery store so I think that's a a big issue you to consider too. Um >> um I just also I apologize for interrupting but just on that point um you just have to be careful as a board. Um the state law does allow grocery

[415:00] stores obviously with the license to sell beer and wine and that's just the status of the law. That's not specific to this application, the needs and desires of this specific neighborhood. So I'm not going to, you know, advise you all on on the relevancy because that is within your discretion, but I would just um issue that caveat that you consider the application individually with the status already established that that is legal. And so obviously we wouldn't have an application for a license that was illegal, you know, to to do something illegal. And so similarly with respect to the concerns overall of the community with you know selling wine and beer within a grocery store um that also you have to be careful to apply specifically to this application, this store within these neighborhoods. Are there you know reasonable needs and desires of the inhabitants in the um in the area? um

[416:00] not you know what anyone's personal sort of view on the law or what how Boulder voted um unless you can connect that specifically to the application. So, um, want to clarif [laughter] >> Yeah. Um, member Barnes here, I I I'm totally understand what you both are saying. I just come back to um it's a grocery store and as we mentioned before, POP 125, it's legally allowed to sell beer and wine. Um, so I'm tending to go that direction. Um, they profit their liquor store for that. I understand that. Um,

[417:02] I just I I think um the needs and the desires of the neighborhood I I I like going to the grocery store and buying my wine and my beer just personally, but I think I think that is a big deal for a lot of people. It is um it is convenient and why is Whole Foods not able to do do what other grocery stores can do? So I that's why I feel that they should be allowed to sell beer and wine into their in their grocery store. I really struggle with that question, too. Like, well, it's happening in other grocery stores, so why not this one, too? Um, and I think that it's out of control and as a board, it's our responsibility to keep in mind our community and that neighborhood. And if there's just like these I mean Target's like right there and they're definitely taking advantage of those temporary cases. It's the first thing you see when

[418:01] you walk in and I just um this is when we are the current board members, >> right? That was past board members. And so I don't I get what you're saying it, but Whole Foods has a liquor store. Like they have a liquor store. >> They don't need to move their liquor store inside their grocery store. >> Um that's actually a really regulated >> um store and it's great and it's really like you walk out one door and you walk in another door. Like, yes, you pay twice, but you also pay twice when you forget your Brussels sprouts and have to go back in. I mean, I just is is that convenience so high and those people need that wine so bad that we would put >> our young people around more liquor? I

[419:02] don't know. I Joy I I I don't know that Whole Foods needs this and I don't think that Whole Foods shoppers need this. I'm not hearing that need as being more important than the desire of a growing community with um small establishments and and local businesses. That's what I heard tonight. That is what was that is yeah just where I landed tonight. >> I appreciate that. Yeah, but please continue if you have >> I Yeah, I don't know. Um I don't know what else to say. I'm just I I'm more torn than I was 25 minutes ago, but I just Yeah. So, >> for sure. I went back and forth all night. All night. This was not This was People don't People who watch this, this is painful. >> Not there. [laughter] It's up there. It's one one of those. Yep. Yeah. Well, I I appreciate everybody's thoughts. I

[420:01] think everybody's being very thoughtful about it. I I disagree and I I think uh first of all, I think that whole food shouldn't be penalized uh for something that is they could be doing legally. >> How is this? >> Sorry. >> Curious how how you define that. How you define um about other grocery stores being able to to sell uh wine and beer and and Whole Foods not being able to do it because there's a a liquor store next to them. >> No, it's their liquor store. >> It's not their liquor. >> It's their liquor store. It is not somebody else's liquor store. The manager even said, "I have to go over there to make sure to check on those employees." This is a Whole Foods liquor store. I'm going to be very clear. They are taking their Whole Foods liquor store and moving it inside their Whole Foods grocery store. This is not like that liquor store. Now, they are saying

[421:01] they'll close that down. Um, and I didn't mean to interrupt you. I was trying to understand um what you meant by a penalty. Why why this would be considered a penalty. >> Take I take the whole thing together and their representations that they're going to let the license go, which they are going to do. We control that license at the end of the day. and and if they're representing that that's going to close, that's that's going to remove one separate operation, transfer the beer and wine to the the current Whole Foods. Uh hard liquor will not be sold in the current Whole Foods. It is in that location. Uh that will take that out of it. I think there's an advantage to having for the community to having uh a grocery store uh being able to sell wine and beer so that customers don't have to go to a separate location, don't have to leave and drive somewhere else. There are risks and hazards to

[422:00] that. I think that's a factor to take into account. Um and I and I at the end of the day, we have these petitions. Uh, E. Garrettson is as good or as bad as any of them. I' I've been impressed by her over over this very short time that I've been on this board. And I we we take what we get. I mean, we're we don't have a, you know, we don't have a a whole lot of experts out there helping us get to that. And we have to use our own community judgment, which we're clearly trying to do. Um, I don't, you know, I I I'm on the side of I if if the if the wine sale is is the the total between the two facilities, if you close the liquor store and you transfer the wine and beer business next into the Whole Foods, I if that's if that's actually going to go up, that represents something uh with the community speaking as far as I'm concerned. and I I take

[423:01] that into account. U other than that, I think we're just trying to do our job. I don't I don't think uh I don't think having a a wine and beer section uh by itself is is going to uh be a risk, an unreasonable risk to the community. It's how it's operated and and we expect uh we expect some level of professionalism in how it's operated within a grocery store just like we expect within supers or uh Safeway or any of the other grocery stores that have gotten permission to have alcohol in their stores. So uh that's my position. Okay. Um what what um whose needs are being met with that approval?

