February 6, 2023 — Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] And we are recorded. Oh, one more. All right. Can you watch the waiting room? Yeah, Awesome. All right. Welcome to the February addition of the Cannabis License and the Advisory Board for the City of Boulder. and we go ahead and start with the instructional instructions for virtual meeting and rules of decorum. Okay, when you want to do that. Okay. So on my screen here you should see the public participation. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversation. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members, as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspective. More information about this vision and the projects communication process can be found on our website, which is Bolt or Colorado dot go.

[1:06] The following are examples of rules of declar and found in the Border Revised code and other guidelines, and support this vision. These will be upheld During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats for use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial advocates, and other speech and behaviors that disrupts or other residents. The ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. participants are required to sign up to speak, using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online currently. Only audio testimony is permitted on London. and that is our rules of decorum. Everyone in the meeting should also be able to rename themselves. So you're planning on participating in public comment at some point you will need to rename yourself with your form.

[2:03] And would you like to proceed with the roll call. I would all right, Member Anderson. I to see my in the meeting. If you'll just speak your Thank you. Member Kristy is acting currently. Both might be joining Leader Member Green present by Sharkey again. Present. Sure. It's been present member below present Member noble present ex officio, Thompson Wasn't. And Okay. Thank you. Okay. The minutes were available from January ninth. Does anyone have any comments or concerns or corrections?

[3:13] Alright. If none, i'll take a motion to approve motion to approve. and a second on that right seconds it's Alana and Brian anyone to post or abstaining. Okay. good. Well, let's go on to general public comments from the board. If you have. you'd like to make a comment. Please go ahead and raise your hand. You see, Mr. Guard is already racist, and you can use the raise hand function which is under reactions, I think. at the bottom, or you can give me a thumbs up that will work with you on breath. We will start

[4:01] with Mr. Of course. Let me get my time off. Okay. And for everyone making public comment, I do want to point out that we are doing the timer slightly differently than we have in the past. You'll see a little 3 min on my screen, and i'll also give you a like 30 s warning to that here. So, Mr. Go ahead. Thank you very much, Caitlin. I just wanted to speak to the issue about recuse and conflicts of interest. I know this was quite an extensive topic at the last meeting, and following that meeting, Sandra and I met and discussed the issue At length I think there was some confusion about how these things work. And again there was also some idea was by one of the members that maybe my My opinion

[5:06] was a little less than objective about this, but I wanted everyone to know that the opinion that I rendered on Alana's behalf when I looked at. This was pulled directly from the guidance provided earlier by the city, which was the substance. the of the discussion between Sandra and I, and then we were able to work through that. And so again, I think this is going to be a a sticky issue going forward with everyone, just because again conflicts of interest do exist, and we want to make sure to avoid them at all cost. But I did want everyone to know that Alana and her intentions were only the best she has given of herself for many, many years to the first with the map, and now with the cloud. and I wouldn't want anyone to think that she would do anything other than act, and behaving in an ethical manner. And when she approached me that was exactly what her intention was is just to get to

[6:03] figure that out. So i'm glad we were able to work together and collaborate, and I will continue to work cooperatively myself with the cloud as we try to wrestle with all of these very significant and sometimes devices of issues that the club has to deal with when trying to balance the way. The you know the public's interest in the city's interest in the interest of the industry. So thank you very much. Did anyone have any questions for Mr. Guard. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. You're welcome. Rachel Rachel Freeman, I should say Yes. Hello! Can you all hear me? Okay. Yup, we can.

[7:00] Great. Well, hello, Members of the Cloud. My name is Rachel Freeman. I am the program manager for the tobacco education and prevention partnership at Boulder County public health. I just wanted to thank you so much for your time to listen to partners and community members on the topic of marijuana hospitality establishments. The city of Boulder has historically been one of the first communities to ensure a clean air for its residents by passing and implementing comprehensive smoke free policies. I just wanted to at speak today, to just say that we at Boulder County, public health and the tobacco, education and prevention partnership, support the previously passed motion which would only exempt social consumption. Businesses from the Colorado Clean and or Air Act. If ventilation systems could ensure that non consuming customers, workers and first responders would be safe from the health impacts of secondhand smoke. We would not support amending this motion.

[8:03] A large focus of the work that my team and I do at Boulder County. Public Health revolves around youth, tobacco, and vape prevention, and the drastic reductions that we've seen over the last 2 decades, and use smoking rates are largely attributable to environmental level strategies, such as smoke free protections which have denormalized smoking and public spaces. promoting smoke-free spaces, is a proven strategy to reduce youth substance, use and d normalizes smoking The 2021 local data from the healthy kids Colorado survey show that 16% of high schoolers identified as current marijuana users. And of those users 50% said that they usually smoked it, and 29% said that they vaped it additionally. Only about 60 of high school students felt that people who used marijuana regularly had a moderate or great risk of harm.

[9:02] Youth, who perceive a low risk of harm from drug use are more likely to use drugs than youth who perceive a high risk of harm. You all have the opportunity to ensure that the perception of harm, for marijuana does not decrease as a result of allowing marijuana hospitality establishments to operate in the city. In addition to our belief that everyone has the right to breathe clean air, and should be protected from the harmful effects of second hand smoke. We believe that allowing cannabis, social consumption businesses is a step backward in preventing youth, smoking, and substance use. So just thank you so much for your consideration of this important issue, and engaging the community and making the best decision for the youth and boulder. Thanks so much. so questions for Rachel. He saw it. I'm aware of. I I understand.

[10:01] Susan. I I don't have to pronounce your first name. but you are third in line, and then your hand went down, and because I have questions for either you or Rachel. but if you I Here rumor has it that you have a limitation of time. I do, but i'm not anywhere near it. We can proceed. Normally, I don't need to get moving for another hour. So let's take our time. Go ahead and ask the questions you have of Rachel and I'll wait to take my turn. So, Rachel. i'm sure you've been following our discussions, and at the present time we have made recommendations that include smoking flower. but not concentrates. I guess I I want to get your opinion about smoke

[11:02] from vaping versus smoking flower versus concentrates, for I mean different different methods of inhalation, I guess. and how that might affect the indoor air. Yeah, and Tom, I may. I mean, I can certainly speak to this, but I also know my colleagues, who have their hands raised to give public comment, will also be speaking to this, and are sort of more experts in the actual air quality side of things. And so I may, I may defer to them. Certainly. Okay, Great I'm. I may defer to them. And I think that some some of those questions may be answered in public comments from them, so as to not take up. You know more time. I I think I would refer to them. Okay. that's fine. Anybody else have any questions for Rachel at this time.

[12:03] Okay, and is it Dr. Shikh? I'm not sure it's Dr. Shikh. Thank you very much for the chance to speak. Can everyone hear me clearly? Yes. Okay. So i'm a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and since about 2,018 I've been funded to measure air, quality and air pollution in public places where people are using cannabis in California. That means that I've been to cannabis festivals and to dispensaries that have on-site consumption permits. I have 2 papers and a number of scientific abstracts published on my research. So the things that I say to you soon. You can look up more details on, and i'm happy to send access and more information on request. So, and my research is funded by the California Tobacco related Disease research program, which essentially takes a tiny fraction of our California tobacco taxes

[13:07] and uses it to fund research on tobacco. And now currently a little bit of research on cannabis. So i'm go out to public places with part of with instruments that measure the mass, that is to say, the amount of particles in the air where I am. The instruments quantify particles that are small, small enough to reach all the way deep into your lungs. We call them Pm. 2.5, because they're smaller than 2. Point 5 micrometers in diameter. Pm. 2.5 is a known risk factor for heart disease and stroke. The research on this is changing rapidly, and it's a different

[14:01] kind of risk. Then what we normally think of with breathing smoke, whether it be tobacco, or would smoke or Diesel smoke from air pollution. Traditionally, we've early. We have more data and more time studying cancer and with cancer. There's a clear linear relationship between how much smoke you breathe, how many, how many particles you breathe, and how much cancer you get when you look at the relationship between the dosage that you inhale of P. M. 2.5, and it's effects on heart attacks and strokes the relationship isn't. Linear you get high risks at low concentrations, and it goes up slowly in sort of plateaus. It's an exponential relationship.

[15:00] I'm sorry I thought it was a little bit more than that. So when I am in a dispensary where people are actively smoking the Pm. 2.5 concentrations are tens and hundreds of times higher than is safe when I am in a dispensary, where people are vaping and dabbing the Pm. 2.5 concentrations are still unsafe around 85 micrograms per cubic meter where 35 is considered the upper threshold of safety. And when i'm in it, it's it's a problem. Just you know. Okay, Did you say i'm done that's yeah. That's okay. But we we do have time for questions. So questions for Dr. Shik. I have a question chair. sure. Cloud Meeting. A person came on the public comments

[16:01] and talked about the reasons for the Colorado clean indoor air act, etc. But basically what he said was the reason we had the Colorado clean indoor Air Act is that there was overwhelming evidence that tobacco smoke was something that was inherently carcinogenic and cannabis smoke is qualitatively different. And I just wondered if you had any insights on that, and certainly would love to hear where you were going to, with the concentrations of P Pm. 2.5 in some of those environments. Thank you. Thank you for asking Robin. That's actually why I wanted to talk about the difference between cancer risk and risk of heart attack and stroke. because a lot of us make our decisions based essentially on cancer risk. and while there we don't yet have too much data, showing that cannabis smoke is as carcinogenic as tobacco smoke. We have plenty of data already, showing that all manner

[17:08] of chemically active cam 2.5 particles increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes. So you you know I'd be the first to admit that Cannabis has its uses, and that it can be medicinal, and it can bring pleasure. But when you smoke indoors you create particles in the air. I have not yet seen a ventilation system that is adequate to the task of getting particle concentration down low enough for it to be safe, because it has to be extremely low. So that's I don't think that it's a good idea to make ventilation an exception to clean indoor air. I don't think it's a good idea to smoke, vape, or DAB in places where people have to breathe and work.

[18:05] I had a question for Dr. Shik. Go ahead, Brian. There's increasingly amount of concern. We've probably seen recent weeks about the role of gas stoves, the role of just a indoor air quality at restaurants and generalized Wonder if you could give us a comparative insight to like the relative risks of air quality and the kinds of settings that you study with indoor smoking and the kinds of indoor air risks associated with things that we don't typically so to see as we going to see, like places where Guest Stokes are user where there's and or barbecues or things like that. Thank you. That's an interesting question. So the primary risk with gas stove use is that burning natural gas, even though it's clean. Relatively speaking, it doesn't make many particles. It does release a chemicals. A family of chemicals

[19:00] called nitrogen oxides that are chemically reactive and damaged. The lung. The study that's got everybody excited recently shows showed that by analyzing data from a whole group of studies of children's health and asthma. that living in a home that had a gas stove was associated for the 12% increase in the risk of asthma development in children walking into a room where people where the Pm 2.5 concentration, is over 35 micrograms per cubic meter, let alone where people are actively smoking is associated with a 10 to 30% increased risk increased risk of a heart attack. Now you don't see healthy young people dropping dead because their you know their native risk of heart attack is very low. but once people start developing high pressure, get a little bit older, and their native risk of heart disease increases. Then that little extra exposure, that little damage that breathing particles does

[20:06] is enough to show a distinct increase in heart attack. Incidents We know this because people have studied communities before and after indoor smoking bands. We've also know it, because we've seen the effects of outdoor air pollution having wildfire smoke having bad air days. it doesn't take a lot of smoke, and it has a real strong and distinctive effect on heart disease, basically anything that has to do with having good blood, slow heart disease, and stroke most particularly. Evan. You have your hand up for a question. Yes, I do. My question relates to duration of exposure, and I, Dr. Shake, I appreciate you getting involved in this conversation here. The big question I would have is, Does your research

[21:05] correlate duration of exposure with the negative outcomes that you spoke with one of the distinctive features of the health risks of exposure to Pm. 2.5 of breathing particles. and the effects specifically on heart disease and stroke is that the risk is near instantaneous. You basically breathe in a chemically reactive particle. Your lung nerves sense it, and they so to send a signal that changes how the blood, the sorry the cells that line. Your blood vessels respond to stress. and it happens within 30 min in animal studies. It happens near instantaneously. One of my early studies with secondhand tobacco ship smoke showed strong decreases in vascular health. After a short 30 min exposure, and my colleague, Matt Springer, has repeated that same as he, using Marijuana smoke.

[22:07] and seeing the exact same results with marijuana smoke that he sees with tobacco smoke when in his rat system. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. and i'll just remind the board that we have 50 min a lot of her public comment, and it is now 3, 30, and we've taken up that 15. That's just for you guys. Thanks, Caitlin. We I think we're gonna go over on this one because we still have 2 more speakers having your hand is still up, though. That get another question. No, okay. So Dr. Sick on in May of 2,022, this board approved a motion that the city exempt license retail marijuana, hospitality businesses from the clean into our Air Act Only if ventilation systems ensure non consuming customers, workers and first responders are safe

[23:12] from the health impacts of the second hand smoke. Do you believe that? I mean would I, I guess, when i'm asked, what i'm gonna ask is, is is a separate room with separate ventilation. Is it? Would that be the only way? Is there a way, I guess, to ensure that non-consuming people are protected? Or how would you propose that you? I know you have some cannabis lounges in San Francisco, or at least one of them called Barbary Coast. I recently went to 2 of them in Denver, and there was a big difference. You actually between 2 of them once called coffee. What's it called it's? It's a coffee shop that doubles as a cannabis consumption lounge, and the other one was Tetra.

[24:06] and and there was a big difference between smoke and the 2 institutions, because one allowed flower to be smoked. One did not Do you have any comments about? Yes, so I've been in places that allowed people to smoke flower, and basically I had 0 ventilation. That was Barbary Coast before they installed their ventilation system. So I can so to conduct it, I think, for 5 experiment 4 experiments before they install their ventilation system, and 5 experiments after they installed their ventilation system, and unfortunately there was only a tiny effect. It wasn't even statistically significant, of the ventilation system. I think if i'd done more experiments I would have seen maybe a 15 or 20% reduction in Pm. 2.5 concentration in that particular lounge if you've been to it.

[25:01] Then I also studied, an if so. I don't usually name businesses when I publish. So i'm gonna be a little squarely here, but so I have a paper that pretty much describes what I just described to you and my first pay. I have another paper, my first paper, where I was in a dispensary that didn't allow smoking at all, and it was all vaping and dabbing. and we it was a much lower Pm. 2.5 concentration. Then you see, in the place when places where people are allowed to smoke flower. but it's still averaged, I believe, 85 micrograms per cubic meter over nearly a 1,000 h, because they allowed us to sample day and night for a couple of weeks. and it's definitely a huge perceptible difference in the air pollution. and it's much less noxious seeming. But it's not enough to reach standards of safe safety or anywhere near.

[26:04] And I've also been. There's another lounge in San Francisco that has a very elaborate ventilation system, with different rooms for different purposes and set ventilations. It's separate for separate rooms room for smoking room for dabbing. and although those rooms were designed to always have the door closed and always be segregated. that was very difficult for the business to implement, because they need to have their staff walking through both to tidy up and also for security. So people don't get up to ski sketchy things in this pseudo private place in a public space. So it really in practice, although I know they must have spent a great deal of money on it and put it put a lot of thought into it in practice. It didn't work very well. and also another problem with ventilation. Is it only the most sophisticated systems, You know they they can only go so high. And so if you're having a great business day, and it's crowded, and everyone's partying and happy and smoking like chimneys.

