January 8, 2024 — Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Back to the. Okay, welcome to the January eighth. Meeting of the Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board from the city of Boulder. And, do you want to go ahead and read the instructions for a virtual meeting and rules of Certainly one moment, please. Good afternoon. Public participation at the cannabis licensing and advisory board meeting. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision. For productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff, and board and commission members, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives.

[1:09] More about this vision and the projects community engagement process can be found at the link displayed on your screen. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revise code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. Participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by. And individuals must display their whole name. Before being allowed to speak online. Currently only audio testimony is permitted online.

[2:06] Right, would you like to go ahead and, do the roll call? Certainly. Remember Daniel. Present. Remember green. Vice Chair Keegan. Present. Present. Present. Chair Coonsman. Member noble. Present. Exe official member Thompson? Present. Thank you. And as previously noted, member Christie and ex-official member Bailey. Have noted that they will be absent. Okay, let's take a look at the December fourth minutes. Certainly. It was noted that the minutes were to be included after the packet had gone out. Due to an unfortunate staff delay, we will not be able to review these for this meeting today. They will be, however, included in the February meeting packet. For review.

[3:06] Okay. Then moving on to general public comments. I'm sorry, go ahead. I'm sorry. Is there anyone in the waiting room? Yes, one moment here. We have 3 attendees. Would you like me to begin? The public comment procedure? Yes, please. Certainly. Members of the public are invited to provide general public comment to the members of the cannabis licensing and advisory board. Remember, Okay, sorry, excuse me, comments will be allowed for 3 min. If you're ready to make a comment or would like to make a comment today, please use the raise hand function. In your Zoom Meeting. If you're using the telephone, please dial start. 9. Is there anyone who would like to provide public comment?

[4:11] Sure, Kunsman, I'm not seeing anyone at this time for public comment section. Okay. Let's go on is I didn't see any remarks from. Pam is were there any. Matters from the cannabis enforcement officer that I'm not aware of. No, under agenda item 3 matters from the cannabis enforcement officer. Officer Gignak did a note that she would be unable to attend more than likely today. She apologizes however she has nothing to report at this time. Okay. Alright, then onto policy suggestion forms of which there is one. Correct. Yes, Chair Coonsman, there was a policy suggestion reform received timely for this meeting. It is included in your packet.

[5:04] It's pretty self-explanatory. Does does either of you, Andy or anyone want to? Hit the highlights. Yeah, I'm happy to. In fact, if you don't mind, I can share my screen just to. Sort of do a comparison of what they're referencing here. They have a the medical or the marijuana enforcement division recently completed their annual rulemaking. And one of the changes, which I'll show on screen here. That they implemented was to reduce the time by which. Surveillance recordings must be kept. And it's a pretty minor change. There were there were other changes as part of the role making as well, but This one's pretty minor. You should be able to see this right now.

[6:03] So the gist of it is they have this section on video recording and retention requirements and it says All surveillance recordings must be kept for a minimum of they struck 40 and changed it to 30 days. And be in the format that can be easily accessed for viewing. And then. I'll show you what the club rules. Say real quickly So. The club rules I've highlighted. Oh, excuse me. No, it's not. Let me zoom in here. Hopefully you can see this. Yeah, we can. Portion here and it just basically references it looks like we were mirroring that 40 day requirement originally. And says recordings from security crammers shall be maintained from minimum of 40 days in a secure off site location in the city.

[7:09] Or through a service over a network that provides on domain access, commonly referred to as the cloud. So. That's the reference they're looking to. have the clap upon upon for change and. I couldn't find any discussion about the rationale for it, so I don't really have much more detail than that, but that's Those are sort of the reference points for everybody. Robin? I apologize for the background noise. There's some work going on here, but, Andy, I just wanted to clarify you said, let me show you the clab rules, but those are city, that's city of Boulder code, is that right? Yeah, sorry, that's the city Volta code, right? Okay, alright, thank you. I looked at those changes. You may be opening a discussion chair, but just for what it's worth, I wouldn't object to that change.

[8:03] I think that sounds reasonable. I'm just curious why was it 40 and why is it now 30 and why now? And wasn't there any other substantive changes in the? At the. Made in their 2024. Rules. Yeah, I Not ready to apply upon that right now, but they did make other changes and we haven't done a review to confirm everything's Consistent with the Boulder revised code. Otherwise, I mean, they're 2 different. Regulatory schemes, we can have stricter rules. Within the city, you know, it's not. It's not that we're beholden to adhere to the marijuana enforcement division rules. So. Distinction there is okay. It just.

[9:03] You know, it sounds like they're just looking for a matter of being able to track things consistently is the reason why they'd like to change. So. Brian. Hey, just building on what Tom said that I'd recognize that Andy is not ready to talk about this now, but we could just like have if there are other rule making changes here that. Into the NVD, maybe review those. And discuss those alongside this, but like Robin said, I wouldn't be opposed to this as a rule making change in the name of consistency, but I probably would want to do that as a package if there are other. If there are other matters in this rulemaking that we should discuss as well. Well, it appears that it's the only MED change that. Stood out to. Older cannabis businesses.