[424:01] Did you hear from any tonight? >> We heard from Eve Garrettson with her with her surveying. Uh and presumably we hear from the uh the customers that uh Mr. dry clean is is is uh concerned about moving over from his store to Whole Foods. Uh if they're voting with their feet, it it is a it is a uh a demonstration of need as far as I'm concerned. Okay. Any more discussion? Um I [clears throat] guess I keep going back on I think Chair Roberts you made this point is [clears throat] you know Whole Foods right um will at the end of

[425:00] the day we'll or um you know regardless of the outcome will be fine right they have a a liquor store next door um you know what responsibility do we have as a board for you know the the looking out for you know the need of the public safety right but then also you know the small businesses I think are to some of you know I think they've seen it with the um you know with 125 passing you know how is that further going to affect you know some of the the people we heard from today um the business owners um so I think you know that I think is important to consider Um and then I don't know la lastly kind of going back to um the um you know the consolidating consolidation

[426:00] of um you know moving everything to to the one to the one location. Um I I I I guess help me think through your your hesitations on just like the placement and the size the size and how that that will you know be a adverse or negative effect to um the community. >> Yeah. >> Like Yeah. because I I'm I'm just, you know, five aisles or whatever whatever it might be in the back of the store where the where the kind of the um the the prep area. So there, you know, kind of wherever wherever it might be. Um yeah, just can kind of maybe >> tell tell me talk to me about like your hesit, you know, how that how you think that is going to be pretty detrimental. Um, so that space isn't like at the back of the store. It's right in front of their deli department, right? Um, so

[427:04] it's a huge area. So, um, think about like when you're at the grocery store and you walk down a grocery aisle, like you're at Whole Foods, a gigantic grocery store, right? Not like our little local one, like a little Whole Foods, like a real Whole Foods, a King Supers, a whatever Safeway, and you're shopping. Think about how long those aisles are. >> Mhm. >> Want five of those. Now, >> I think where I get like >> I don't know where those go. Yeah. Um, where it feels where I lose [clears throat] trust is that you can visit any grocery store and see that everything just kind of like spraws. But they also couldn't answer me. If I'm Whole Foods, I know exactly how many bottles can fit on a shelf. To tell me they don't know that is just incorrect. I mean, I've owned a

[428:01] store, a glass blowing store. I knew exactly how much glass fit on every single shelf. So, for them to skirt by thinking like, "Oh, maybe I won't go do the math while they're all talking or not listen to like, you know, not use my eyes and see that that space is this big and the liquor store that they want to close is this big like in the corner." I didn't need that expert to tell me that what I'm looking at. If you just kind of blur your eyes and you're looking at that map, that is about a fifth of that store. It's an enormous area. Had they come to us and they were like, "Look, we're not in the liquor business. We don't even sell at our store. We just want to have some wine." They would have presented us with like an aisle or an endcap or something. Clearly, this is a gigantic part of the store. And I just felt like they um were dishonest. And I do believe they're being dishonest about how much it's going to be. And I speak that also from my experience with the

[429:01] Whole Foods I live next to. And >> attorney Ger, correct me if I'm not allowed to use my experience um in my decision- making and I will remove it, but I see I approve I I see that expansion creeping. Okay. And yeah, is that like >> I would recommend that you only only refer to what um you've heard at the hearing and um >> yeah the evidence in the record and just um yeah okay refer to that >> I felt like um Mr. Dear King did a really he in I wrote it down what he said. I mean basically essentially move a liquor store and he really made me see like okay wow that is like a big space and then they couldn't commit to how big it

[430:01] really is. And I like sneakiness and I felt that was [clears throat] really sneaky. Um I guess is kind of what it also comes down to. I ask them and if they can't answer questions then they shouldn't have a place to put liquor if they don't know how much I mean how are they going to keep people from stealing if they don't know how much is out there >> is I guess how I how I look at that space. Did I answer your question or help clarify or just complicate? No, >> you you did. You did. >> Yeah. I don't feel this is good for our neighborhood. I don't feel that. Um, yeah, I don't feel it's good for our small businesses. I heard our small businesses loud and clear tonight and I am glad they showed up because I didn't hear anybody asking for this. I didn't hear any members saying they want this. I saw signatures from somebody who spoke fast trying to get signatures.

[431:00] That's just the evidence. That's how I interpreted all the evidence presented this [clears throat] this evening. Um but any other question or deliberation um it's painful, right? [sighs] [laughter] >> Yeah. I'm just I'm I'm you know just going like the needs and desires of you know the neighborhood, right? Um, and that's really what we're looking at, right? And did the the applicant like prove that they met that beyond a burden of proof? Um, and yeah, that's the that like is the need that like I don't know. You could Yeah, there yes and no. I I don't Yeah, like it's [laughter] >> totally, >> you know. Um, >> yeah. I I guarantee when you sign up for

[432:01] the sport, you had no idea it was gonna be this hard because I didn't. [laughter] >> Yeah. >> Um but then yeah, it's kind of like and what do we weigh? You know, you you made the point, you know, certainly um you know, one-stop shopping. Um yeah, that's a that's an a need and desire for you know, >> I would probably feel differently if they didn't already have a liquor store, >> right? But >> I just Yeah, maybe honestly probably not to be honest. I may based on the evidence that was presented I may not feel different. >> Yeah, [clears throat] >> but I will have to move on from this because I think we still have more people to hear from tonight. So, >> yep. >> I just want to make the point about the petition. we do allow and have requirements for the petition um to be used um in these hearings. And so I just

[433:03] want to make sure you know the board is considered that um and to what extent um there's evidence that you know the particular signatures or you know there's the validity or not of the petition. So, I want to make sure that that's on your minds that you know that is a standard thing that is permitted in these hearings. And um I want to make sure the board is not um in a position where you're casting doubt entirely on a on a process um without specifying um >> you know the evidence to um actually base those uh that objection. >> I can speak to that. Um, I wouldn't

[434:01] [clears throat] say it's like a blanket statement, but we had um, well, first of all, and correct me if I'm wrong, it's a piece of evidence, and I can take that evidence and interpret it and and feel one way or another about it. Um, and at a different hearing, I might feel differently about a one of these. Um, but I actually heard people say that they didn't realize what they were doing. And there was actual [clears throat] witnesses that said that this is um what happened, that they were just kind of like, yeah, get just talking while she's busy like answering calls. That is not a way to do a needs and use. So in this very specific case, it was brought to our attention that this needs and use survey may have not actually been done as thoroughly as we would have liked and we had witnesses that actually said that and that is where I uh where I stand with with that.