[27:12] You know you get really high concentrations of air, pollution and the vaping and dabbing lounge. We saw concentrations anywhere from close to safe to, you know, 200 over 200 micrograms for cubic meter depending on how busy they were. And you want a business to be busy. and especially when it's busy. If you allow consumption by smoking, vaping, or dabbing you're putting a lot of air pollution into the air, you know. and I I it? Really, I have not seen anything that was a single remediation effort, that is to say, just banning, smoking, but allowing, facing, dabbing, or just adding ventilation, but leaving, you know, uncontrolled the number of people who are smoking at any given time.

[28:01] those weren't sufficient. If you really want to practically keep Pm. 2.5 concentration down to safe levels. Then number one. You've actually got to monitor it and see if it's safe. and then when it rises above safe concentrations. You've got to act not just on what people are doing, but how many of them there are. and that means telling your customers? No, you can't do that right now. or you got to put that out or no, you can't go into that room, and that's a very unhospitable thing to have to do when you're trying to make people happy and comfortable. Okay, let me see if there's any more questions, because we, as Caitlin reminded us. we can't spend too much time on public comment. But any anyone else with burning questions for Dr. Sh. Okay? Well, we appreciate the time that you spent with us.

[29:03] Let's go on to Char Day, which I think you've been here once before. I know I have. Thank you so much. Thank you for this opportunity. I'll be quick. My name is Shard Day. I'm. With Americans for non smokers rights, and in our foundation. and I was raised in lions, and most of my family still lives there. It's hard following Dr. Shik, because she's so knowledgeable on this issue. I did want to point out that published research from Dr. Chick and other researchers has shown that Pm. 2.5 from second hand. Marijuana cannabis smoke is 3 and a half times to even 4 times higher than that from Marlborough cigarettes. So Dr. Sick has researched worker health in cannabis, smoking work sites, too, and has some great research on that. You were talking about ventilation just to follow up on that. The American Society for Heating Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineer is the organization nationally that develops engineering standards for building ventilation systems

[30:09] and ashray basis. It's ventilation standard for acceptable indoor air quality on an environment that's completely free from secondhand tobacco smoke. secondhand marijuana smoke and emissions from electronic smoking devices. So I have a map of all cities and localities that have strengthened their smoke free laws to include marijuana cannabis, and I can send that map to you if you wish. Basically we we're not questioning the decisions of individuals to use legal marijuana like Dr. Shik said, it has its uses. This is about protecting Everyone's right to breathe. Smoke free air, because smoke is smoke. and we just don't want to see hospitality workers becoming at risk for becoming a new class of workers who are required to be exposed to secondhand smoke.

[31:04] Secondhand marijuana smoke just in order to do their job. You know, we we strongly urge Cloud to not recommend rolling back boulders, long standing, and proven effective protections for smoke, free workplaces. Thank you so much. Thank you. Questions for Miss Day chair. Thank you. Thank you very much. Shar. I just wondered. What do you say when people wonder if workers kind of can make their own decisions about where they work and what they're maybe exposed to. I mean, do you have any thoughts thoughts on that? Sure, Sure. And and we do hear that a lot. I I see Dr. Shit came off of mute, too. It was there something from your experience, Dr. Shik, that you wanted to mention? You know that invite Dr. Shit back at some future time. I'm sorry it's a board of degrees, but at at this time you have the floor

[32:16] for a paycheck. And and yes, there may be people working in the marijuana. a smoking industry that enjoy smoking, but the amount of second hand smoke that they're inhaling is just off the charts, so it's. It's not fair for them to have to breathe that on the job. Thank you. Other questions. Are you familiar with other our cannabis lounges that are already open in the State of Colorado.

[33:01] Let's see. Well, i'm here in Durango, so I I am familiar with some. but I especially the ones in Denver, doing that measure 300 days. and some of the ups and downs of their own. their own business model, and how the ones that i'm familiar with is not been very successful. All right, let's go on to unless there's more questions. The person who, I believe, probably is recommend or representing and entity. Can we have your name? Gasco? Yeah, I might as PP out with a group to alleviate smoking pollution. Can you? Can you put your Can you change your before we do the 3 amount of time work? Can you change your

[34:00] what is it called your your name on the thing. So renamed yourself. I yeah, I don't know how to do that. That's my email. If you hover over your screen. there's 3 dots there you'll click the 3 dots, and at the very bottom it says, Rename. if you click that you should be able to put your full name in there, and not just as a a rule that we have in the city. and you can my organization's name but you we just want your name. How about this? Can you state your name and spell your name for me? Sure. Pete, Pete B. Alec V. I. A. Thank you, Pete. our Mr. B. Alex. Sorry, Dr. Beyond i'm not sure. Not a doctor. It looks like you're already in, and i'll start my time.

[35:00] I i'm Sorry I didn't hear you. You can go ahead and start your Yeah. So i'm with the group to alleviate looking pollution. I spoke few months ago when you last, hearing we're a nonprofit organization founded in 1,977, and have been in Boulder since 1,983, and through education and policy change, we work to protect the public from any type of exposure to second and smoke at work in public places, and multi-unit housing, as Rachel from the Health Department said before the folder has a long history of protecting the public from exposure to second and tobacco, marijuana and vap smoke. and over the years I've worked with both the Residents and City council to strengthen those protections. In fact, in 1,980, the Council passed the first one first laws requiring smoking and non-smoking sections. Years later, in 1,995,

[36:02] the voters passed by 55% the first organs and ordinance requiring totally enclosed smoking and non smoking sections and some public places in in fact, in most public places. But smoke, tobacco, smoke, dress. and ventilation systems cannot remove all the toxic chemicals that are emitted. so that led to prohibiting smoking and vaping in most public places and workplaces. And the count the council eventually also added the downtown mall parks, trails, multi-use paths and the outdoor areas of restaurants and bars. Again, a lot of it based on science and experience. and I believe that most boulder residents would not support having these license establishments here, and I think it might undermine those laws that we already have that protect the public from exposure to the second, and smoke at our organization. We do our best to educate, call rhymes about second and smoke. I think some of us been mentioned already, but there are there are at least 33 chemicals in marijuana that are also in tobacco smoke that

[37:11] could cause cancer. Some of the chemicals that are known to be there. There's 3 towns as much ammonia in marijuana smoke the tobacco smoke. It also can contain mercury, cadmium, nickel, lead, chromium hydrogen cyanide this stuff that poisons. rats, benzene, and other chemicals. our organization, many other health groups, opposes State law that allows communities to allow social consumption and licensed workplaces or public places, and we would oppose such a You have 20 s. Not okay. I'm almost done. You know. There are other ways to consume marijuana, the the act very fast, such as infused beverages that do not create emissions. And finally, the Chamber of Commerce says that the boulder is one of the healthiest places to live in the United States, and I would like to keep it that way. So thank you for your time.

[38:09] and I welcome any questions before I ask for questions. I, Sandra, do you want to address how people kind of provide additional information? I'm: Sure, i'm happy to. Yeah. Unfortunately, we have a really limited amount of time for public comments. So if people want additional information on speakers can always email and provide that information to the entire board. So that's just one suggestion. And is that information on the web on the Cloud website? It is. Yes, and our email address is licensing online at Boulder, Colorado. That's all spelled out licensing

[39:00] a folder Colorado, and that is on the cloudwife website. And then also, if you find any of our marijuana web pages as well. any questions for Pete from here I I have you on my speaker view now, Caitlin, so somebody else raises their hand. I can't see it. I don't see any, so we'll go on to Nick Torres. Hi! Good afternoon. Can you hear me? Yep. Hello! My name is Nick Torres. I am the Advocacy Director for the American Long Association and Colorado, and also speaking to you as a boulder resident. I you know it's hard to follow up. Dr. Chick, for sure. and I know that we're running time on time today with the public comment. So I really just like to

[40:01] offer some comments that of course, the Long Association feel strongly that everyone should be protected from the impact of secondhand smoke. Whether that is marijuana, smoke, or DAB, or vape. or tobacco smoke smoke is harmful to long health, whether it's burning wood, for that matter. Tobacco, marijuana, toxins, or and carcinogens are released in into the the bloodstreams. Smoke is of course, damaging to the lungs. And so it's important to know that that the smoke-free protections that folks have worked so hard for and that that that boulder has stood strong on should should should remain firm. and we should not be rolling back smoky environments and and going backwards when it comes to endangering the public to effective secondhand smoke.

[41:04] and that is important to remember, too, is, I mean, I moved here actually from from a state where we don't have strong smoke, smoke free protections, and to see that we're now considering. To roll back protections in a place that we do have those in place is especially concerning. And so I would just close there and thank you for the opportunity to provide some input questions for Nick. Take you off. Speak of you. Okay, one All right. I see no hands up. Oh, go on to Tony Radky. Hi! Good afternoon. Can you hear me? Okay. Not initially. But now we can speak loud.

[42:00] Okay, I will try to speak loud, and I will try to be brief, as I recognize and honor that you are running short on time. My name is Jodie Redkey. I'm the regional director with the campaign for tobacco free kids. I've been with the campaign just over 16 years, and I've worked in the field of tobacco control for just about 20 years. and worked in the early days in the State of Colorado, both municipally and at the State level. To ensure that residents here, and those who choose to recreate here were protected in indoor environments from breathing secondhand smoke, and so just want to weigh in and add our organization's name to the a growing list of those who oppose the allowance of you know these hazardous chemicals to be cons or inhaled indoors. We worked very hard to ensure that we protected residents in state and and expanded; that to include casinos, and to consider another class where or category where smoke is inhaled by employees who who work there is really taking a step back instead of a step forward. And so I just I can submit comments online as well

[43:11] to go into greater detail, but just wanted to voice our opposition and our concern, for all the reasons that I've been raised by Shah Nick and my other colleagues, Pete and Dr. Chick, who's always hard to follow in terms of our organization's large concerns about the discussions to permit this moving forward, so I appreciate the time to weigh in this afternoon. So thank you. Questions from anyone. I was Jodie. Sorry. I thought it was Joni, my bad. okay, and no other public comments. No other public comments.

[44:00] I will say, since it sounds like there might be some members of the public who are interested in submitting written statements that anything that will be distributed to the Board in March is due in that that licensing online mailbox on on February 20. So we take everything 14 days in advance of the the next meeting, and we have meetings the first Monday of everything. So if you're interested in submitting public comment right in public comment for the March meeting, which is on March Sixth. That would be due by February 20. Okay, thanks. Caitlin. All right. Yeah, it's Still. there there are no policy. Suggestion forms correct. Nope. Okay. And so we're ready to move on to a further discussions about hospitality provisions.

[45:04] Oh, go ahead, Kristen. I just had a couple of reminders before the board begins this discussion. Item. First, I just want to remind the Board of your proposed timeline for your final recommendation. The City Council last year. You all had kind of agreed on this tentative timeline, which was to have the the memo finalized. By the end of the meeting today. Schedule a public hearing on the recommendations at your March meeting. and then it at the April meeting. Finalize the memo and present it to council. So given that we're kind of running up against the first milestone here to have the memo finalized by the end of today's meeting. I just wanted to add that as a reminder that it's. If we're not able to finalize that memo, it will delay the timeline that you all had agreed on, which is fine. But I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of that.

[46:05] and then also just a reminder about the procedures for reconsideration of past motion. So we talked about this a little bit at the last meeting. but just to reiterate. Excuse me, someone on the prevailing side of the original motion has to make a motion for reconsideration. have that motion seconded, and then voted on in order to move forward with reconsidering a previous motion. Someone who was not on the prevailing side of a past motion cannot move to have that motion reconsidered. Does anyone have any questions about that Before we go on i'll come back to questions. But Stacey and Evan. we're just came back on. Evan may not have even heard

[47:01] that whole discussion. Kristen. I heard I just came on a computer, and i'm just about to be more visible, but off my mobile now. But I had both going, so I haven't missed anything. I am. I am also in Stacey's boat. I I I've heard everything. But i'm now standing in front of my computer so I can communicate with you guys without lots of background noise my apologies for the delay there I did. I did have a question. I kind of wanted to pose generally to all of the public coming commenters. If if that's appropriate, I would love to kind of phrase that right now and just kind of gauge the room if it's possible. Page. The members of cloud, because we can't Really. public comment is now closed. You can, you? Can? Well, then, I guess I will summarize. I will summarize and ask Cloud if Our intention is to execute the will of the voter and the regulatory bodies that exist over us. It would be to regulate hospitality, licenses.

[48:09] not prohibit them entirely. and every commenter that I have heard here today spoke of an absolute desire for prohibition of consumption inside. Be it vaporization, dabbing, flower consumption does not matter, I think, to a person everybody has a pretty transparent opinion that no consumption is a tolerable amount. With that I would ask everyone listening here, and everyone on the cloud to consider if the alternative is people illegally smoking in public is that the appropriate counter to Pm. 2.5 being present in cannabis smoke. Now, obviously, there is ways. I could dive into this scientific analysis enormously. I think. I think the the argument that we are looking at a

[49:04] unsolvable situation is unacceptable. I've run facilities for many, many, many years. and I've never had a single smell complaint. And since Bocs are much more difficult than particulate matter to manage. I find it impossible to accept that no technology can address air quality. That's just not true. We do it every single day. That is how we make sure that we can be next to residential neighborhoods. so that that argument just there is technology. It may be expensive, but there is absolutely technology available. I'm sure the one off explanations that Dr. Chick brought in and the one-off stores they just did it. Wrong. I'm: sorry. But we have mechanical engineers who are very, very good at mapping fluid dynamics of smoke. We can do this to say that this is an impossibility with a very expensive air control system. It's just

[50:00] that's just wrong. We definitely Can we do it every day? That's why our neighborhoods don't smell us. But even if even if we accept the idea that it is possible to treat this air is the argument that in protection of the workers obviously not the consumer, because the consumer is volunteering to be in this room. But are we arguing that in order to protect our workers, we must relegate all of our cannabis consumers to the street in front of the restaurant. I just the the logic here is impossible for me to get past. Are we going to say that I mean your chances of being abused by a bar patron. Go up massively when that bar patron is allowed to consume alcohol. Are we going to say that you got to drink alcohol on the sidewalk in front of the restaurant. because that's that's the the logic here, is there's no way to do it safe inside. so let's push everybody outside. and then we'll deal with the risks that way. It just it's it's it's tortured logic, in my opinion, given that we are here to regulate it, not to prohibit it.