[435:02] So I am considering it. It's it's tough though. It's tough when you have actual people saying like, "Well, I didn't realize that's what I was signing." And they come before us and look very [clears throat] uncomfortable because I know they didn't want to be here. Um, so anyway, I guess that's how I feel about about it. It's a piece of evidence and that's how I'm interpreting it. I don't and yeah, to me that's not a piece of evidence I'm considering that much, but Everybody can, you know, everybody looks at it differently. Um, okay. Well, should we vote and move on with this? >> Probably. Um, so then

[436:04] I would make a motion to deny this change of application. >> We [clears throat] actually, sorry, we had a motion already pending on the floor. >> So, you just need to finish that one up. >> Oh, okay. Um, >> okay. Well, I thought we redid motions after I thought it was like the motion. You didn't finish the vote after your discussion. I don't think there was a motion to approve and a second and then only two of you voted before the discussion. I think so. We just need to confirm the vote on that um before you make another motion. >> Well, I don't think that that's fair to the I mean I >> Yeah, that I know. I feel like when we do that that that it has flattened, right? And we start

[437:00] over >> officially. Uh you had a motion, you um moved and seconded and had the discussion. So you just need to finish your vote. So you were you started with a no and then I don't remember if there was anyone else. I think member Crane may have voted in the affirmative and member Barnes as well. And I'm not sure where Hagerty. >> Yeah, I did not vote. We stopped right before me, I believe. >> Oh, okay. Okay. So, we had a motion one and two. Um, >> I approve it, right? Is that what the motion was? >> Correct. >> Member Crane made a motion to approve it. You said member Barnes seconded it. >> Oh yeah, you're not. >> Someone did. >> So, member Hagerty. >> So, the vote comes to me and this is

[438:01] Yeah. Oh, boy. Um, so it was Chair Roberts had said no and it was yes. Yes. Right. No. No. >> Well, I don't think technically I've voted. I think that >> Miss Ger came on and like halted us. >> Okay. >> But obviously you know where I stand. >> Yeah. H [clears throat] um >> go based on the evidence. >> Yeah. Yeah. Let's try to do that. Um, God man. Um, >> and um, >> I mean, is it fair to um, and I don't

[439:01] want to put words in either of those two members, but we deliberated after they casted their vote. I just want to make sure they're still comfortable. >> Hi, Roberts. You guys can just revote on the motion. So, the motion Yeah. So, the motion was um member Crane motioned to approve and member Barnes seconded. So, if you want to just go back through and re revote, that totally works. >> Okay, that's fine. >> We're used to doing >> Okay. >> Okay. Is there Well, then can >> So, I guess we all just vote again, >> right? >> I guess so. >> Okay. >> There's no reason you can't. Yep. You can just go through. >> Okay. >> Like the motion just happened and was seconded. You should just go right on through. >> Oh, so continue with that one. You're

[440:00] saying, Caitlyn? Yeah, you'll need to um like Sarah was saying, you'll need to you'll need to finish voting on the motion that was already made. But if you want to restart the votes, that's totally fine. So again, the motion >> Oh, you're saying just repeat it again. I understand. >> Yeah. And I I believe at this point since nothing was official or passed, if there's a changed vote, I believe that's fine. Sarah can chime in on that if that's not incorrect. But um but yeah, if you just want to So the motion was to approve the application as is. Again, that was member Crane made that motion. Member Barn seconded. So, if you guys just want to re reset your votes, >> when you say as is, does that mean that there's room for changing the Oh, whatever. Okay. >> So, you the rules of procedure certainly you can move to amend a motion if that's you know what you'd like to do as well. Um and you it could be a friendly amendment or not. Um,

[441:00] so you can all revote on this motion as is. Somebody can move to amend the motion if you want to add some other types of conditions or whatever. Um, and those are your options. Okay. So then member Hagerty. All right. So, Member Crane, is there a switch? Let's just start from over. Do you want to start your motion over again, Member Crane? >> Well, it's the same motion I made before. I made I I move that we approve the the the application in the in the form that it was presented to the to the authority. >> Is there a second? >> Um, member Barnes will second that. >> Okay. All those in favor say I. Member Roberts. No. Member Barnes I member >> Crane I

[442:00] member Hagerty. >> Um Um Member Hagerty I >> Okay, motion passes. >> Yep. >> Good luck Whole Foods. Keep an eye on your theft. >> It absolutely. Thank you for the time, folks. Really appreciate that. Obviously, uh in the motion itself, we'll sort out the details associated with the surrender and the conditions and all that with the city. But I I I know it's hard. It's very difficult to be on a board like this and in particular in a matter just like this. So, we do very and I know Mr. Durking feels the same way. We very much appreciate at least your time, your opportunity to to listen to the all of the testimony. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thanks for putting on a good case. Thank you. Good night. >> Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, I assume that

[443:02] if we're no if whoever's not on the agenda is going to drop off. Um I am going to leave BJ in the um panelist view if that's okay with everyone because he is um the owner of Harvest Wine and Spirits and is here to testify on or is here to be the applicant or the lency for that. Um, but if you would like me to move him out of particip or into attendees for the time being, I can do that as well. But for the time being, I will move on to agenda item 9, which is public hearing and consideration of an application filed on October 21st, 2025 from Boulder Fa LLC, DBA Boulder FA, 285 28th Street, Boulder, Colorado 80301. We have Doy Newen, 100% owner and registered manager with a premises business mailing address for a renewal of a hotel restaurant type liquor license. And I see that Mr. Newan is here. Um, besides Mr. Newan, is there anyone else who would like to

[444:01] testify on this matter? >> Can I ask the question of what are what our plan is at this point? Um, do we really have five more matters that we have to cover? >> The agenda has >> to cover >> items 9 through >> 13. So that's what is that? Four, >> five. Um, up to you. I mean, the board can totally have a discussion on what they would like to do moving forward. >> I think it's worth doing that. I'm I'm not sure. I'm only speaking as one member, but I wonder whether we can be fair to people. Uh I don't know how long this can run and be effective. I will say all of these applications are renewal. All of the remaining um the remaining agenda items, oh my gosh, I'm fading with you. Remaining agenda items

[445:01] are renewal. So there's three renewal hearings and there is two administrative hearings which are just the check-ins. Um, there's a little bit more information about those two. Um, I will defer to Alisa if she believes that one of them is timesensitive and we need to really pay attention to those. Otherwise, um, renewals are not necessarily like time sensitive. Like they it wouldn't they don't always hold up if you like if you were to continue or something like that. it wouldn't always hold up the application if that's helpful information. >> Thanks, Kaitlyn. The haring experience is time sensitive and um Boulder F should go very quickly because um you'll just need to we did get their application documents with the exception of an $11 fee for their

[446:01] takeout license. And you'll hear from sales tax on both of those. I recommend we keep on going is what I suggest. So hopefully it won't be too much longer. >> You must not have small kids you're getting up with in the morning. >> I This is true. They're in college all day, right? >> That's another thing that's Yeah, [laughter] I did. So um that's that's a good point. So whatever you guys want to do because I I'm not in your situation. I don't want to like I don't want all of our meetings to just be like so long because we keep roll because we're like backlogged, you know. Um I miss pottery 30. So um >> 6:30 that was like yesterday. Yeah, >> I know. I know. I was just like >> hours ago, >> move us through. >> Do you all want to consider the time? Sorry, I know I had I got knocked out

[447:01] and I had to go on my phone, but um do you all want to consider the time-sensitive ones or consider amending the agenda to go to push those up front? >> That's probably good. I >> Yeah, I think so. >> If it's helpful to consider for next month, there's only one two there's four matters currently plus a boundary setting. So, it's nothing like what you're currently looking at. >> Jesus, Caitlyn, are they like matters matters? >> Nothing content. Not a contendant. [laughter] Contend. Oh my gosh. You know what I'm trying to say. No, nothing uh nothing crazy that we know of. That we know of. >> Roberto just made sure this agenda was cocked because he knew that I was covering. So, [laughter] >> um yeah, I would say let's take care of the timesensitive one and then go from there. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, I already called in agenda item nine. Um, so if

[448:01] um if you did you want to move forward with that one or did you That one is not the timesensitive one, but it will likely be a super quick one. >> Is are these like they didn't file on time or something? >> This one is a late filed. Yes, >> I believe. >> Um >> I'm sorry I'm speaking. I don't actually know. >> No, I'm complaining some new >> I think we should focus on the time. Oh, go ahead. >> Sure. So, this was brought forward because we were missing application documents. Um, since then, we have received almost everything we need. We need we need $11 for their takeout permit and that is all that the licensing division needs, but Penelope needs to speak to the sales tax piece, please. >> Well, that doesn't sound quick. >> Sorry, not in good standing. Um, so I guess I can just leave it at that and not um

[449:06] what is the timesensitive one? Um, the timesensitive one is going to be agenda item 11. Is that right, Alisa? >> Yes, it'll be harvest and >> Thank you. Um, boy, I'm having a lot of decision fatigue. I guess, um, we should do I would take your lead on this, um, from the clerk's office. >> Roberts, I would recommend that you just follow the agenda in order at this point. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay, agenda number nine it is. Um, perfect. And really quick before we go any further, um, Mr. Newan, I see that

[450:00] you're here, so I'm going to promote you to panelists if you would like to speak on the matter. Okay, perfect. Hi, Mr. Newan. Good evening. Thank you so much for your patience. Um, really quickly, we're we'll try to go as quick as we can. Um, if you will just go ahead and say your name and spell your name for the record. >> My name is Die Huen. Um, my you my full name is Diwan. >> Thank you. And can you just spell your last name for me? >> Uh, NG guen. >> Perfect. And can you provide an address? 89 Sugar Beat Circle, Longman, Colorado A0501. >> Thank you so much. If you'll raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that the statements you're about to give before the beverage licensing authority are true and correct? >> Yes. >> Do you swear or affirm that the state

[451:01] that the premises has been posted for at least 10 days prior to today's hearing? >> Yes. >> Thank you so much. Um, and yes, for the board for the information, we already went over it, but there was just a few application documents missing. Um, it looks like we are mostly up to date with that. And then there's just one feed that Alisa is missing. And then um Penelopey is here for sales talks questions if you should have them. And Mr. Newman, usually um the board will just give you a second to to talk about why you're appearing for the renewal hearing and then they'll ask some questions. >> Oh, okay. Sorry, I thought today I thought we going to start with questions. So, um, hi everyone. My name is Die. So, um, we currently have some problems with the bank, uh, with banking, not with the bank, with banking. So, that's why when we pay the sale tax um, we got some, um, return and

[452:03] bound um, payments coming back and forth, my accountant is working on it and I'm just making sure with him this morning. We going to um we going to get everything I mean all the bandwidth tank resolve. Um hopefully the end of this week I would say but um you know the latest would be next week. So lat lately um you know that's my fault. I'm sorry. So um and then for the fee I don't know why um I missed um understand on the fees and the training stuff but um I got all the fee corrected and um I got all my employees training um recently. So um yeah that's very much it what I say. >> Are you currently serving alcohol? >> Yes, I am. is that um

[453:06] um so on dece sorry maybe I missed this so renew formally filed still in complete so oh be so on December 15th your license expired and you were told you cannot serve alcohol and was that >> lifted because he then filed. So we did I did file and then I send everything submitted but I don't know somehow when the uh when Caitlyn send the email back to me sometime it go to my email sometime I don't get it and then I remember some point in no in December beginning of December or something I finally noticed that some miss um thing some miss item and I tried to contact but you know I couldn't So um

[454:00] that's why we missed the deadline after it's expire >> but you were late in 2021 2022 2023 2024 and 2025 is that correct for late >> I don't think I I think last I got some problem just last year and this year I don't think I got any problems in the pass. I can double check really quick. >> Well, actually this year I filed in October and um and I think I missed understanding on the fees and um some other items. So, >> so can somebody clarify like is he