[51:07] I know that all the people in the public who I am talking to right now cannot respond to this, and that's I. I'm. I'm. Saddened by that. I would love to hear your opinion on this one, because quite frankly, the people who don't want consumption also don't want consumption on the street, and since all of us can walk down the street in Pearl Street right now and find out what happens with cannabis consumption at 110'clock at night. Come on like I know it's not safe. It's not perfectly safe. There's a gas stove, and neither is having a fireplace inside of your house. But regulated controlled risk is what this industry exists for. and we are here to regulate that risk. We are not to prohibit a conscious adult from taking that risk. and I hear what you're saying about kids. But nobody is allowed inside of these facilities, not of age. In fact, we've already voted to make it a 25 year old limitation. So

[52:03] I I want to protect workers, too. But to make to make an argument about kids being exposed to smoke, is it's nonlinear? We are not exposing kids to smoke. This is a regulated environment to consume. No matter what we say about air treatment. there's no way. Anyone under 21 years old is going inside of this building period. So that's my talk to I appreciate Evan sharing all that you know. I I also appreciate all the speakers who came and spoke with us today, because that's a lot of really important information. And. as Evan is saying, i'm sure it could be a really colorful discussion if we had the time to do. You know more back and forth, type debating here. But for now you know, taking what we heard at face value. It sounds really important, and it's important, I think, that all of us here

[53:05] from these members, who, you know, have backgrounds in this type of you know this information specifically that said, You know. on my end of it i'm looking at this whole hospitality question as a multi part question. So there's you know the way. I'm thinking it through. There's all these different line items, many of which, if not most of which we've addressed and talked about at our meetings, and tried to, you know, like Kate, put together the document where we were looking at all this, including this indoor air question. Now some of them might hold more wait in my mind, then others. and that said, there's still many lines to consider in making this decision as a whole, you know, when we make our recommendations. So for me, this indoor air quality question has always been a concern since the last time we heard from professionals about it. I I've been.

[54:09] you know, on my end of this concerned in that regard is that from my perspective enough in and of itself to just, you know, as i'm listening to the speakers, i'm like finding myself like oh, my God, we should never do this! But then I'm. Sitting here and thinking. Well. there's a lot of other points to consider, and our job, I think, is, you know, for each of our backgrounds to weigh all that information, and then make you know our vote the way we want to vote, and that all will go to city council. You know, as far as a set of recommendations from all of us, you know, and all of our voices in some way being honored there. So this is an important point we're hearing about today, but it's one line item on the spreadsheet, so to speak. It is maybe a more heavily weighted one, but it's not the only one, and like I've been saying, you know, if there was the opportunity to get and dig a little deeper, i'm sure there would be some questions. I think Brian brought up an important point about relative risk in terms of workers exposures. If we walk through restaurants and boulder and tested the you know ppm of the air in those places. I I that's actually something. I'm sitting and thinking like, oh, that would be really interesting to do just here

[55:26] about the gas stoves right? So I I think that it's an important set of it. You know data we're hearing about today. It's something we really do all need to pay attention to, because it is real. It sounds like we shouldn't ignore it, even if maybe there's questions to be thrown at it. And at the same time, I think it's important to remember. This is one line item. you know, maybe a little more heavily weighted, just like some others in you know some My mind, for example, the driving after leaving these establishments is another kind of more heavily weighted line. Item. But that's how I've been looking at all this. And so

[56:03] this is, you know, the I would say, swaying information we're hearing, and yet one part. Still, it's not the entire story that we need to consider. So that's just what I wanted to share and share my thanks for the people. Who did, you know, present all the information they did today because I found it very enlightening. Actually, so. Thank you. And so did my children, who were listening in the background. Robin. Thank you. Thank you for that, Dr. Green, and thank you also, Evan, for the way, and I appreciate it. But I have to say I really appreciated the speakers coming forward, because in the last cloud meeting 2 things happened: One we had at a person come on public comment and say that cannabis smoke is qualitatively different. He may have, you know I can't assume what he meant there, but

[57:00] I what I found it. Evan, was that these folks gave a very dispassionate, unemotional presentation of a very inconvenient truth about fine particulate matter. and I think we do have to take that into consideration at just for what it is. It's it's a very tough, inconvenient truth. That fine particulate matter is harmful to bystanders and workers, and that's something we definitely have to take into consideration the other thing that I think the the people who were coming to comment today were responding to is this new motion that talks about a certain kind of ventilation system. and we do know, and one of the speakers brought up Astra. We just don't have any evidence right now that there is any ventilation system that would work. We have evidence that none of them. you know. Get this number to that 35 micrograms per cubic meter. We don't have any evidence that any of them do do better than that, or at an acceptable level for many of us.

[58:08] The other thing I would say is that I did not hear Prohibitionist type of rhetoric, and I i'm sorry you heard some of that, Evan, but that wasn't my take. I. I even heard one person talk about beverages, and I think many people who came on today said, I see marijuana has a time and a place, but my problem is secondhand smoke, so I just very much appreciated the people who came on today and can take this information in the context that it was given. Yeah, Robin, i'm not going to disagree with you. All of this information presented today is important. It's valuable. I don't disagree with any of it. I I do have a bit of knowledge about the Pm. Calculations and the components of that Pm. Calculation does have significant importance. Now. what i'm speaking of is carcinogenic related research.

[59:00] What Dr. Sheik was speaking about was part, and stroke issues heart attack and stroke issues. That is novel to me, and i'm i'm taking it very seriously. I also point you to the fact that I suggested a motion that we'll be voting on later today, related to outdoor consumption and allowing allowing us to. and I I include myself in the consumer category here, allowing us to combust and consume cannabis in an outdoor space protected from public view in a way that does not comp compromise workers safety, but does allocate space in our community for people to consume? It is a complicated issue, but do not deny that. But I think that it's important for us to realize that there is no good answer for indoor air quality, for for this industry, for this for this product. But if the alternative is not allowing indoor consumption. Then I think that a happy medium of no indoor consumption. But here is here is standards for outdoor space that will not compromise workers safety.

[60:07] but will allow for legal consumption methods, legal means of consumption. I mean, obviously, I want to tell you, as a as a cultivator, as somebody who runs production operations. I want to be able to sit here and tell you I need these 3 types of air treatment at this volume of air treatment, and I can promise you that we will see reduced risk by treating it this way. That is incredibly complicated. But being able to have this board support the idea of an outdoor consumption space perhaps artificially heated, but an outdoor consumption space that allows for legal consumption with a huge mitigation. Second-hand risk is a solution. I think that many of the people having an argument here, not in our conversation here today could support. And so I would. I would direct your attention to the motion language that I've already presented, that I really hope we get to pass here later today.

[61:08] Good. I'm trying to figure out how we're going to if we we work on the motions. and we give them a a limited timeframe each. I think everyone you know. Everyone decided that some time ago that, as as Kristin remind us, that we would try to move things forward to get to city console. And is it 2 months or 3 months. 2 months for 1, one for public comment, 2 months for further discussion, 3 months to city council correct. The timeline was to finalize the most finalize the memo by the end of the meeting today. in order to have it ready for public comment at the March meeting.

[62:03] and then you take the April meeting to discuss any comments, make any changes and finalize the memo to submit to Council in April. Okay. right? So I just want to make sure everyone's crystal will off Ski clear on this on page 5 the reading packet. There's a link to a Google document. You go to the Google document on page 4. There are 5 motions that could be considered in the future meeting. I just want to clarify these the 5 motions that you were. They came back, Tom. Yeah, that was the 5 motion size. 20 to 24. Thank you for the clarification. I mean. Another option would be to move forward forward with what has been approved, and then

[63:01] amend any recommendations to city console colored by the new motions. I see you shaking your head. I would strongly resist that, given that these motions are in some part consideration reconsiderations, or at least clarifications of previously voted on things that I think. at least in regard to the conversations we've been having so far today. My principal concern is not installing 60 cfm. Per occupant per hour. I don't think that that is actually as precise as I would like it to be as as an individual who might might one day be the the the overseer of one of these establishments. I think it's more important for us to entertain the idea of the it. The reality that safe is not a legal definition.

[64:00] and my concern related to our existing standard for air treatment is something that cannot be defended quantitatively or legally at this point. And if we want to say we ban this entirely because there is no way to safely treat this air. Then let's be clear about that. We are not asking for air treatment. so that we can proceed with the industry. The language in our proposal right now is that we define an amorphous impossible to define standard which is safe for everyone in the room. It's just. That's that's unattainable. and I want to acknowledge in our recommendations to counsel, that there is no such thing as a safe smoking room. and since we are being told to regulate smoking rooms. I find it impossible to support the language that we've already voted on. so I will

[65:00] want to add something that quantifies it. But I don't think that what I'm proposing is sufficient. I think that mandating that this all go outside, and we allow people to warm outdoor spaces is the only way that we can talk about this being a safe option for consumption. So i'd like to hear from you 2 people that have not, said bunch up, including the wait before we go off. I understand that I just want to be it. It's really explicit about what we're about to do here. So if we want to move forward, we got 5 proposed motions. Here. We can sort of have a Q. A. For each of these motions or discussion reach of those, but I don't want to engage in an open end of discussion right before we have a process for considering all 5 of these motions. Well, what I was going to propose is that we set a time limit for each one of them. I support that. But I want to hear from the folks that Haven't Haven't said much yet. That includes 2 ex official members in a lot of

[66:06] any proposals. Okay, you're You're a diplomat, all right. Allison. Go ahead. I'm just saying that I agree with Brian, I think, having a structure to discuss. The motions make sense, and I think a time limit sounds appropriate. I was look like a little. Yes, all on. I just don't have a lot to add. I see that we have a lot of time carved out for this agenda item, and I would support some discussion on these motions. I also want to revisit the matter. I raised last meeting about the sales and consumption versus sales. I'd like to see clarity on that in today's meeting. and i'd like to wrap the set of recommendations up in this meeting. As well stick to our timeline.

[67:04] hey? Any comments? No, I think that what Brian suggested. I think we just do it. Can you elucidate what you meant? A lot of sales versus the consumption. Yeah, it's just a matter I raised in the last meeting. I know Brian's aware of it. It was just a clarification item on a on a motion. Okay? Well, then. haven't you the motion. whatever the motion proposal, if that's a if that's a term for each of these. Brian, you and I. We talked about 10 min per motion. Is there anyone who would like to suggest differently?

[68:06] I think that works. I think also just to to say that before we go into these 5 we could deal with the one, the hours of operation since we've already talked about it, and it is just a question of sales versus consumption, and what we originally or what you all originally voted for so that's for that's proposed motion 23, it's. 14 and if we should get clarity on it, then it might reduce the amount of motion. 7 raises, I think it. But it yeah in agreed. But it's it's technically not really a reconsideration. It's a clarification agreed to. So this it it's if you want to go in order. That's fine. I I was just proposing that that one seems like it's lower hanging for. But

[69:00] was there something proposed other than what? 23 it's clarifying. I guess. Did anybody go back and listen to the recording to determine that we meant consumption, because me and Kate's recollection, and I don't was that it? The conversation very much was around sales. if I remember correctly, from last meeting. So just to paint the full picture Here we're discussing a motion that the operation retail business should be from some hour to some hour. and then this this phrase sales and consumption versus just sales. So there's 2 pieces here that are in that are kind of loose with motion 14. The first piece of lis for motion 14 is like, what are the hours? Is it? 10 am. Versus 8? Am. I think? The second piece that's loose Here is it's sales it consumption, or is it only sales? Is that correct to clarify? It's just.

[70:01] I don't think there's questions on the motion that we voted on, and the hours in the motion I am raising, that we did not vote on including consumption in that time limit. and that sales should be cut off at that time limitation, but not consumption. and that consumption was added to the motion language. In the drafting of this document. It is not germane to the motion or the discussion of the motion or the vote on the motion. Yeah, I I would agree with a lot of here. I think the logic here that I recall was related to Bars have to stop serving in a certain time, but you have until the bar closes to finish your drink. I think the same logic should apply here. And do we need a do we need an additional motion here, or can we correct the language that I think we shouldn't need a new motion. We should just clarify the original chair. Well, as I read 23 it it clarifies it

[71:03] that consumption is open to midnight Sales is open till 10. Pm. No, you're not wrong. It's just that we we wanted to clarify, Not necessarily. Reconsider motion. 14. Yeah, if if I mean 23, we take care of that just I mean we don't have to to the the differences is that you wouldn't have to to read like vote on re-voting right like there's a process for reconsideration, and this isn't a reconsideration the language changed from one memo. The city came out with to this document it changed somewhere in between there the meeting minutes say something different than what's in this motion, and this was a summary of the motion. We didn't go back through every single meeting to make sure we had the exact language in somewhere in between. There it changed from the day that that the the the vote was made until now, and we don't know when that happened. And so again, clarification means that we just talk about it. A reconsideration means that the prevailing has to to say that we have to vote on it, and then we vote on it. So there are very 2 different things when you talk about talking about 14 versus talking about 23.

[72:16] I understand what you're saying, Robin. but doesn't the motion 14 that passed. Say that the opening time is 10 am. And the new thing down on the next page says, 8 am opening, and I think that's that's different. So I so I mean we should clarify the first thing about 14 before going to 23 Gotcha. Correct me if i'm wrong here, Kate, because I want to make sure I understand if we vote on whatever the new one is 23, we vote on 23 right now. it will super seed 14 or will be considered, because I hear what you're saying, Robin, I I miss that that 10 am to 8 am thing.

[73:05] Do we want to just vote on 23 and Call that the prevailing wisdom we're providing. I think that avoids the reconsideration conversation about Number 14. I like this. It clarifies both as well. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So I was not a part of the voting on 23, so I can't. I can't move to vote on that. But when we get to that point whoever voted in affirmative for 14 should propose 23 as a reconsideration of 14 that'd be my take. We got a lot of other stuff to talk about, and I don't think we're have too much argument about what's going on here. You sell until 10 Pm. You consume until you leave. or some period of time before, but well it

[74:00] set the timer. I I don't know if the Robert's rules of order would be pertinent, but I mean 23 would solve everything. It doesn't have to be moved by somebody that was in the majority. It's just it. It'd be a new motion, and it would deal with both issues. The changing of the start time and the sales versus consumption. Alright. So we're gonna open each motion. Ask for a second. We have 10 min of discussion and then okay or minus when 10 min is up, and if we're ready for a vote, does that sound like a good procedure? Okay. that include the discussion we already had just getting caitlin. You want to set a timer for 10 min. Can you do that?

[75:03] We only have auto 3 min. There we go. We can't see it, but it's there. Okay. I mean, we may not need 10 min. Anyone who wants to support or speak in support of the motion. I mean, I think it's pretty well understood. Are you talking about the motion? 20 43, I think we should just start at 20 work our way. Down. Oh Sandra, you're nodding Your head. Okay. All right. somebody. I think, Rosalana suggested. We attack low hanging through first. That's. Why. I think 21 is the lowest hanging fruit. Let's go with 20 then. So i'm going to make a motion on behalf. Then the Clive recommended electronically power mate, marijuana vaporizes being accepted. Delivery method for marijuana concentrates and hospitality establishments. I'm. Looking for a second

[76:10] I second time motion discussion I just want to clarify is is Evan allowed to second the motion? I mean, since it's a reconsideration. Or is that okay? Thank you. If, since my mics on chair, I just want to say about this particular motion, I thought about it, and I feel like this motion is more, is less about a delivery method, and really more about getting concentrates into the mix, and my main concern is impaired. Driving. I also think that starting very slowly, is the best course for hospitality, and you know the the motion.