[455:01] allowed to be serving again because he did end up filing and paying something? >> So, his renewal was due on October 25th and he Let's see. Oh, no. That's the wrong one. Hold on. Let me try to make sure I'm in the right one here. Here we go. So his was due on October 25th and he did timely file on October 21st. So I don't think there's a question about whether he can be um selling right now. >> So he can be selling. >> Yes. >> So then why in the notes? >> This was this was initially put on the agenda and the application packet because we were missing documents. Now we're down to um if you look at the bottom of the memo um it talks about the responsible vendor training and determining if um you want him to do an in-person hearing at the next renewal cycle. So in the past what

[456:03] you've done generally with applications in this situation has been to approve them and have them do check-ins. >> Yeah. And then and then I will need the $11 for the takeout permit. >> Um why didn't you answer the city's emails all the time? >> So I don't know why but it's come to my email and it's flowing so I couldn't see it. That's a and then until I see it and then you know I follow up because I didn't see the first couple email even they even I I don't know if maybe I put a phone number wrong or something but I did not get any phone call or anything but the email you know is flowing up so it's go away so I didn't see it to be

[457:00] honest. Um, so I don't I'm [clears throat] not sure I follow that. It's a Gmail account. >> Yeah, it's a Gmail account. >> Okay. >> So, what what we've done? >> Yeah. >> No, go ahead. Go ahead. So like what what was suggested like a check-in moving forward like for the next renewal has to be done like in person like during this meeting almost. >> I know we just I like don't want to keep doing that. We have all these >> you know it's like then we sit here so late every night >> and so I'm just trying to understand why this was an issue if it's going to be an issue moving forward. Like it's >> it it's if you're responsible enough to have a liquor license, you should be responsible enough to answer email and file your paperwork on time.

[458:00] >> I'm sorry. I understand that. >> Yeah, that's kind of So, um, this is your first time before us or did you come before us last year, too? Is this your first time before us? Uh last year it happened because um I forgot to renew because I got so many stuff going on. But this year I tried to be on time but you know it it just some other problems happen. I'm you know I'm really sorry. So >> yeah. Um okay. Well, I would make a motion to approve. Um, did you provide us with anything?

[459:05] And chair Robert's wired thinking. Um, Penelopey from sales tax is here and would like to give comments. Yes, if you're open. >> Oh, I didn't see your hand. I'm sorry, Penelopey. Please, Chissy. >> Uh, sorry. I would just like to make a comment or a request that should it be approved that it be conditionally approved that all things sales tax are settled uh within that two twoe timeline that he has given himself. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Um, then board, do we want to boy, I'm losing it. I'm so tired. Um, I would make a motion to approve conditionally

[460:00] um that everything is taken care of within the next 2 weeks. You always answer the city's emails and phone calls. >> Yes, I will. Thank you so much. And I'm sorry again. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. And they're here to help you, too. So, when they call you, they're not going to yell at you. They are here to assist you. And they're really great people. So, reach out to them for advice. Reach out to them for help. >> Just I will >> stay connected and uh keep us in the loop so we know what's going on. Okay, I will. Thank you so much. >> Um, well, we still have to Is there a second? >> I second or second the motion. Member Barnes. >> All those in favor say I. Member Roberts. I. >> Member Barnes. I. >> Member Crane. Are you still with us? >> Like you're on mute still. Member Crane.

[461:02] member Hagerty. I >> thank you. >> Do we need to wait since um we have a quorum and majority voted in favor? >> I believe we can listen as having not voted. >> I'm sorry, what was that? >> I believe that we can listen as having not voted. Is that correct, Sarah? Do we have an absent >> member crane? Um I think maybe excuse himself for a minute. >> So we >> Okay. So yeah, we're good. We have three. We're good. Just I would say no vote. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um okay. Approved. And hopefully not that I don't want to see you, but we don't want to see you on this matter again. >> Okay. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you. Have a good night. >> Thank you. Maybe too. Two weeks.

[462:02] >> Yes, I will take care of it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, if we're okay to just keep going. Agenda item 10 is public hearing and consideration of an application filed on December 1st, 2025 from CNG CMG Ventures LLC DBA West End Wine Shop 777 Pearl Street Unit C Boulder, Colorado 80302. Masky LLC 100% owner with Renuka Masky as sole owner of Masky LLC with the premises business mailing address for a renewal of a retail liquor store type liquor license. And Mr. Masky is here. I'll go ahead and promote him to panelist. Um, and Mr. Newan, I see that you're still here, but you can feel free to leave. And Mr. aski if you will just accept your invitation to become panelist

[463:01] while the lency is getting settled. I will just let the BLA know that this was scheduled for hearing because it was a late filed renewal. The um renewal expired on uh September 25th and the it wasn't filed until December 1st, 2025, which perbla rules of procedure requires that they appear at a BLA hearing. Um the renewal was submitted fully complete and um the license is in good standing with sales tax and in good standing with occupation tax at this time. So um it is solely in front of you because it was a late filed renewal. And Mr. Masky, if you will go ahead and unmute yourself. I'm just going to swear you in and read into the record real fast. >> Uh, yes, please. >> If you will just go ahead and uh say your name and spell your name for the record and give an address. >> Okay. My name is Ramen Mask. R A M E N M A S K E Y. And my address is

[464:03] 465 South Street, Boulder, Colorado 80305. Thank you so much. And if you'll raise your right hand. >> Do you swear or affirm that the statements you're about to give before the beverage licensing authority are true and correct? >> Yes, please. >> Thank you. And do you swear or affirm that the premises has been posted for at least 10 days prior to today's hearing? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. Amazing. If the jur has any questions, she'll ask you get some questions, but otherwise, you can go ahead and give whatever. >> Yeah. Just tell us what's going on, why why so late. Um because it was our like internal like misunderstanding and like I got a letter from city like that was the thing was a mistake was that I have a letter from uh I thought it was from city of license that it mentioned that your license is due on 1231 2025

[465:00] but it was my misunderstanding because I'm the only solo working over there so it is of the workload and everything happening So then later on when I saw it was from the business license not for the legal license. So then I applied that immediately with every document and everything being a solo. So I'm over here for everything. So till now there is no violation or anything happening on the store. There's no tickets or anything. So I think yeah this is my first time on the screen too. >> Totally. Yeah. Um what are your plans to make sure you don't miss your filing next year? Uh I'm making every like calendar doing everything and going ahead because my hours are like 11 to 8. I don't open like late night or early morning. So consider with that one. So I'm trying to do everything. Yeah. >> Okay. Um sounds like you're in good standing. I