[77:00] Original motion took the Cdph definition of concentrated Thc. Products, and we, as a group, had a very long in depth discussion about excluding those from any hospitality. opening or beginning that we might have, and for that those reasons I cannot support the motion. I I would tell you this. Yup, go ahead. I'll just add, just as as a the help facilitate. If there are people who are on the fence about this, or it would be some clarity or some discussion with benefit them, making up their mind. I think I want to prioritize hearing from folks whose minds are not made up. So we kind of discuss around those issues that are pertinent to this motion. So if your mind is made up, maybe give space to folks whose minds are made of it. Since you're

[78:02] currently acting as chair, i'll raise my hand. Do you want me to act this share just for a moment? Yeah, All right, go ahead. Time. So vaping is not danger free. I mean there's a there's a very good article available. This is from Dr. Shik's research. It was published in November of 2021, or maybe before that. Actually because it's just being reported on. and i'll just quote the The bottom line actually is the top line, but it is the bottom line. A new study from the researchers at University of California, San San Francisco, or Ucsf. Shows that you, Don't, have smoke cannabis to produce dangerous levels of particulate matter and hailing and heated cannabis pro produces levels of dangerous, particulate manner that are equal to those seen with conventional.

[79:02] Now it's comparing it tobacco cigarettes, but it's it's not risk free. I I would. I would very strongly clarify that. Nothing that I am proposing is risk free. We have made a conscious decision to tolerate a certain level of risk. and I believe the risk profile presented by vaporizers is lower than the risk profile presented by combusted material. We have a long body of research that says, Particulate matter created by combustion above 450 degrees. absolutely contains more carcinogenic and problematic materials. Then that which is vaporized. I believe the science is not settled, but I think that it is simple to acknowledge that a vaporized material that never reaches combustion. Temperature

[80:01] does not contain the same particulate matter that combusted material contains. I don't want to get into the conversation about the regulations about what is allowed to be placed on cannabis. Versus what the United States tolerates for being placed on tobacco. I think if if we were going to have that conversation we would be in a completely different world. But cannabis is regulated to have exclusively organic pesticides sprayed on it specifically in this state organic pesticides only. I'm re listed that is by no means the case for tobacco. and to attempt to put a parallel between those 2 is to ignore an enormous amount. Of science; and while I know there are some some one-off studies that are showing that vapor as material is dangerous. Also I would ask if those vapor or if that study differentiated between dabbed material and pen vaporized material, because my proposal here does not in any way

[81:00] tolerate gaps or extremely high temperature, vaporization, glass rigs. I am talking about vape pens that which is consumed by 25% of our market. The vast majority of people in my cohort are not going to go into a facility and combust. They're just not. That's that's not their method of consumption. They're not desiring that they want to be able to go in. have a iced tea or a meal and hit their vape pen. It's all i'm asking for here. The vape pen is an enormous piece of this market. and we should tolerate it as a method for consumption inside of these licenses. Right? So as this motion is written, I respect and could support the intent. But the sort of the actual length itself includes the for phrase, like marijuana, concentrates, which is something that, like Robin, I think we should go low, go slow on with starting off of hospitality. And so

[82:02] there are. Do we want to differentiate between marijuana concentrates and marijuana flower as modes of like vaporization? Because those are distinct? So What I worry about is that this motion can be a back door for us. Robin. Member Noble looted that like this. Get back door for bring it concentrates back in which we had on already. Versus is this a method for vaporizing flower versus concentrates? I hear you. I will tell you that when I originally drafted this it was much longer, and it clarified that we were not seeking to tolerate any DAB rigs. This wasn't, specifically intended for low temperature vaporization inside of a vap pen. The the State law, unfortunately, does not acknowledge the differential there. This is a function of the licensing categorization. So a marijuana infuse product manufacturer has the same right to produce DAB material as they have to produce vaporizers.

[83:02] and because that has not been differentiated at the State level, we didn't have the opportunity to differentiate it here. So I attempted to do so with this language, but I acknowledge what you're saying. I am not attempting to allow for mass inhalation of 100 milligram hits. which is what dabbing is. But I think that there's a social consideration here, and paper as their devices handheld vapor, as their devices are the preferred method for a large large portion. especially of the market, that would be utilizing hospitality licenses so great. We're running out of time. Sandra, can you? Do you want to clarify something? Thank you. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that it sounds like we're getting into the substance of the motion 20, and before we go any further, you you really need to. You had a for someone with the first motion. Now it seconded, and it now needs to be

[84:00] voted on as to whether you want to reconsider the motion. Does that make sense? And then you can have, if If it passes. If that motion passes, then you can have the substantive discussion about this new motion. Does that make sense? Yeah, i'm Caitlin, when I I would suggest that when you might add another minute when we're getting clarification from our city attorney that that not be taken from all right discussion. you bye. So maybe add one more minute after it's Stacy. Can you be sure? Yeah, I was gonna ask if there's a way for us to write down the exact text, or like what Sanders basically saying, and like broadcast that for us to see. Because i'm now feeling a little more confused than I thought I was as far as what we're really like reconsidering. And now, considering the new motion, so we had once talked about, maybe just somebody, maybe from city staff putting up on their screen that text so we could actually all be really clear, you know. Here's what we're talking about. Here's what we're voting on.

[85:16] because now it sounds like we need to kind of walk backwards if i'm understanding what Sandra said before we can walk forward and consider the new motion, or maybe i'm just confused. So let me try and explain before you can reconsider a motion. The motion has to succeed. and in order to succeed, you have to vote on it. So that's like the first hurdle. Once you all decide whether you do want to reconsider that motion or not. If you do decide that you want to, then you would consider you would move on to the next part, which is actually the consideration of what that motion would be. So it. It. It's like it's starting over fresh at that point. But right now we haven't even gotten past the first hurdle.

[86:11] Okay, that that's kind of what okay, I think that was where I was getting fused. Thank you. So, Sandra, if the motion has been made. not only I mean it was made in writing here on the Google Document and seconded It's only if they wanted to try to revise the motion at this point, you would ask for a vote If there are enough boats to pass the motion. then you would go to the next step, which is actually reconsidering that original motion. Does that make sense? Right, so we need to vote on what's there. But I have a question. So you know, voting on what's there? You're not voting on the written. You're only voting on whether to reconsider the motion, the original motion.

[87:06] and by that you mean motion 5. That would mean, yes, motion 5. Okay, Kate Lynn, Are you able to? Are somebody a staff able to put on the screen the motion 5, so as of my clarification for what everyone would like to see, every motion that we're currently talking about is in the Google Doc that I can see. Everyone is currently in as well. So motion 5 is on page 2. I'm more than happy to share it as well. We'll just lose our timer. and and that's also been shared with the public, and the and I can read it out loud here, too, if that would help.

[88:02] There it is. Okay. Thank you. So at this point chair I would recommend, since you already do have a second to go ahead and call of our about well, but the the reality is like, unless i'm mistaken, and Brian can clarify the motion Brian was making was jumping ahead to motion Number 20, and that that was what was seconded not a reconsideration of 5. He, I I don't think that was stated that way. Oh. Sandra, can you clarify Robin's question as to whether or not i'm allowed to participate in this? If we're reconsidering motion, 5, I would imagine my second doesn't count. But if we are, if we're considering motion 20. Yes.

[89:00] that's right. I'm sorry. Yes, that's correct. That's a good distinction. Yes, we. We're just in that first space. So once we get, if we're if we' to get to the second phase, then yes, you wouldn't be able to be involved, but in the I voluntarily reach back to my second of Brian's motion. Brian, what was your motion? Exactly. I was just reading off what motion 20 set. So I think what we're hung up on here is whether or not this is a reconsideration of motion 5 or not. I believe Sandra is saying, this is a reconsideration. So we need to have a vote to. We consider a previous motion before we can engage in the text. Okay, is there a motion to reconsider 5. A lot of you have a question. Yeah. I just wanted to make a point that. given that the current notes that I recused myself, and you all know that it means a lot to me to

[90:02] fulfill the full extent of my responsibility which would include voting on this motion. I would actually greatly appreciate if somebody on the prevailing side would raise this so that I could participate in the vote as is my duty. Thank you. Well, let me ask Sandra. Is there a way without voting, re-voting the motion that I I know? I know you and I and I have had an email discussion you can in a lot of just change your vote. And which can we just allow her to change her about that? That's up to the board to to decide. I I think that really okay. Well, then, that case I'm going to make a motion to allow a lot of to change her vote on Motion Number 5 to I forgot how you stated it, but you could just to act responsibly to the industry that you're representing.

[91:07] I don't think that's actually something that's possible to just retractively change your vote. And that's not what I asked for. Thank you, though. Okay? Well, it did seem like that was what I was suggesting. It could. Wow! Does anyone in the prevailing side willing to vote to reconsider this? Because if you're not, then we need to stop this conversation. Now. Amendment. 20 or proposal 20 is never going anywhere unless we're voting to reconsider motion 5. I'm. Curious, since Michael's not here. I'm just looking at the document with the voting like. Does anyone have an opinion on re-voting when not all members are present?

[92:03] Oh. I I I don't know if you want to proceed your proceed in that way? I mean you, you know I think it. We can't do a boat by proxy or anything like that, so I, unless you don't have quarrel, I I would advise against delay. We definitely have a car. Yeah. and and so far, I mean, we've we lost our timer. But so far we've had. I think, sufficient time for anyone who had voted in the majority. You have made a motion. so i'm gonna. I'm gonna say we'll move on to a motion number 20 motion kind of get in front of me now.

[93:00] she number 21, then which is a new motion? Well, since i'm allowed to, I would move that we make a motion motion number 21 on our list for club to recommend that the city allow outdoor consumption of cannabis in a manner similar to allowances for tobacco consumption. The additional mandate that any consumption be protected from plain view of the public is there a second for that. I second, that I like to hear the discussion at least discuss it, and I think the notes I have are that the motion is made in motion. A seconded members discuss the most. Discuss the motion. Yeah. I suppose, as the the author of this motion, I would ask.

[94:00] given the lengthy conversation we've had about indoor air, quality, and preservation of work or health. Is there any resistance to the idea that we meet in the middle, and allow for outdoor consumption. Well, I guess I have a question. So if we are asking potential cannabis, hospitality businesses to. i'll just put it in simple terms clean the air before it hits the public. How is that going to work outdoor? I suppose I would have to argue the lesser of 2 evils here. If we are seeking to prohibit consumption of cannabis inside of a business, then yes, let's talk about how we have to treat all the air coming from an outdoor facility. But let's, let's be clear about this. If we vote against outdoor consumption, and we vote for safe indoor air treatment. We are prohibiting this industry from existing.

[95:00] so we can skip all the rest of this if we are going to say it's not safe inside, and you're not allowed to do it outside. so i'll make a different motion if I need to. But we we have to do something to facilitate this industry if we want to kill it on arrival. Then let's do that. Somebody pass a motion. Let me propose a motion that says, we ban all hospitality licenses. or we have a conversation about what we can do to mitigate, but we are never going to eliminate risk. We cannot do that. This is a risky product, but still my question was mitigating, the answer is, No, there's no way you can treat outdoor air and say that you can't smell weed next to the building. It's just not. It's not feasible. We're not asking the coffee roasters to do that, and they have vocs in their product, too. So. thanks to your mute sorry, I think it's a really interesting motion, and I I do think it warrants more discussion and thought. You know I, My only

[96:08] first question would be okay if we're out of view. But one of the things at least, I've been arguing, I think, Evan, I've heard you argue as well in favor of the hospitality establishments is that it would kind of remove it from the streets, where, like right now, if I walk down Pearl Street, I can't not smell pot like it's impossible, and it's it's actually kind of ridiculous. And so for me, one of the things I like about the idea of these establishments is that maybe Of course it's maybe that could somehow be decreased a bit. But if we're now allowing outside consumption, which I do you think is a really good idea? Is there a way to structure it? So not only would it be out of plain view, but not I, don't mean like. Obviously you could smell it from far away, but like maybe there's a distance I I don't I haven't done the thinking on it as much yet, but like a distance requirement from you know the main area of something, or I don't know something along those lines where it would be not

[97:12] like if you're sitting at a restaurant and Pearl Street that has no hospitality, anything related to it, and having dinner that there's like, you know, a a of pop smoke over your table. So that's kind of my only question. I would. I would present this this scenario for you right now. And, Sandra, please correct me if i'm wrong here, I I do not know that I am perfect with our distance requirements, but I believe the city of Boulder requires 25 feet from the primary entrance to any publicly accessible business. In order to consume tobacco. I would bring your attention to the bike rack that is just next to the boulder bookstore at the corner of Eleventh and Pearl Street. It is 25 feet from the entrance to the bookstore.

[98:01] It is off of the Pearl Street Mall. and it is 25 feet from the north entrance to the bookstore. I could stand there and smoke it here. It it will be perceptible to those in entering the bookstore to the north. It will be perceptible to those standing on Pearl Street, and it will be perceptible to those standing at the door of the bookstore, and maybe even at the old Tom's tavern restaurant, Whatever that may be today. I can't remember but that doesn't mean that doesn't fall within the permissible limits that the city has already set for outdoor can or outdoor tobacco consumption. If we are seeking to do something that's even more strict than that which is, eliminate it from plain view of the public. I think 25 feet from the primary entrance of a building, and I would I would also include the primary air intake for any H. Vacc systems in surrounding businesses, because I think the the tobacco laws have missed that.

[99:00] Let's. Let's add something that says, Here's your acceptable place. Outside. But I mean we're already relegating people to go outside in the middle of February. If they want to consume cannabis legally right now, they just do it in front of the bar. They they're not. We're not trying to hide it. We're giving them an opportunity to do it away from the the experience that Stacy just described. So we have rules for this. Let's make them a little bit more strict for cannabis, and let's let's move this along. I just wanted to add that one of the motions we that prevailed was a around was a neighborhood needs and desires survey, and I think that is a great opportunity for neighboring businesses to weigh in on how something like this could potentially impact them, and knowing cannabis, licenses and boulder, I am confident they would be connecting with their neighbors ahead of time prior to submitting the application, anyway, just to make sure that they had good relationships with their neighbors.

[100:03] So i'm getting more and more comfortable with this, and I really appreciate Evan for raising it Right question for the Evan. Is this motion tied to any particular license facility, or it's just allowing outdoor consumption in general, because, as I read it, it allows outdoor consumption you had. Now, if you recall, when I brought this up originally kind of just running through this in my head there is so so what I just listed as the the prohibitions I see in my head kind of as this progresses where this to pass tonight, and it progress to city council. How do we make this align with tobacco consumption regulations? I believe we need to go further than tobacco consumption regulations, and as a result of that we are by default

[101:01] going to reduce the number of cannabis businesses, or the reduce the number of businesses that are allowed to enact an operation like this. Many of our dispensaries in town, many of our many of our establishments in town would be able to facilitate the kind of regulation i'm considering, but not all of them. I would love an opportunity for every single dispensary on Pearl Street to be able to enact this, but I think that the density considerations that we have to make will prohibit certain businesses from in from in town. I mean. if we're talking specifically any business that's downstairs on Pearl Street, it's going to have a really hard time complying with 25 feet to primary entrance or primary air intake. I recognize that we're not trying to, but it through your discussion there. It seems like your intent was that this be tied to a license facility rather than just allowing someone who's consume or who's pretty, procured this to consume it in public.

[102:05] No, I think that the reality is that our initial licensees for this are most likely going to be some random businesses that want to participate in the hospitality license without any association to existing businesses in town. But I think that realistically, if you're going to approach a a random business and say you're going to need this level of training for all of your staff. You're going to need this level of understanding for all of the regulatory stuff that goes along with a business like this. Your most likely candidates for success in this realm are going to be currently licensed businesses who seek to diversify one step further to allow for consumption. and I think that if you are going to do that anywhere near where our currently licensed dispensaries are, some of them will be precluded by their proximity to other businesses. There will just be no way to avoid it. So I think

[103:01] we we need to consider who's going to apply for these. Most likely it's going to be existing businesses who make up the the lion's share of the applicants for this, and not all of them are going to be allowed to do it. Even, I mean. Take a Stella, for example. Stella's might be able to pull this off if they had rooftop access, and they had rooftop space. The man. the mapping of air intake and the mapping of accessibility to surrounding businesses is going to make that calculation. if not very limited, certainly very complicated. You entertain a a friendly a minute here just to clarify again, and then also Caitlin, we can't see the time where we lost 45 s. I was just. I do it that we gotta keep our responses to each other right and concise. right. or

[104:01] hold the hold the time there for a second. Caitlin Sandra. I I I just wanted to respond to. I was question about the current data law in the city of Boulder with respect to smoking, and so you you're correct it's 25 feet from most places so but on. It is also more specific related to the public area so it's not smoking is not allowed within the downtown business improvement to district, including them all in any park parkland on any open space on any trail multi-path. and within 25 feet on both sides of any trail within 25 feet of a library facility within 25 feet of the transit stop stop within the city municipal campus, and within the boulder high school area. So I just. I just wanted to throw that out there, and and I guess I would just say that the way that the current motion reads it.

[105:03] it's it's not specific to a particular establishment. It would. It would apply just generally within the city. And so just something to think about. And the other thing, I guess I will say is that I think I don't think that you need a it'd be great to to if the if the discussion was a little bit more high level. I feel like it's been getting very granular, and so that's what's causing some of the traction. You don't actually need to come up with the regulation right now. There's a process involved with that, and I think that if you could keep it high level like, do you want to allow outdoor smoking. you know, for particular establishments, or just all in general, whatever that might be you. I don't think you need to get into the minutia of how that would happen, or how that would bring

[106:01] If that helps. Hey, Allison, You've been very patient, Allison. It sounded like Brian wanted to potentially make it a change to the motion. So I think he should go first. Mine was just a comment. Yeah, just building what Sandra said, and I was trying to iterate here is that the current language of this motion would imply that public assumptions about anywhere here, regardless of connection to a license hospitality. I don't think that was Evans intense. I just want to see if everyone would entertain a friendly motion that would clarify that this language is tied to a specific hospitality license absolutely. I would. I'm re-reading this right now, and I I also see what you're saying that if you're hiding in a garbage enclosure, and you're not 25 feet from an entrance you can consume. That is not my intent by any means. The intent is to allow for a very specified space under a hospitality licenses control

[107:02] that allows for consumption that complies with all of the tobacco obligations, and, in addition prevents it from being in plain view of the public. and I want to point out that the 10 min Timer has been on here from Allison. I think I mean with that clarification that covers some of the pieces I was concerned about, and also to reorate on this point about the needs and desires of the neighborhood. I think that is an a really important piece, and some of the concerns will be addressed by that and that outdoor allowing outdoor smoking does and reduce some of the harms that we've been talking about with with indoor smoking. So I think it's it's an interesting proposal to think about reducing risk with some of those other protections that that we've discussed 150. Do you want to go on record to say how you would vote if you could vote? I i'll sit or no. And I was gonna ask a lot.

[108:02] Kate. Awesome. No, thanks. Okay, right, for it goes under your and is still up. I'm just checking. She's okay, hands down. all right. I see that I made a little bit of an update, I think Please correct me if i'm wrong. But I think that the the Red text addresses the 2 critical considerations that were just brought up. If for for anybody who's not looking at this document, i'd be happy to read it again. What I what I've modified it to is that club recommends that the city allow outdoor consumption of cannabis in a manner that parallels, the existing allowances for tobacco consumption. with the additional mandate that any consumption be contained within the licensed premises of a licensee of a hospitality. License. If we want to get specific

[109:08] and protected from plain view of the public. So this incorporates everything related to tobacco. protects it from plain view. and requires it to happen inside of a license premises. Okay. So 3 People's names have appeared. But I don't see edits. People all right. Clicking in. Is that okay? Don't? Try refreshing. Try just hitting the refresh on that. I'm: just in the cell. I'm reading. Okay, all right. all right. So we're ready for a vote. I believe I agree, Kate, do you want to call a vote? Can I make a friendly suggestion?

[110:00] Because I know this will come up? I think that you might want to add within the license premises of a hospitality establishment licensing on marijuana, hospitality, and sales business, the one below it's the same one that we've been using all of okay. Can you put your magic language in there that makes all of this look the same? I know you put it in all the other ones. I just want to make sure that it matches what you've placed previously. There we go. Awesome. Thank you. Okay. Now ready for a vote. Bernie. Yes. remember Anderson Yay member Green. I'll support it. My I support chair gets one voting no

[111:00] member. Hello. Support and member double. I do not support the motion. Okay, and remember, thirsty is not absolutely okay. Number. Well, it's time for a break. This would past. Who wrote that? Oh. so let's take a 10 min break. I'm back at 509. Everybody with that. Yeah, I'm gonna relocate. So i'll be trying to get back in before the meeting. Resumes. Thank you. Alright. Thanks.

[112:40] Hello. Okay. I lost my screen that had the there. It is.

[113:18] Okay, Number 22. Heaven Can you be? Brief. Yeah. Yeah. I'm: here. Okay, 22. I hope I really really hope this is less controversial. I would move, since this is a new motion welcome back everyone in front of us. You don't have to read it. I believe I do. Actually, if I'm going to present it as a motion. we can Also.

[114:03] we can have a discussion before the motion. Yes, I would. That's the i'm sorry. Yes, I don't know if you saw my thumbs up by that. Yes. thanks. I'm sorry the thumbs up was that I do need to read it, or that I do not. Well, if you're making a motion, you do need to read it. Yeah. I think we can jump straight into this and say, I I motion that Clive recommends that sublingable delivery products, such as tincture shall be one of the permitted types of products allowed in marijuana, hospitality and sales businesses. Do I have a second I'll. Second it. This is Stacy. Okay. So discussion. You give us a one on on suppling goals. Subling walls encapsulate a couple different pieces basically the if you're if you're going on a

[115:04] medical definition here. we are seeking for uptake of Thc. Through salvary glands and not through intestinal tissue. It is a much faster delivery method, but it requires a higher level of processing for the input product, so where you can have lipid, absorbed materials through your intestinal linings. You can have water-soluble uptake water, soluble T. H. C. Accessible to your body through your salivary glands. There's a couple of different form factors that allow for this to happen. One is kind of sugar pills, essentially like suspending it in a. In a sucrose there is sub legal dissolves. So if you've ever seen like a certs breathment strip, those are also incredibly accessible, credibly bio available. Very very quickly, and I think that this subject kind of this concept of sublinguals address the conversation we had about

[116:12] drinks not being allowed, but edibles being allowed, I think if if it were me and I were seeking to kind of set the tone for this whole thing, I would say edibles are not allowed, but some illegals are. And and the reason why is because uptake and impact and effect it's much, much faster with sublingles than it is with standard edibles. If You' a huge meal and you walk into a hospitality license, and you need a gummy. you might not feel that gummy for 2 to 3 h. Sublinguals. Don't. Care how much food you have in your stomach, and they will affect you consistently and very rapidly. So I think sublingles is the is the best solution for edible products. To be honest. I think, if it's none, if it's not inhalable.

[117:01] Your second fastest mode of delivery is through salivary glands, and allowing for what is in here, allowing for a sublingles, will allow us to provide a non inhaling consumer, a product that will impact them a lot faster than your standard animal. That's why I propose this one quick correction. It's not very important, but it's not really the salary glands. I don't think, Tom, maybe correct me if i'm wrong here. But I think some like well goes through blood vessels under the time it just bypasses. It's called like first past metabolism. So bypasses like you're saying the stomach, and in test install. That's all very true, and what you said about it being more hydrophilic, I think, is also true, but it's not the glands. It's just there's like a bunch of blood vessels and the tissue under the tongue that absorbs it differently. I I defer to you, Doc, you are definitely, but otherwise that on with this I just but I could. I think

[118:09] the glands are involved. I just can't say exactly. It's not all the glands. I know that it's like got the vessels. Tom may be able to like elaborate on this for us more. It's been a long time since I looked at it. I mean simply. It gets into the bloodstream a whole lot quicker, but i'm also. So i'm reading a site right here that talks about by availability of different forms of cannabis and edibles. The it's quoting the highest percentage of of concentrate that gets into the system can be up to 20% versus subling, or gets up to 56. It's like almost 3 times as much, and so I was trying to find the half-life. because that's our concern with the edibles. That's been our concern when we've had this discussion before

[119:01] Evan is, is, we didn't want people driving home under the influence, if possible. In fact, that's one of the reasons why we have the 2 h window. No, I I I understand we're allowing consumption for 2 h, maybe. or at least you're advocating for that. But but it's not just the half-life thing right, like the concern is more like you take it, and it may not hit you for a long time, and then your consumer may be using more before they know they've been affected right by their prior goes like the drinks. We have a similar conversation kind of remove some of that concern because it hits them faster, so it's not like they're going to eat like in the case like Haven't, set up a gummy where it it could be a long time. This should affect somebody sooner, where they then be in a position to judge their level of intoxication sooner than later, which, even from my standpoint, is more of the concern than the half life piece.

[120:13] Yeah, I think that it's important to realize here that this is. This is a portion of cannabis science that is relatively unsettled. There is a a enzyme that some of us have, and some of us do not. And when it comes to edible cannabis we we know anecdotally, but much more than anecdotally. We know scientifically that delta delta 13, which is what your digestive track converts Delta 9 a. Into is in some people incredibly reactive, and in some people barely functional at all. I use anecdotal answers to, or anecdotal stories to explain this. But there are many people in the cannabis industry, and many people in the consumer world of cannabis that I've encountered many, many times in the last 14 years that can eat a 1,000 milligrams of an edible, and never ever get high.

[121:15] I also know people myself included where 10 to 20 milligrams through an edible. is debilitating to the point of non-function. I don't eat edibles. I haven't eaten edibles and years, because comically small doses impair me beyond belief. knowing that it's true for me, we want to go real fast with How fast are you up taking this active ingredient, and I think sublinguals provide people like me, and there are a lot of me with a solution that your you can feel what you've consumed very quickly. and you are not at risk of being surprised 2 and a half hours later that all of a sudden you are high.

[122:02] That's that's just a personal take. This is not a professional Take, because what I would be saying here is we should have. I have to be the chair for a second that you You're taking up the majority of the 10 min of discussion. and I know Robin has had a question, and I still have questions and thank you. I think that these tinctures are concentrated products. They would fall under that definition where you separate, you know it's an extraction method and separated. you know, and condensed the product for what's actually delivered. And the concern there is that that just too heavily intoxicates people, and we are worried about driving the those are my concerns. If we're using this definition, they are different categories. These are regulated at 10 milligrams Per dose.

[123:02] Can you explain that? Just a little better, Evan. Sorry when you have flower. You have kind of natural limitations. Somewhere in the low 30 potency low, 30% Thc. concentrate. You can make activated thc distillate. That's up to 99% when it comes to edibles. Anything that's intended for oral consumption. you are limited at no more than 10 milligrams per dose no more than 100 milligrams per serving per total packaging. So when we're talking about a sublingual, the Max potency that you could get out of a singular sublingual delivery is 10 milligrams for comparison. If you buy one gram of concentrate, that's 80%. You have 800 milligrams of available product.

[124:06] So when we're talking about the differential between concentrates and edible products or infused products, we do have potency limitations on the infused product side. So bilinguals fall under that potency limitation for edible products or consumable products. Thank you for that. Emin. I appreciate your passion. But if if there's going to be 10 min to discuss things. Then, if there's other points of view like Stacy, I thought, had a very good point that that a person might realize their intoxication, and quicker. I would I would echo. What I think I heard you say is that the science is sorely lacking with respect to understanding, not only teachers, but I mean

[125:01] we I mean, there are suppositors there's there's all sorts of other things that that I mean right now. Tom, those fell under audited products. So the State of Colorado already knows that there are certain delivery methods that are way too powerful to be considered edibles. Specifically, what you just referred to as repositories, and the other one is dry inhalers. We have a category called audited products in the State of Colorado. So if your delivery method is too potent. you fall into audited products. you end up in a completely different category. We are not even talking about that here. so I I hear what you're saying, and there's definitely different methods of delivery that are more potent. But they are excluded from the conversation that we're having here related to edible products. I guess I would say that if, if, according to the website, which is a cannabis website, says it's up to 3 times more, actually 6 times more.

[126:02] by all available. Even a 10 milligrams relative effect could be significantly more. And there's not enough evidence to talk about the duration. Okay? Then why are we? Why are we approving any edibles at all. because we've already approved them. So I think this is the one that we know scientifically, actually, as a delivery method that's much faster. It has an impact that as a as a period of time before you see effect as tangibly slower. I mean, listen, I i'm not gonna i'm not gonna argue endlessly for this. I just think it's something we missed, and it's a method of delivery that many people would prefer over eating an edible. Well, just to clarify. We did not approve edibles. We approved Beverly beverages by 4 to 3,

[127:01] just recognizing time. It just be the enforcer to share their discussion needed. Are we ready? For? I would just say one more thing, Tom, like clinically speaking, the sibling Walls are a go-to product, because they're much easier to titrate and at a low dose. And so I I just from the medical side of it. I don't see an increased risk adding this to your available products like I I don't think it's like what you're saying. You're reading like people are going to get that much more waste. I mean, I just I haven't seen that really, clinically. I think that's more an anecdotal thought at this point. But then, again. you know it. It is what it is. I just think it's a type of product that is a lower

[128:00] risk profile compared to some of the others we've been discussing. and your statement that you just said your time. What Cannabis teacher is not? That's right. No like Cannabis tinctures. And the other thought, I don't know anything about. But I'm sitting here wondering as we're talking about it, because I haven't before is if you're bypassing the liver right theoretically with sibling. Well, maybe that's of some benefit. If the patron is also drinking, so I don't know that would be something totally. It doesn't look into like in a nerdy way for me. But I am curious to learn more about that. But that's just something that popped into my head as I was sitting here. I can't say if that's true in any way, shape or form there. Okay. into started towards asking for a vote. Do you want to keep going on that direction. Kate? Is everyone ready for a vote?