[466:00] would make a motion to approve this um filing this renewal. Uh I'll make member Roberts will make a motion to approve this filing this renewal. >> Member Barnes second renewal. >> All those in favor say I. Member Roberts I. >> Member Barnes I. >> Member Hagerty I. Thank. >> Okay. approved. Set your alarm. >> Thank you. [laughter] Yes, ma'am. >> You >> I'll do it. >> Perfect. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you all so much. Um I will move on to agenda item 11. And Mr. Masky, feel free to drop off. Um, agenda item 11 is public hearing in consideration of an application filed on December 25th, 2025 from Puda Lock Buddha Locks Corporation DVA Harvest Wine and Spirits 3075 Arapo Avenue, Boulder, Colorado 80303. BJ

[467:02] calling president and 100% owner with the promises businessing address for a renewal of a retail liquor store type liquor license. And BJ is in the hearing already. So I'll just ask you to unmute and start your video. [snorts] Perfect. I miss your calling. Um really quickly, I'm just going to swear you in one more time since this is a totally different matter. If you'll just um say your name and spell your name for the record. >> My name is Biz Khaling. B I J A Y K H A L I N G. >> Thank you so much. provide an address for me. >> 3075 Rap Power Avenue, Unit C, Boulder, 80303. >> Thank you. And if you'll raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that the statements you're about to give before the Beverage Licensing Authority are true and correct? >> Yes. >> And do you swear or affirm that the premises has been posted for at least 10

[468:00] days prior to today's hearing? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you so much. And um licensing manager Alisa has, I think, a few comments for you. Thank you, Caitlyn. So, this application is before you because it was late filed. They have late filed for three years in a row. Um, last year it took us nine months to complete the renewal and the year before that it took us six months. Mr. Kealing did work hard today to get me his application documents. I did not have them prior to the packet. I got them today. I reviewed them during the meeting and right now I have everything I need. Mr. Kaling has registered for a certification class, but he has not completed it. Um, so the question before you right now is, would you be willing to put a condition on the license that he provide that certification to us when he receives it? And um, do you want him back next year for a hearing? And I also believe that Penelopey from sales tax

[469:01] has something on this matter as well. Thank you. Penappa, you want to go ahead and let us uh this is for um Harvest Wine and Spirits. >> Um as of right now, they are in good standing. >> Wonderful. Thank you. Um, sorry. I think I might have spaced out for a quick second. Miss Daro, you said that the conditional request is that they pro they give us proof of certification >> that he provides his certification to us once he receives it >> like training certification. >> Yes. He did not have a um a training certification. So, he did provide me a registration, but I would like a condition on the license that he provide that certification to us. And then I

[470:02] would like to know if you would like to have him back for a renewal hearing next year since we have had three years of late filings and it took so long to get everything we needed in the last two years. >> Absolutely. And when you say coming back next year, you don't mean next month. You mean next year? >> Next. he will need to file. He expires in October of this year, so he'll need to apply it by September 10th. >> Okay. Um, so when would you like to have that certification? >> I am not sure what date he registered for. That wasn't on the receipt that I received >> actually. Uh I did a book for upcoming Tuesday morning. I have a class. >> Okay. So two weeks after that I think

[471:00] would be sufficient. >> Okay. So um sure. So >> So is it like February 4th. >> February 4th. >> February 4th. >> Okay. >> Oh, no. I'm sorry. It's on Tuesday, so the 27th. So, February 10th. >> Okay. So, we will condition or I would make a motion to conditionally accept this um relay renewal as long as um you have turned in your proof of certification by February 10th. And then I think that um we should do a check-in in like August.

[472:02] Does that sound like a >> Yeah. >> good month? >> Okay. So, the motion will be to conditionally approve um as long as M. Do receives his certification by February 10th and then um we'd like to see you back at our August hearing to just make sure you're >> I'm so sorry to interrupt you, Roberts. Did you want to did you want to schedule a check-in or did you want to schedule a renewal hearing when they submit their >> Oh, no. No. I'm sorry. A check-in. A check-in. >> A check-in or a renewal hearing? Check-in. >> I get I think it's a check-in because that would be ahead of We want to make sure that he's on track to renew on time. >> So, check in prior to him. Yeah. >> A check in prior to the expiration of this current license. >> He will receive his renewal reminder 90 days before he expires. And the September 10th date is 45 days.

[473:00] So, at that check in, >> he could have already renewed or it would be a great reminder to get that in. >> That's what I was trying for. Yep. Perfect. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Um, I'll second. Did you motion made? >> Did you make it? >> I think so. Did you get that, Kayla? >> Yes. I'll just read it back to you. So, member Roberts motioned to conditionally approve this renewal as long as proof of certification is received by city licensing by February 10th and um licensing will schedule a check-in at the August 2026 hearing. >> Perfect. So, we want to have you by or let's finish the motion. >> Yep. Member Hagerty second motion. >> All those in favor say I. Member Roberts I. >> Member Barnes I. Member >> Hagerty I. Five minutes and then we'll >> member Crane. Uh, did you want to vote on this motion? >> Member Crane votes yes.

[474:00] >> Thank you. So, we'll just see you back in a few months. Make sure uh you're ready to file your next steers on time. We'll get you back on track. Okay. >> Sure. Sure. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Okay, thank you so much, Mr. Calling. Feel free to drop off. >> Thank you. >> Of course. >> Okay. Um, we will move on to agenda item 12 and this is an administrative hearing for [ __ ] LLC DVA 80s at 114313th Street, Unit 101, Boulder, Colorado 80302. You'll notice that this was changed from a check-in to an administrative hearing. And Kristen Teague is here to give you a little bit more information about that. And Mr. Salero is also here. Um as the lency Saguero Okay, he's coming in. Um and at this time they are not in good standing with sales

[475:01] tax, but they are in good standing with occupation tax. And I'll hand it over to Kristen. >> Excuse me. Yes. Thank you so much. Um, I would like to draw the authorities attention to page 330 of their packet. That is the memo um I prepared for this item. Um it does outline the history of this renewal application as well as the ongoing um and subsequent hearings that we've had August, September, October, November and December. Um I would also draw attention to the prior renewal history for this uh lency. He has um had um renewal deficiencies including late filings, missing documentation, and tax compliant issues as follows. 2024 renewal deficiencies unresolved for over a year.