[129:01] Not a post. Okay. Do you want to take a vote? We have Michael with us, too. I want to recognize as well. Yeah, Someone could repeat the language of the motion that we're building on to me. So I know exactly what it is we're voting we're considering a motion cloud recommends that subling will delivered products that just tink sure she'll be one of the permitted types of products allowed in marijuana hospitality and sales businesses got it. It's propose motion 22 in the the Google document. which is what Caitlin showing up on the screen. Okay, Caitlin, you on

[130:01] want to go on this member, Anderson. I am in support of the motion. Okay, remember. Caitlin, can you circle back to me? I'm: i'm looking at something on the Internet real quick on this issue? Can you circle back to me at the end. No problem. thank you. Remember. Great. I support it. Remember chicken support Gotcha, that's right. Opposed support number Noble opposed. and i'll send it back to you, Member Christie. not to give an explanatory answer. I oppose the motion. but I've learned of this issue in my own research, and and primarily due to Evan's own comment that the science on this is is still sort of

[131:03] not confirmed, so I I cannot oppose. I can't support the motion at this point I oppose. Thank you. Okay, motion 23. So this is a most in 23 is a reconsideration. So we need to go through the steps that are outlined by Sandra. So we need to have the motion. Then we need to take a motion to reconsider, and then we need to discuss. and that's motion. 14, I and so someone in the affirmative side of 14 that will move to reconsider Motion 14. It will entertain a second.

[132:00] I second it. Oh, there wasn't a motion first. he said in motion to reconsider. I thought alright. Then. Now we need to take a vote, so we consider 14. I think I moved to do that, didn't I? We just need to follow this process that Sandra outline that we need to reconsider. Once we agree to reconsider. Then we can take the replacement right. So then, Kate, can we take a vote to reconsider motion? 14. Yes, and just so that I have a name on that. The number green you where the second guys let me clarify. Here. 14 is the hours of operation we're not reconsidering. So if Brian is saying he, like. According to Sandra, we need to first have somebody motion to reconsider 14. That was

[133:00] right right. And we're gonna replace 14 with 23. So let's let's go ahead. We're gonna bring up 14. We're gonna to to talk about 14. We're going to place 14 with 23 is what we're doing right. Now. So we're gonna take a look. Reconsider 14 let's. We all agree to that that we can replace 1423. My apologies. I thought we were still discussing 22. And can we just read the results of the motions? I think that's been typical in the past but we haven't been doing it tonight? Yeah, Sorry about that. Thank you. No problem. Okay. Are we ready to go on? I'm: working in motion to reconsider Motion Number 14. Ours. How are you? I'm in favor Number 50.

[134:03] I apologize. But are we just voting to reconsider the motion? We're not actually voting on the substance of the motion? My understanding that correctly. Yeah. I I support the motion. I support it Bye, bye. support the motion. Our chair comes in support. Remember, Malone support. Remember no support. and that is unanimous. Yes. so then I will motion to replace motion 14 with motion. 23 Cloud recommends that hours of operation for marijuana. Consumption businesses the 8 am to 12 am. With sales of marijuana stopping at 10. Pm. It's not. It's not really a replacement. It's just a new motion. and not according to our notes.

[135:00] We are reconsidering motion 14. So that was before Sandra clarified that we need to decide. We've made it this far. Folks let's just stick to the language here. Okay, all right. We got language in front of us. Let's begin the discussion. Start the 10 min, please. I think you need a second, and i'd be happy to be. That is that where we're at do we have them and the new motion, and we're waiting on a second Brian. Bye, bye bye. I I thought this came as a package deal, but I heard a second from Evan to my motion that I just for motion 23. Okay. so. Discussion problem. All right. I'm not trying to take anyone's time, because you guys know how i'm gonna vote on this. But I am trying to be persuasive with some of you who might vote against the motion, I think at 10 am opening for consumption Lounges is a reasonable regulation. I also think that stopping consumption at 10 Pm. And remaining open until 12 am. Is a reasonable regulation that would help to mitigate impacts of

[136:26] impaired driving. Thank you. We're just to clarify. This is opening at 8 am. Is the motion. But you just said 10 am. Do you want to clarify? Sorry what I was trying to say, Brian, is that 10 am. Is a reasonable time to open. I don't want to see it. Go back to 8 am. Thank you. Thanks. Is that the only change. I'm going back and forth from 14 to 20 3, or whichever it is, 23

[137:06] sales versus consumption. Okay. Robin, your hand is still up We haven't heard much from Kate or Allison. It's a lot of motion talk, Tom. We can't vote. I know, but that's what you all do. You can still add your 2 cents of opinion. Just be wasting your time, Tom. Just another 2 min off the clock

[138:06] to get closerly, more closely aligned with alcohol businesses. I think this is a wise choice, and we allow our dispensaries to be open at 7. Am. I think, 8 am. Or 8 am. I think 8 am. For Consumption Lounge. This is reasonable. I don't think we all want whole bunch of potheads running around the streets at 8 30 in the morning smoking weed on the street when they're standing outside of a dispensary or a hospitality license that should be allowing them to consume inside. It's my piece. It's impossible. But I would love to hear from a a cannabis hospitality establishment to see if they really would want to be open at 8 am. Who cares. There's only one in the State, and he's not open at 8. Am

[139:03] I love? Yeah. So I think this clarifies the sales accurately with how I believe the conversation and vote originally went so. and I think it's going to be very limited businesses that want to open at am. It's going to be very niche focused businesses that have a certain purpose for being open to 8 am. So i'm in support of this I would just add on top of Alana's comment here as well. But I think another matter that I want to bring it. This right now is that like we've been thinking about this hospitality as restaurants and things like that. There are certainly business models that are spa models that are kind of therapeutic health models that would also fall under the banner of this kind of licensing potentially So I think that 8 am. Seems reasonable that you can make your appointment for an 8 am. At the spot to have your

[140:05] whatever products that we city council approves along. Your hand is still up. I guess I would have preferred to separate these into 2, but it doesn't really matter at this point, because right there in front of us. because there are 2 different issues. any further discussion. Should we move to a vote. Brian, can you just clarify for me? Is the only change in this new proposed motion. The start time to 8 am. There were 2 changes here. One is a change in the start. Time as a substance of change in the second change is clarifying that sales would stop at 10 Pm. But consumption could it continue until closure which mirrors? What is the case with alcohol

[141:07] businesses? So the am. Is a substantive change, and then there is some other members who identify a slip. And so this language about sales versus stopping. So it's clarifying that we're revisiting that to. So what we're voting on is that the start. Time would be 8 am. For consumption. Consumption would end at 10. Pm. In the business would have a 2 h grace period to close at 12 am my understanding that correctly. the last last call for sales would be 10 Pm. But consumption of that Those products that could happen until until then Got it. Okay? And I apologize for asking the questions. The font on my Google Doc is so small I I can barely read what what is written on this. So

[142:02] thanks for clarifying Caitlin. If you close your outline menu, it's going to increase the size of the the font for all the rest of us. You now. You can just zoom in a little bit, and we'll be able to see it. I'm having struggle struggles as well. I'm sorry my monitor is huge. So it's all good. I'm just trying to look at this with 3 other screens up, and if you just go to view and increase your increase your zoom a little. All the rest of us can see it. Yeah. of course. Thank you. How's that For a little more little more it would be great awesome. There we go. Thank you very much. Okay. If there's no further discussion, I would suggest, we go ahead and vote. Okay.

[143:00] And this is for motion 23 Member Anderson. I am in support. Member Trustee opposed Number 3. I'll support it. Why is your vegan support? I'm also gonna oppose, based on Robin's reasoning member of this part. and never know I oppose. Disappointed. I think we had a great motion before. It's like one of the few that I supported. But thank you. That's 4 guesses and the renews. I was a little on the fence, too. Either Brian's thought was really important to my consideration. Anyway, like I. I didn't even think about the possibility that this wouldn't be like a restaurant d type of place, and it could be a spa. I mean.

[144:00] that's totally true, and that would support the earlier hour, I think. And but that's a complicated thing about having 2 things in one motion, too. 2 directions in one issue. and I would ask my life. Our vote is our our vote is our voice here. and we what in future motions, maybe not combine 2 things in one to reiterate Tom. I I wanted to clarify the service sales thing before going into this. So in in in my mind it actually was only one change. All right things along, I see, for a proposed motion. 24 Member Anderson is contracted. We have we have approved outdoor consumption thereby. I am not interested in fighting about Cfm. Indoor air quality. You are never going to make indoor air quality match out or air quality. We've known this forever.

[145:00] If you guys are in support of us being outdoors for consumption, I am happy to retract this motion. I think the motion that we already passed is absolutely unenforceable. but it is the language we passed, and I wasn't here, so I will accept it as is. But I revoke my my ability to bring next motion, air, filtration, and reconsideration is not necessary, in my opinion. but I will bring your attention to motion. Number 25 we'll just close it up 24, that no one else wanted to bring up 24, we can proceed, but this would also be a reconsideration we have to go through a similar process of moving voting to consider, discussing. And so I want to do that. We can move on from 24. Okay.

[146:02] I would ask him if you could spell my name correctly. But yeah, that was probably me, Tom. Oh, okay. I didn't record. Sorry. Yeah, that was me. I'll own that. Sorry. Okay, so it was motion number number 25 present before. No, this is brand new. This is a function of function of the things that we have already voted on here tonight, or bring this as a new motion. I don't even understand the language. Right removal of all form factor prohibitions. Yeah. So this specifically relates to. We. We have now created prohibitions against concentrate edibles. concentrate and edible in this. In this, in in our list of kind of enumerated motions for council, what I would say is that we, perhaps, I could more specifically say, recommends that

[147:04] concentrate and flower and all edibles be actually, I would only say, concentrate and flower be allowed in outdoor settings. So Cloud recommends that it was concentrates. We'll make it simple for us. Cannabis concentrate to be allowed not to. I don't have a lot of hope here, but i'm just happy that we all said yes to outdoor. So I want to throw this out there. It doesn't include what you just said It doesn't include edibles because i'm not trying to get into the weeds on edibles. I don't believe that outdoor has any impact on whether or not, we should allow edibles that it will still take many hours to set on. So what I would say here is that

[148:05] our fear of indoor air quality has been eliminated. So in outdoor settings we should allow consumption of concentrates and flower. I'm aware of the probability of this passing, but I want to throw it out there just to put it on the record. You didn't add flour, though. and smoking flower. Yeah, but I guess they weren't prohibited so well they were prohibited in an indoor space. If ventilation yeah and concentrates field consumption. alana, is there any consideration here? Anybody who may have potentially been in support of concentrates. Is there any language improvement I could do here? I know i'm shooting. This is the long shot, but i'm. I'm throwing it out there, anyway.

[149:00] trying to use consistent terminology. Yeah, it's the most insulting word you can use for this product. But that's fair. Evan. I think that's pretty. The language of this motion, anyway. I'm sorry, Lana, you got cut off halfway through our at least for me. You did. I didn't hear what you said. Oh, you were just asking me if there was any. you know. lacking clarity in the language, and I don't think so. Okay. Is this a reconsideration of the motion that said we wouldn't have concentrates kind of it's a good question.

[150:01] because we didn't we hadn't considered the outdoor setting when we had the motion originally. So Sandra, what what is your take on this? I think it's distinct enough to where it's a new motion, because you're talking specifically about outdoor. where whereas when you're considering it before it was limited to indoor. I would make a motion that cloud recommends the flower and concentrates be allowed in outdoor consumption, settings Marijuana hospitality and sales businesses. Is there a second? Well. i'm sorry, Sandra, but your concern on how it was determined that oh, that Alana decided to abstain from voting was made on the

[151:01] the conclusion that the legal representative at time had to make up off the Cuff decision. and as I read Motion number 5, it's pretty concise it doesn't say outdoor versus indoor. It's it's concentrates in h intended for in relation shall be one of the permitted types of products, and it went down 5 or one to 5. I wasn't being asked to provide a legal analysis on a code of conduct issue. It was this: it was an issue that, I believe is clear. I obviously, if you wouldn't disagree with me, that when that item was considered. that outdoor wasn't a consideration whether it was explicitly said or not. it's up to the board to decide. I'm i'm just weighing in. I was asked a question.

[152:02] but it's up to the board. I mean, I would just chime in to say that you know we just keep coming at this question from different angles, and it's. you know, different sort of back doors, in my opinion, to to do this it's a little bit frustrating. I understand the process. But this we did have the debate about concentrates. and Yes, we weren't talking indoor outdoor at that point. We were talking about license businesses. So in my mind out, or sorry i'll just finish this point, and then i'll let you go the outdoor consumption of concentrates. There's it doesn't have any bearable difference on some of the reasons that people voted to say no to concentrates. In the first place. I I agree with you entirely, Robin. I think that realistically this may be a reconsideration, but I think that if the If the calculation of indoor air quality is the the baseline for us presenting this new one, then yes, it totally changes the conversation.

[153:03] If the basis for the prohibition of concentrates was onset time and potency limitations then. Yes, this is very much a reconsideration of that. But I think at the end of the day the strongest opposition is related to the indoor air quality, so I think that this might be a a valuable way to reconsider that I I, If it's a reconsideration. It's reconsideration. If it's a new motion, it's a new motion. I just want to put it out there that are we going to prohibit concentrate consumption in an outdoor setting for a hospitality license. We can rephrase this, however, we need to, but I just want to be clear that. making a recommendation to Council to prohibit 40 of consumption in this industry in outdoor settings. If we are, then let's let's go ahead and vote on it, and say, Yes, we are Banning concentrates even in outdoor settings. If If we're. If we're attempting to protect the consumer. then it's a reconsideration. If we're attempting to protect the onlooker, and the second hand consumer.

[154:03] then it's a brand new motion. I I don't know which one it is it I wasn't present for the first vote, so I shouldn't have an opinion here. Didn't we previously both that marijuana businesses would be prohibited from selling concentrates. We made no distinction between indoor outdoor so to me. I I agree with you. You're saying, Robin. This is just another attempt to back door. The approval of concentrates being consumed within the the marijuana establishment like we've. We've already voted on this. So if it's going to be a reconsideration and call it up for reconsideration. But Don't, try to you know, paint it as something that it's not. I'm, not. I'm fully aware this is a reconsideration of a poorly considered motion already voted on this. Evan. like what you not on outdoor, and i'm happy to bring this up as a reconsideration. I'm making an argument, Michael, like absolute opposition to everything that clarifies details of this industry. That matter

[155:07] is something I cannot stand behind You guys. Are you? By saying, All right, let's take the the same arguments Evan can be made about you, looking out strictly for the the interest of the industry where others on this board are looking at what we consider to be the interest of the community. There's a difference of opinion here. All I'm saying is, we've already voted on this. We didn't make a distinction between indoor outdoor. And if that's what we're gonna do then t it out the way it should be teed up. I think I did read the motion, man, it says, allowed in as Brian said, I think you both understand each other's point of view on this a lot of yeah. I just wanna address the comments. I've heard a couple of times around back door. back during concentrates into these establishments we are a policy board. We are determining what is going to go in the front door through the regulated system into these establishments. And just because we are the cannabis industry representative speaking doesn't mean, we're talking about doing something illegal like back, during. Please be mindful of the language that you use.

[156:14] Thank you. and a delivery method that gives you one. and the fact that we didn't clarify that compels me as an industry representative to seek some clarification for that. Because I think that we have, we have created this absolute catchful about what a concentrate is. and that is just not representative of the consumption methods used by the majority of the industry. We have less than 5% of people dabbing. We have 30% of people using a vaporizer. So where where does that differential occur? Because it's not recognized anywhere in our motions?

[157:00] I hope that it could be. But since we have chosen to categorize concentrates collectively, I think that this is a carve out for 40% of the industry who chooses to consume concentrates. Yes, we are reconsidering it because I think it was ill-conceived. If I had been present for this when we initially had this conversation, we all of this up, but I wasn't so now i'm doing it. I think that's my right. So from a process perspective, I think Evan agrees this would be a rec consideration of motion 5. So if we want to have a second on this, we would proceed through voting to reconsider. and then a discussion. So it's just stick to task. Brian. I was just wondering who was the first to to say, to reconsider. i'm not sure. Several people argue that this is a reconsideration of motion. 5. We've been agrees that under some framing it could be a reconsideration of motion.

[158:07] We can't consider motion. I understand the process. I understand the process. I'm just saying you it made it sound like there was already a first to reconsider, and I didn't think there was. So that was all I was trying to clarify right, so I just maybe we'll check in with Evan like Evan. If you want to proceed with motion 25, then we need to start with the reconsideration of motion. 5. To be honest, Brian, I don't believe that if Sandra weighed in right here, i'm even allowed to present this because what I'm offering right now is a reconsideration of a previous motion. I I will gladly retract this right now, and take up my take up my gripe with with city council when it comes to that. But I just think it's it's a horrible injustice to categorize. I don't know what is it? 800 milliondollars worth of consumption in the State of Colorado as just exclusively prohibited indoor or Evan you've had. You've had your time. I'm sorry that it didn't go your way. But like, take a moment, Dude.

[159:08] I I don't know if I need to make what my point was going to be. I I think it's. Thank you, Alana, for pointing out the term back door being used that was not appropriate. I did not use that, but I would point out the front door it what people bring to a cannabis hospitality establishment. whether they bring concentrates or not. If If constraints are allowed, then they wouldn't bring it through the front door. I was pointing out that we're determining what they they will only be bringing it through the regulated legal channel. it and that the backdoor activity. Okay, Robin. Yeah, I just want to apologize for using the phrase back door. That was

[160:00] sloppy. I was just trying to sum up a little bit of frustration of coming at that from different angles. But I didn't mean to make it sound shady, so my apologies. and then, secondly. on the concentrate piece. I would just say that what I think Cloud has relied on is the State definition. And so I I realized that that's hard, because that put some limitations. But it is the state definition that we were using to to consider some of these motions. I I appreciate that, and trust me. I was part of the writing of these these language of of this language for concentrates, I would say that in the 8 years since that language was written there has been differentiation that has not been acknowledged by State law. and I'm seeking to acknowledge that differentiation here. But clearly it is not something that is palatable to this group, so i'm, I've I've already retracted it. I I I retract my motion to make any further vote about this I don't.

[161:04] I don't think it's productive in this setting. Okay, so going back to what Caitlin or not, Excuse me and Caitlin Kristen said: a long time ago our intention was to move forward on this today so that we can have public comment at the next session. And then further discussion. So my understanding is this Google document. including, If people still want to add additional color to their votes. then that's this would be what would go forward, and this is what would be put out for public comment. Anybody opposed to that idea. Do you know how much time we would have Tom to add

[162:00] some comments on the motions that passed tonight? That would be a Kristen Riwa or Kaitlyn or Sandra question. If you did want to try to get this document finished tonight, you could take some time tonight to to work on these, you know. Maybe we could hit pause, for however long each member needs to add their contributions, and then you all could review it as a group otherwise probably would need to set aside time between now and the next meeting. What if people were allowed one week to make any additional comments, and it's a it's a public document, or it's a it's a document available to all of us. I don't know if it's a public document.

[163:00] So you should you? Yeah. My understanding is the public document. and you know, if it If it were not which it is it that would be potentially considered an open meetings, violation violations. Excuse me, open meetings, law violation. So we definitely want to make sure that that it is continues to be public, and I I just want to just add that. Oh, it looks like it's back in there. So motion 20 was missing. But if someone could just, I Don't have access to to edit the document if somebody could just done so that that motion for reconsideration failed. Yeah for motion 20, that would be awesome. Thank you. Oh, and I didn't mean to suggest that it would not. I I just didn't want to miss State, but I I was assuming that it was a public document, but I didn't wanna

[164:00] state that wrongly. So, Chris, how do you feel about one week for people to make any additional additional explanation, for if they wanted to, why, they voted the way they voted. I think that's completely up to the board. How much time you'd like to use? Does that give you folks enough time to. Well, the question that I have and Sandra and maybe you can help we in on this is whether the Board needs to vote on the final form of this memo before it goes to the public hearing at the next meeting. because if that's the case, then you would need to wait until the next meeting, anyways to to make that go if it if it's not in this final form tonight. I think that's up to the board. If the board is okay with the way the document looks now and then, individuals can put in their public or can put in their individual comments.

[165:09] And so long as the Board is okay with those and not seeing them again for final approval, then it could be moved and and considered tonight. and this final form with the addition of individual comments. or you could wait till the next meeting, when you actually see that final document to to to make a motion on passing it or not. My understanding is that we just discuss this that line from this was the format we were going to use to move things forward to city console.

[166:01] and so I don't see a need to re-vote because re-voting could just it. It could complicate things. Well, I mean. You all have reached this point, and you and you're in agreement with what it looks like. The only thing I was saying is just the fact that individuals are wanting to add to the document, so obviously it's going to change if they're only adding to their own. And if people are comfortable with that, then that's fine. Otherwise she would want to come back and revisit it. Well, anyone uncomfortable with that you restate what the that is using the Google document which I can't get to the top of it. entitled Memorandum Club Hospitality Business Motions.

[167:04] which goes for 20 pages, I believe. and it might go might go even longer, as if people add more substance to the reason why they voted. Because even on I mean, people are probably going to add a little bit on the last votes. but they're only gonna add to like you're adding right now, Brian. to the sections that they are in, or that they are explaining their vote. and that's what we forward to city council. Are we forward to the public? So the question is just one to lock the document so that we could not. Yeah, Board members are no longer editing right? Yeah. Which I would suggest one week.

[168:01] And then. Kate, that the deadline for getting stuff into reading packets, and for is 2 weeks before the next meeting should be the twentieth correct. Yes. February twentieth end of the day. so we want to say the seventeenth or the twentieth is the last time Board members can edit this document. I have a procedure recommendation for this. Go ahead. I would think that maybe we could retain access to this document until the deadline for submission for the packet, and then that be the deadline like 50'clock the night before or sometime that's associated with the timeline for submitting materials for the packet. That's the deadline for this document. And then this document goes into the packet so that public can see it ahead of the meeting where we are having public comment on the package of our recommendations.

[169:02] and just to specify, You mean, on the twentieth Atlanta. I'm looking at a calendar, but I just didn't see any I mean. I don't think I'm going to add a lot to this but I didn't see any reason to give us only 7 days if we have into what's the date? The twentieth I i'm fine with it. If the cities. If the city staff are fine, with solid deadline of the twentieth, i'm fine with it, too. and 14 days before is always when the deadline for reading bracket. So that works great for us. Okay. And I think it would be great to include this document once final in the packet. Okay. so just so that I know a lot of you would like to see like the document actually in the packet and not just building from it. Yeah. I believe I i'm speaking for her, but

[170:07] i'll go through, and at the motions that did pass to the bottom Here folks wanted to add the rationals there I did have a question go for it. Just a question about whether we want to include proposed motion 20 and 24, or whether we would we should remove those from the document. Since this is I mean, I know it's historically relevant. But if this is going to the Council, I don't know if they need to I mean. I maybe we do want to keep it in there. Let me. Just. I think 24 goes away because we never voted on it but probably sticks around. There's from the author himself. I mean, you guys are reconsidering motions that i'm proposing right now. The the lack of continuity here. Lack of procedural accuracy is is certainly wanting in this in this whole thing

[171:04] I I I wasn't present for so I could go either way. hey? If if i'm hearing you right, I think I I mean, I think we're we're trying to give Council the most helpful document to act on, and the cleanest document we can give. So if that keeping 20, it communicates something you want to communicate, Evan, I think it's worthwhile to keep it; but if it's at all confusing which I think it may be I would advocate for taking it out. I would agree with you entirely. I think it only muddies the waters here, I think at the end of the day I did attempt to have us reconsider concentrates 2 times, both times. It was not supported that I think we we kept our original intent where we kept the clouds original intent by doing what we did here tonight. So if we can present them with less content, I think it's probably better at the end of the day. No, concentrates. Let's just leave it at that. Then, with your permission, so we renum them.

[172:12] Certainly I so fully support that can we make this a procedural thing, and say that if it's not like it's not voted to be reconsidered; but we don't include it. and that if we do vote to reconsider, then that would be included in them whatever document we present. And then this is just a decision that we make about how we include. How does that, Kate? How is that way? In terms of including 20 or not, including 20? The board did not agree to reconsider. so it would not include 20, and not include 24, because we didn't even get to a we keep in mind. We still have the the record of the minutes. This is separate from the minutes. This is different from the minutes. This is what our group is agreeing to put forward to Council. So

[173:03] it doesn't have to be a record. Yeah, we've removed a lot of procedural procedural vote. Things that we did here that didn't have impact on what our recommendations are. So I think, removing those because we didn't vote on them. They didn't create a recommendation, so I don't think we necessarily need to include them. Okay, there you can get lost. So well, I I just want to. I just want to say that it's not. It's not about like whether or not. There was a recommendation it was whether there was a vote right like we didn't even get to a vote to consider. I support moving these to some other section, and then, remembering these to be continuous to again have the full deliberation of all these together. One additional thing i'd want to consider is motion. 23 was a reconsideration of motion 14. And in addition to that, I think that did result in a change in Member Nobles vote. So I wanted to get member nobles input on whether we should have a separate motion 23 from motion, 14

[174:11] should motion 23 replace motion 14 in this document. Since I know your vote changed. I mean I could try to reflect it in my comments on the new motion. It's probably just as good. That's a good idea could I recommend, maybe in motion 14 somewhere, putting that it was reconsider for motion number. whatever number the new number would be, so that there is a connection between the 2. Oh, that's what Evan just typed.

[175:03] I didn't note that on 14 though I only put it on 23. Okay? Well, you can add it to 14. Also. Okay. we solved all those. So to make sure we have time for the remaining items on the agenda. which one unbelievably on time for the folks who are editing the document, doing some writing to it right now. I would just note that the fourth column shows the the vote, Count, that's if you're going to do it in a parallel way. Thank you, Robin. I was wondering why that was empty on the lower ones.

[176:02] Cool. Okay, Brian, you have your hand up. Oops. Sorry about that. Go ahead. Okay. Are we ready to move on hearing no opposition matters from senior console? Thank you chair. I just wanted to provide an opportunity for folks. Well, I just wanted to share with you that I did share. Memo related to code of conduct with the Board members. It was a a legal opinion regarding the the previous code of conduct opinion that was provided in an earlier in an earlier meeting.

[177:05] and I just want to say that when I covered the January meeting I wasn't aware of the fact that was very pertinent to my analysis. and As a result of that I went back, and I did a re analysis of the code of conduct issue related to Member Malone, and because of that in new information, which is that I was under the impression that that Redout Labs was the only net license in the city of Boulder, and that was the back that I used in my analysis. I've since learned that that's not the case, and because of that, it changes my analysis, and I now have find that there is not a code of conduct, or excuse me a conflict with that particular circumstance, and I guess I just want to know that

[178:10] Co. It. Conflict issues and and code of conduct. Violations can be very complicated, and particularly with the board that has representatives from certain sections of the community. They've been selected for that primary purpose. And so it's really important that we take the time to do the proper and and balance those different perspectives with our code of conduct. And so, in order to do that properly, I'm asking that this board, if you think you have potentially a a complex issue, or you think somebody else might to bring it before the attorney who's representing this this board prior to the meeting, so that that attorney has enough time

[179:03] adequate time to properly analyze the facts to the law. It's. This kind of analysis requires a case by case basis, and it's very fact specific, so it's not a good idea to shoot from the hip during a meeting. And so, if you. if you are in the circumstance where you have to bring it up during the meeting. Then what I ask the board to do is to set aside, maybe hit pause on the matter. That's being considered until the attorney has an opportunity to come back with that legal analysis regarding that issue. Thank you, Sandra. I appreciate that our our conversation was incredibly informative, and it help me feel a lot better about this board. So thank you very much. Yeah. And and and just to all allude to what Devon just mentioned, I did reach out to each one of you, and spoke with you about this issue, because I didn't want you to be surprised at tonight's meeting.

[180:08] I think I heard from every everyone except for you, Rob and I left you a message, and I didn't hear back so hopefully. I didn't have the wrong number or something. I don't I didn't get a message, so I I this is the first time I heard of this at all. Well, i'm sorry that you're just hearing it for the first time, because I definitely sent you a message, but maybe i'll I'll I'll follow up with you to make sure I have accurate information. I apologize that you're just hearing this for the first time, and I welcome, you know, if you would like to have a discussion, one on one about it. I'm happy and available to do that. All right. Do you think the public needs to know anymore If you want to elaborate that at all? More for the public members of the room.

[181:01] What more is there to elaborate? I mean, I was thinking initially, I was thinking you could put you could show the document, but it's too like it when we provide that kind of legal advice to our Board members. That's typically in a confidential memo, i'm happy to share it at the next meeting, or you know, if we want to put it, I don't know on the city's website or whatnot. I'm happy to share that. I i'm fine with that. If you think that would be beneficial. and I really appreciate you. Looking back into this, of course, and I think the website would be a good resource, a good repository. and the meeting packet as well for the next meeting? And is there any i'm not sure. Have we ever heard an update on with regard to Kathy. I saw her at the retreat.

[182:05] so she's on leave, and she'll be retiring July first, so she is no longer going to be representing this board. So for the moment i'm the one that you guys get to deal with. and then at hopefully, another point. In time we'll have someone else assigned to this board, but for now it's going to be me. Sandra, I have to ask. I comment. I just wanted to share that in my entire experience regarding this conflict I was never asked a single question by the city attorney's office with regard to my business position in the city, my role within my company, the ways that my company generates revenue, the ways that it grows. Not a single question was asked of me, so I think, along with not shooting from the hip and gathering the information outside of meeting time, a spirit of

[183:09] fact finding and question, asking and discussions with the parties who have the information that is needed to make a proper analysis can go a really long way, and I would strongly hope that that members put in a position of recommendation to recuse by the city attorney's office are given that opportunity, because, had I been able to receive any level of objective questioning from the city attorney's office, they would have felt a lot better about the way the decision was made. I appreciate that feedback alana, and and I guess I will say that you know as a human. I think that we try. I'm, you know, putting myself in in her position. I think you you know when you get a question. You want to try to be responsive and to help and to provide an answer right. And that's why I just kind of. Think.