[476:02] 2023 renewal finalized in September due to missing documents and tax issues. 2022 renewal delayed due to missing documents and tax deficiencies. 2021 late filing, multiple compliance issued issues and required BLA hearings. 2020 and 2019 renewals were delayed due to sales tax and training documentation compliance and 2018 which was their first renewal um after they had received their license was also filed late. I would like to bring forward also the additional compliance issues we have identified that is operation under an unapproved trade name as ADO's kitchen without filing a trade name change application alcohol service on an unapproved patio that was never added to the license premises continued use of city-owned patio space after the expiration of the required revocable right-of-way lease with outstanding unpaid fees interior

[477:02] premises modifications ations, removal of seating and addition of pool tables without a required permanent modification application being filed. And in your packet, you will also see after this memo, the state department of revenue notices dated September 18th stating the lency has failed to file or pay required state taxes. >> Thank you. At this time also, state of Colorado is unable unable to renew the liquor license due to the licency not being in good standing with the department of revenue. Um, and the fact that of course this liquor license expired on April 21st. >> Thank you so much for all of that valuable information. Um, Miss Daro. >> So, in an administrative hearing, my understanding is that this is the BLA's opportunity to then, if you so choose,

[478:02] direct staff to come back next month with a show cause hearing related to these items. >> Um, um, okay. >> I can clarify for the chair if you'd like. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe a little bit. I mean, I understand. Um I thought that's what this was or I thought we had done that last month to discuss that today, but maybe with the wind and everything. Um >> please. >> Yeah, I can't get my camera on, so apologies. There we go. Um my understanding is that you all did actually approve a renewal in the last October. I think it was in October. And so the status right now of the license is that it was officially renewed by you all. Um

[479:00] but um but you still have obviously authority to do various things. One of which is to send it for a show cause hearing at a later date. We wouldn't be able to hold the show cause hearing today because of due process concerns and and the like. Um, so this hearing was not set up for the show cause hearing. Um, because the license was already approved by you all for the renewal. Um, it's not officially a renewal hearing and therefore you couldn't essentially deny the renewal at this time. So that's kind of um where we're at as far as I'm aware. >> Okay. Um, so can we just Well, should we hear from Penelopey first and then or did you have more Kristen? >> Uh, [clears throat] Miss Rhodess can go first. >> Okay. >> Hi. Um, [ __ ] does not currently have a

[480:03] City of Boulder business license. It 31 of 2025. >> Okay. I was not aware of that. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you. >> And I would just like to point out the legality that in the state of Colorado it is a dual liquor license system. So you must have both the state and the city renewal in order to operate. At this time the state is not able to um um even approve um a license and he is expired. So they do not have a an active liquor license for him at this time. Okay. And so what are our I see the request from licensing staff. Um you direction from the beverage. Okay. Um,

[481:01] I would defer to uh, Attorney Geer on this because that memo was written before um, we came to understand what the BLA could do in an administrative hearing. >> Got it. Then I would like to Yes. here. >> So, um, this one was is definitely complicated. Um, it turns out that you all did approve the renewal prior to this information coming to light. And so it would potentially it would be a due process issue if you were to um take sort of disciplinary action against this lency without having that set for a hearing. So that's where we're at right now. So you um it would be it difficult without um you know conditions such as

[482:01] you know serious public health or threat to the community. Some of some of those conditions that would take it out of you know the due process um requirement. it would be difficult to um suspend, revoke or you know prohibit the sale even though arguably he is not permitted um to sell without the state license but you know you all did approve the renewal on the local level and so that's um where collectively it seems like the options are to send it for a show cause hearing or another hearing um where you could potentially get that evidence about these violations and make a ruling. Um, obviously in the meantime, Mr. Selgoro could bring everything into compliance. Um, and then you can take that into consideration. Um, >> but um, what didn't we approve conditionally that he had to be up to

[483:00] date with everything at every check-in? >> Oh, right. So, that's Thank you for reminding me. Yes, you did approve on two conditions. It's my understanding is that he is up to date on city sales texts and that he attend these eight um check-ins and unfortunately it's my understanding that because the board was not aware of this alleged situation with the state, you were unable or didn't have the information from which to condition the license renewal on the, you know, being up to date on state sales tax. And so technically, if he is up to date on city sales tax and he's appearing for his check-in, he's met your renewal conditions. And so that's why we're in this situation. >> Understood. And is he up to date on city sales tax? >> Oh, we wouldn't be able to give a good standing because he doesn't technically have a license. >> So, how does that play into this? I

[484:00] mean, can he even be doing business in the city of Boulder? Is this even up to us? So, the business license, this is the first I'm hearing about the business license. So, that is separate. It would not be legal, as far as I'm aware, for him to operate without the business license. Um, but bear in mind, it sounds like this had just expired. This hearing, I believe, was was this also initially scheduled for December 18th and pushed or >> he's a check-in was scheduled in December. >> Okay. So his license was technically his business license was technically still active at that point. >> Um so you know no um but he could not operate without a business license but yeah that's separate from the conditional renewal though. So where you're at right now from the BLA's authority perspective is >> he was renewed you know from your

[485:00] October meeting. I think it was in October when it was approved. Those two conditions were met. And so the failure to have a business license, any um failure to get a state liquor license, all of those things would need to be dealt with in a show cause hearing. >> Okay. And so what are our um options tonight? What are we voting on or is this a check-in? because I thought that yeah, >> you could send it for a show cause hearing um and have staff prepare that in conjunction with our office prosecution team. Um or you have the authority to do nothing. Um, you know, those are sort of your Yeah, >> I guess if he's not in good standing with city's sales tax >> because he can't be or because he's not. I mean, is he