[184:01] Let's just take a step back. It's a it's a really complicated question, and one that does take a little time. And so, in order for that to properly be done. I think that it's just best to just take a pause. Okay. Any other. I want Sandra or any questions for Sandra. Okay, then Kristen and our and our caitlin. and we'll make sure and put include that memo in next Month's packet. Okay, Thank you. You have your hand up, did you? Yeah, I just wanted to. I just wanted to thank Sandra. She. The the personal reach out is something

[185:02] in 12 years of operating a cannabis business in this city I've never received. So that is a that is a delightful new standard, and I really do appreciate it. We we're here. We are members of this community as well, and the fact that Sandra made the effort to communicate with myself and the rest of the board and make it clear what the city attorney's office opinion was as opposed to presenting it inside of this meeting. Really, it helped it mean. It meant a lot to me, and I just want to say Thank you, and I look forward to hopefully many more years of communicative and functional relationship with the city attorney's office. It's a It's a delightful new change of pace. You're welcome. So thank you. Okay, Kristen. And or Yeah. Next, we just have matters from regulatory licensing office. We just have 2 things on here, so the first one is agenda topics for each future.

[186:07] anything that they would like to add. Well, there was a an idea proposed. I don't know if it I I don't know if it would matter at this point in time, but the doctor from the Csf. Has a lot of good information, but it's kind of all over the dam, or unnecessary at this point in time. Is there any interest in having future features, future speakers. either that person or others. Brian, you have your hand up to that issue. I would say. We've received lots of information. We've had lots of debates. I don't know that

[187:00] inviting other speakers would only push back our timeline for moving this document out of our account, our forward and into the hands of City Council. Yeah, okay. But that's not why you raised your hand. Have they received any direction, either internally or from council about proposition? 122, or and or Tom, do you want to talk about our little visit? I was waiting till the last segment matters from the chair, and members of the Board for that. That my question is staff. Stand. Your Your question to staff is, is pertinent. Is there any new developments? I guess that we're not aware of. No, we do not have any updates on proposition 122 at this time and should we.

[188:00] Brian? Should we make sure that what we're talking about here problem between 122 is the State bell initiative for natural medicines, for psychedelics and other psychoactive substances so under a very different kind of regulatory framework than the model that we have. But certainly Jason kinds of products. Okay. who wants to talk about board recruitment and or the application for? Okay? Sorry. I was just gonna ask actually what the the the public hearing will look like next meeting, and and how much time that we should expect that to pay. Take up. And then what other topics are we talking about the agenda for next week or next month? So i'm just trying to understand what the what that look like. And maybe you guys all talked about that with them retreat. But I don't I wasn't there for that conversation. That's a great question.

[189:03] How would we like it to be structured? We've had public comment before, but it has been over much smaller issues or more concise issues. And I ask what it looks like in other boards. Yeah, I'm: i'm happy to to fill in. So typically the way public hearings work is. you have a on the comment period in which you allow folks to make comments on the particular item, and in this case it's the document that you just discussed, and that will be bringing forward to Council and and it, you know it works a lot like what you do. Now you know your open comment, and it's helpful to have the same sort of time constraints.

[190:04] particularly if you're expecting a lot of people. And then. once all of that public comment is done. I would recommend that you don't go back and and try to address, or even as you're going through and trying to address each question. You just have to take it all in. Otherwise you're going to just drone and and taking too much time. So I would. Just which is, this is what typically happens is you just accept all the public comments one after another, all that information you're taking in. And then once the public comment period ends. and all of the folks who have commented have had that opportunity. Then you can sort of go through your discussion, and if you think that there needs to be any changes based on the the comments that you've heard

[191:04] that that would be the opportunity to bring those up. But that's typically how it works. We had our less public comment if I could go back and look at minutes and stuff like that. But we had a good number of speakers Now, where we have the same number I don't know. But it was that for delivery, Tom. Yeah. I don't know other than is Reima. Are you here. or alana. Do you remember how my I can remember like something in the range of 30 speakers? Your delivery? Well, I don't remember what it were there to public comment segments. It's hard to know how

[192:00] busy this public comment period is gonna be. I mean, we've done all the work. So I think it might depend on what else we put on the agenda like he's question like if we say that if there isn't an agenda item that says, discuss hospitality, then maybe we won't draw out a 100 people, giving us comments that we maybe don't plan to incorporate. I don't know. so it might determine. It might depend on what the agenda says. So Chair. Did you have any other things teed up for March discussion? Wise? Not at this point in time so specifically an agenda for a hearing that way through the public comment. So it would look just like the agenda that you have. Now you would have normal public comment for things unrelated to things that are current that are on the agenda. and that would be like future Jenni. Anyone would like to bring up, and then we would have

[193:02] an agenda. Item, that would be public comment specifically for marijuana hospitality provisions I would specific. I can't. I couldn't hear the last half of what you said to you Typically, when we have public comment about a specific topic and on an agenda. we have an agenda item for public comment for that topic. So it would look a lot like your agenda from today. So like Number 4, for example, would say, public comment regarding Yeah, it it, that's exactly right. Like it's got to be connected with it. It has to come right before the actual discussion of the hospitality establishment that you guys just completed, so it wouldn't be like open comment, which is like about anything. It's like. It has to come like right before you actually discuss

[194:11] the the I? Okay. Does that answer your questions? Yeah. Yeah. I mean it's. You know, we didn't need to reserve. If you assume 30 speakers at 3 min of speaker, that's 90 min. Yeah. And then discussion for another whatever. And then next plan is what to finalize at the April meeting. I think on that occasion we actually had people either raise their hand or pre sign up, or, you know, let us know how many public speakers we're going to have when we even change the timeframe from 3 min to 2 min. Yeah.

[195:04] right? Right? Oh, I was just thinking that this is taking up so much oxygen in our board that after this is shipped in April. there are, I think, we all care about, so I think it's worth surfacing those in a robin brought up some during the retreat. I know others have them as well. So I'm, deeply grateful for all the time effort and expertise people brought to this consideration of that. We've done a little last year, and plus. but certainly we need, or we can have short meetings. Be also nice to. So are we in general agreements. Do this. the skeleton or the the What Caitlin presented is, we have a general public comment.

[196:06] There might be a couple other more agenda items there, but then public comment with respect to the hospitality document that will be forwarded to city console. And then we have discussion on that and then future agenda topics which we can also doing our last 26 min today. But I think, Kristen, you do you want to talk about board recruitment. summary and or other issues along that line. Yeah, i'll let Caitlin talk about board recruitment. She's been spearheading that effort here at the city, and then I can provide a quick update on hybrid meetings when Caitlin's finished.

[197:05] Okay. Thank you. So for board recruitment. We, after applications closed last Monday, Monday, the thirtieth day closed. We did have 6 applications submitted for the 2 vacant seats that are going to be on call. They have not full this. Yeah, if all 6 of those applications are actually eligible. They said that they were determining that over the weekend, and we just haven't heard yet about that. But there are 6 that we're submitted, and we will let you know as soon as we know if all 6 of them are eligible, or how many are going to be scheduled for interviews. and the interviews are scheduled to be held in February thirteenth, through February 29.

[198:01] So really, by your next meeting we'll be able to let you know at least how many people interviewed for each seat. And that's really kind of all that I offer that the sign up time options for interviews will be sent to qualified applicants the February seventh, and eighth. So if you are listening to this meeting and you applied for it. I see on the board your interview. Time will be sent February seventh and eighth for you a sign up for. and that's basically all that I have for the update on work equipment. But I was happy to see that there was 6. Okay, You had your hand up first, but user cut down. I I was just wondering if if we would see those applications or the next packet, or whether that would be until April.

[199:03] Because I don't know the the reading packet right has to be in before the end of the but we still could possibly see them as well. I probably will be able to include them for March. Yes. okay, cool. Thanks. right. And then Kaitlyn or other staff. Can you remind us that currently it's member coincidence, and Member Malau, whose seats are being reappointed, would be up for reappointment and the next cycle 2,024. That's a great question. I'm sorry I didn't look up that up for you before I Alright, thank you. It's not you, Brian. I got my safe 5 year appointment here for another 4 years. and while Caitlin's looking that up, I just have a quick update on hybrid meetings, so just wanted to let you know that Staff is looking into the different options that we might have for hybrid meetings going forward. It does look like. We'll have a few different conference rooms available at the city that could facilitate a hybrid meeting. If that's something that Board would be interested in.

[200:11] and you will have the opportunity to discuss those options and vote on what Kristen 1 s Evan needs to leave us. And is there anything else you would need to add before you go. No, I'm pretty sure. I've shaking things up enough here tonight. I appreciate everybody's patience and tolerance of my my aggression. But obviously i'm passionate about this, and I appreciate everybody else's fashion. Thank you all, and I sorry I got to jump right now, but I have no choice. So thank you. Thank you for your passion. I am. I am available at any time if anybody wants to talk to me about any of my strong opinions. But at this time I got a sign off. So thank you all. Yep. Okay. Sorry, Kristen.

[201:04] Michael's gone to. I I just noticed that. Go ahead. No problem. Just long. Story short, we're looking into our options. The Board will have an opportunity to vote on what format works best for you. Once we finish up with the recruitment process. Then we have the new member seated. We want to give them an opportunity to participate in that conversation as well, so more to come on that. But I just wanted to give a quick update. and I will kick it back to Caitlin if you want to follow up on Remember kick this question. Yes, so the only see that will be up next year in 2,024 is member Anderson seat, which is a marijuana industry, and that's a 2 year term. and then in 2025. We have quite a few seats probably up, so we'll have one ex officio. I think one exit issue. Oh, sorry! Both exhibitios will be up in 2,025

[202:02] Member Christine will be up in 2,025. Remember, green and member. and then Member Nobles is 2,026. So next year is just one member. Okay. Michael actually just says he, got something went wrong, and he's trying to rejoin the room. But oh, well. so we can watch for that. Brian, Did you wanna talk about any of the articles you and I have been passing back and forth all right. I can include this for the March reading packet, but our colleagues at Colorado, just published, really fascinating twins study. So, looking at identical twins and sort of their exposure to policy environments for cannabis legal versus not legal, and how that affects their consumption.

[203:02] So It's just interesting findings. but not the final words on that. But i'll include that for Marsha's reading package. and then Robin also. Oh, sorry you got your hand up to. But, Robin. you also had some some articles, but we thought people might want to see. Well, yeah, I mean, I saw that twin study, too, and thanks for including it, Brian. I think that everybody would be interested to read that. It's interesting for sure, but I did want to make a comment on the materials that were included in the packet that over the CD. Phg. Reports on Cannabis attributed health outcomes in Colorado. There was a cover sheet on that from the Colorado Cannabis Manufacturers Association. and there was a little bit of spin on that data, and I want to put. I want to put that in the proper context, because I found that

[204:01] really, concerning the cover sheet really pointed to it, it almost made it sound like there weren't. Many cannabis related LED visits. This is a mandated report that Cdph had to publish this year. but I would just really encourage, for to please read the report, because that is not an all. What the report says. In fact, the most important conclusion that it drew was the department is not confident that the findings correctly describe the true burden of cannabis, attributed hospital and emergency department visits. It went on to say that, based on the reviewed studies, the department can only conclude that hospital and LED discharge data are not suitable to identify diagnoses or conditions caused by cannabis use at this time. and as somebody who took a person I love to the emergency department 11 times and 9 months for cannabis, hyper Emmesis syndrome. There was never

[205:05] a code. These are the CID codes that insurance companies use. There was never a code no one ever wrote down anything Cannabis related. and I talked to a friend of mine who works for the Boulder Community health foundation, and he explained that during admissions hospitals are not allowed to ask patients if they're using cannabis medicinally because it's a schedule, One drug meaning it's considered illegal by the Federal Government, they would risk their accreditation and Federal funding. So back to my original point. These are important reports. The cover sheet on them really tried to skew this in a very positive way. I understand why, but it's not accurate. And then, as to the post post mortem toxicology, results of people who've committed suicide.

[206:01] I just don't see any way to spend that positively. And there are some disturbing statistics in that report. And again, I would encourage you to read it yourself. Thank you. Okay, Anyone else. I don't think Well, Stacy. Sorry on just the heels of what Robin was suggesting. I submitted, but it was too late for this meeting. There's a summary report that Cdp. She just put out as well that I think would be useful for everyone here to look over, so that hopefully it will make it to the next reading packet. But it includes a lot of similar. There's some overlap, but there's also a lot of other interesting data that's been collected on Cannabis and Colorado. So just more to read for next time. Okay, anyone else.

[207:03] Okay, Allison, a lot of just looking around the room. I decided on on my own, and I'm trying to figure out how to report off on this. It's very enlightening to go and look at the existing cannabis hospitality in the State of Colorado. I was gonna on a on a trip to California. I was gonna try to include some of the California ones, but that didn't happen. But there's 2 in Denver. The tetra, as I mentioned earlier. which all I can do is, describe it as if it's like a they had. They had outdoor space, which was not open at the time I was there, and then they had pretty much a one room situation where flower i'm not sure what all. But but I mean it. It's very smoky.

[208:03] and and I didn't see I mean I I suspect they probably had some attempts to improving ventilation, but it was not apparent to me, and then there was the coffee joint, which is which I guess, was grandfather in a long time ago, which sells coffee. and people can use cannabis. but not smoke flower there. Well, I was only there when there was nobody there. It was like 10 am. And so it was not smoky. but I mean it was. It was enlightening. And then I was going to try to go. I was in Colorado Springs. I was gonna try to go to the one called Speak easy, and I found out. Speak easy. It's closed, and i'm not even sure Why, exactly. There's articles on the Internet. That talk about that. But it's unclear. As to why, I think the city of Colorado

[209:02] use some ruling to close it down. But I don't know what that was exactly, and I don't I want to do, or or Kate, you know anything about what's happening in Colorado Springs any guesses? Marijuana clubs I went well. Catcher is the only one that I know. Well, it's not true. There's one in on the outskirts of Aurora that I did not make it to. So there's one in our about Adams County. That's license. I'm not sure that the others are. I'm curious if they are State license. Yeah. I'm not sure about the coffee giant. And then, you know, Brian and I went to an institution in town which shall remain nameless. But you know to be the first

[210:05] cannabis, consumption, business, and boulder at this point in time. and I was trying to plot. Apply what I saw at those 2 to what I saw at this restaurant. and I was having a hard time with it, because there's no separate ventilation. There's no separate room for use. and and there were I can't see right now without some significant renovation how they would provide access to outdoor consumption. But that's up to them. I guess it was just an interesting field trip that I just that I mentioned. Anybody else wants to go with me the next time I definitely encourage you to go to the one in Adams County. They have very good

[211:00] ventilation, and I think he came and spoke here and spoke about his ventilation and his facility. I will try that one was not on the. I was on my way to Colorado Springs, and that was not on my way to Colorado Springs. but i'll see what I can do if anybody wants to do a road trip. and we have a good reason to go to the outskirts of Aurora Stacy. Do you have to go there for meetings? Yeah, that's that's a lot further than I usually travel. But i'll entertain the idea all right. unless somebody else has other things to mention. I I know I was going to mention each. The the 2 that I went to had waivers for people going into the to their buildings to sign, which I have copies of somewhere, but

[212:01] it kind of interesting. Okay. Motion to adjourn Brian motions to adjourn. Is there anything else we need to discuss? Are we? Are we good? I second the motion? There's a second. Any opposition or extension. Okay, I I agree with Brian. Thanks. I I express gratitude for everybody's time and effort. Everyone in the virtual room, including the public, and we'll see you next month. Thank you, Staff. Thank you, everybody. Good month. Good night. Bye.