[486:01] >> I've been payments if I may. >> Yeah, he was up to if he's up to date on his sales tax payments, that was the condition. The condition was not the other lensure. So, um, unless tax has something else, you know, to testify to with respect to the actual sales tax payments, cuz I believe he was behind in the sales tax, city sales tax, and that's what prompted you all to condition the license renewal on the payment of sales tax city. >> Okay. Well, then um I feel like I'm just like rolling right through this, but I don't want the other me board members to to feel that way. >> You did you did a great job. >> Okay. [laughter] Um >> you're doing great. >> I would then make a motion to um have a show cause hearing at the at the next one. And let's keep it real

[487:00] short. I'm just kidding. Um, is that a motion? >> I second that motion. I second that motion. Member Barnes. >> Okay. All those in favor say I. Member Roberts. I. >> Member Barnes. I >> me I. >> Member Aerty. I. >> Okay. So, we have decided that next month we will need to have a show cause hearing for this matter. Um, is there anything else that we need to do? I I agree with um, Miss Guyer. There's not like a reason. There's no like immediate health crisis like we've seen with other establishments. But I guess that's it. Is that what we do? >> Yep. That's >> That's it. I can stop talking. I can stop. You're okay. Yeah. [laughter] >> Okay.

[488:00] >> All right. Mr. Sagero, we are giving you so many chances. Please. >> I mean, I am I'm pretty I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm very uh confused. Um >> Okay. Well, you have a whole month to figure it out. >> Okay. Uh, so in the meantime, I need to go get my local sales uh license, catch up with the state, >> what it sounds like. >> Um, okay. I mean, that's just, >> you know, these amazing clerks are always here to help you. So, um, pay that every month. >> Uh, okay. In the meantime, I can continue trying to make some money to pay because obviously my stresses all relate through just the enormous the the the increasingly hardships of doing business in Boulder when it comes to rent, when it comes to food cost,

[489:01] electrical costs. I mean, you know, this body has seen the monumental effort that I have tried to do over the last few months in order to keep going and then mid November to mid January hits you and you lose 30 to 40% in any sales like it's just vanishes. People leave. >> Absolutely. and we look forward to hearing your um testimony and evidence and whatever you want to present to us at the next meeting. >> Thank you so much. I I still appreciate you letting me continue. I will do my >> I just want to clarify the board doesn't have the authority to give you permission to operate illegally. So if you actually don't have a business license, you're I can't give you legal advice either. But I would make sure you're complying with current law um

[490:02] while you're operating your business. And if you do have questions, go ahead and and contact the clerks. Um definitely. But you know, if you're if you don't have the proper licenses, you know, we can't tell you that to continue. >> Thing about it is I I don't recall getting uh anything that said renew your liquor or your your current city. uh license. Um, and that's why uh this to me it's it's a it's a new thing. I I I did not get a you know like how if I I get a a renewal for my uh health department uh license. Um I I I don't I didn't get anything uh for that. So >> then I would suggest setting some calendar dates for all of these things that you're supposed to be renewing. Again, um

[491:00] >> but the license doesn't have an expiring time, >> does it? >> Yes. The city of Boulder license expires every two years. uh renewal notices um went out email every month uh since October and we sent out paper renewals as well in November and then again in January. >> I have not gotten a single one. >> And there's also a notice on your login with a little asterk that says actions needed >> to pay to pay taxes. is required to do business in the city of Boulder. I didn't know that they had portals like >> W. Okay. >> Um, so we'll see you next month. And no advice, but just be careful doing business without a proper license. That sounds pretty illegal.

[492:01] So, >> get all this right away. >> Bring everything uh that you would like to present next month. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I will move on to agenda item 13 which is administrative hearing for the Riverside Group Ltda Riverside 1724 Broadway Street Boulder Colorado 80302. However, there's no attendees >> in the attendees anymore. I did see that the lency for this this or for this license was here but has dropped off quite a while ago. Um so I think Alisa can speak to what happens next. >> Yeah. So you do have the option to continue this to next month. Um he was brought back to this meeting as an administrative hearing because he one of his businesses was not in good standing

[493:01] with sales tax last month. So, if you want to hear from Miss Rhodess before deciding if you want to continue it or if you'd like to order a show cause for this one as well, um that would be fine. Those are the options I believe. >> Okay. Yes, please. >> I suggest hearing from me first before you make a decision. >> Oh, yeah. >> Only only because um when I answered the 00, they were not in good standing. They are currently now up to date on all missing items. So [laughter] between now and then it has settled then um I guess we can we just see him next month >> back in. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Got it. We'll just schedule a regular check-in for him. But thank you for that. And um a reminder of that would be

[494:02] nice next month if you if you're here. [laughter] >> Sure. >> Thank you for all the support. >> Okay. Amazing. We're almost done. Agenda item 14 is matters from city attorney. I don't believe Sarah has anything. >> Nope. Just thank you all for bearing with me. Um this coverage. I don't envy you and thank you for your service. >> Thanks, Sarah. >> Well, thank you. Come back anytime. >> Um, perfect. Uh, last we have well, second to last, we have matters from licensing clerk. Um, there's what's on the agenda that's normally on there, transfers done for this month. You have your event, your special events, and your attempt mods. Um, I won't I won't make this go any longer. So, I'm just going to continue any discussion that we were going to have about the two things

[495:00] that are on there either. Um, there's BLA training. We talked about it. I think you talked about it in December. We want to shoot in January. That didn't work out. We want to do it in February. So, I'll try to find a date for you guys through via email. Um, and if not, then we'll talk about it in February. And then we I have options for boundary settings. We'll talk about that in February. Not timesensitive. That's okay with everyone. Yes. >> Perfect. And any matters from chair and members of the authority. >> No. Well, fantastic. >> Can motion to adjurnn that. >> Yes. I will make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second that. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. Member Roberts. I. >> Member Barnes. I. >> Member great I. Member Hagerty I. Thank you guys so much for your discussion. >> You're so late from all the city >> work tonight. >> Thank you. Good job everyone. Good job guys. Thanks. Good night everyone.

[496:02] >> Bye bye.