[10:04] That prompt today. A form. I mean, I see no reason. 30, actually seems like a or standard number than 40. So. Very should also wanna check in with Pam. I get Pam's advice here off the gig neck. Can share that changing from 40 to 30 wouldn't impact her ability to investigations or enforcement operations. Kristen or Kristen is she reachable by Oh, or email or any other method that We can ask that question. Otherwise we can. That's all. No, she's not available, unfortunately, but, what we can do is present this question to her and ask her to provide some feedback.

[11:00] For the next meeting. Okay. That sounds reasonable. We'll do that. Thank you. That sound okay to everyone? See you know, I see no head shaking note. I don't think we need to vote on it. Putting that off until Next month. Okay. And let's do that. I believe we're on to the Mock hearing. Who wants to introduce? What we're gonna do. Or do you want me to? Either way, I'm happy to tee it up. Real briefly, I think everybody's sort of aware of what.

[12:01] We are doing, but. As the board recall, we've been discussing the new licensing application approval and review process and what these hearings look like. So I think you've had A couple of presentations now from our office about quasi judicial hearings and the implications of that. Obviously, the predominant concern is that we're looking at. Everything we need to be looking at as a board to evaluate whether a license is authorized under the Boulder revised code. That we're applying the Boulder revised code. As consistently and clearly as we possibly can including Discerning any facts that are relevant to our decisions for the various requirements and that we're doing so in a way that's transparent and follows a consistent process. And so all of that kind of goes into our need to uphold due process in. Evaluating these licenses and So the board thought.

[13:09] It would be helpful one if we had a script which we had prepared, which was just a draft script, which we can. Change as we go through this process or modify. I think you've seen it at this point, but maybe actually. Applying the script to a mock application will be helpful and help us understand sort of what's working and what's not. And Just to go through this. Process just so the The first time we're doing it, it's not with an applicant. I think as I mentioned, previously. We're not anticipating that a lot of these application hearings are. Even controverted, let alone. Something that ends up being contentious, but it's always good for us to get in that mindset and think about the possibilities of what might happen and If people arrive with council, what that means, what it means to for you to review the documents, you know, hear the testimony, look at the evidence and make a decision.

[14:15] And for us to practice sort of that process of making sure we have findings that. If we were to get sued, a court could review on appeal and understand. What the basis was for our decision and you know what the thoughts were of each of you. And how that impacted that decision. So that's kind of the overarching goal with all of this. And before I turn it over to, Kristen Changeras or Kristen Tee for some of their thoughts, I. I do wanna welcome Christiana McCormick is a colleague from my office who will be serving as counsel for our make believe applicant so I've encouraged her not to embarrass me on this practice hearing.

[15:02] So we'll see if she. You know, adheres to that. So. And then my other colleague, Rewa Ward, is on is serving as the actual applicant representative. And so. Kristen, I don't know if you want to. Tee up sort of the documents and your thoughts on this process, but that's Kind of the overview. So. Thanks, Andy. I just wanted to clarify too. We have a few city staff members that will be participating in the mock hearing today. Caitlin Kellogg from the regulatory licensing division is actually going to be presenting on behalf of. The mock applicant and then real word will be an interested party. Yes. Right. So. I will hand it off to Kristen Teag if you want to go ahead and get us started.

[16:02] Certainly. For reference. The script can be found. In the. Packet on page 20. Chair and vice chair you do have the same script with a little bit. Of additional information for you use in there. Sure Kunsman, when you're ready. To begin with number one. And just go through the script, please. Let me just ask a point of 2 point of reference. So normally we would have received the application which starts on page 27. Right. And we would. The application packet begins on page 20. Well, so for this purpose, agenda item number 5 is page 18. Okay. We provided as part of this. The application review sheet. Which is some instructions and the order of materials.

[17:03] And how to access them in the packet. That is page 19. The actual application packet starts out with. The script on page 20. And it starts out with the documents. Right, let me just to clarify my question. I'm jumping to page 30 of the application. Actually, actual fake application that starts on page 27 on page 30 question number 19. There is a neighborhood responsibility plan. Yes. I did not see that. Did I miss that? The neighborhood responsibility plan is on page 47. I must I was scrolling through and I guess I just missed it and then one thing about this application, if we do change the dates from 40 to 30 question number 24 will need to be. Updated but not yet obviously. No, not yet.

[18:00] Yeah, so no, I'm ready. I know the The. I'm trying to find it. Page 20. It's here somewhere. Well, page 20 is the one that's in the general packet. You were provided a separate one via email. Good. That had a little bit more information and to help. I don't know if I've seen. It's not it's We can. We can work with it. It's not going to change much. Absolutely. Cool. Nice. And I just go with page 20. Okay, I hear by call a hearing to order as the review of the licensing application submitted by the application of applicant, 87 midnight's LLC. Not sure what DBA was DBA. Doing business off. Businesses. Doing business as lavender hey see Could the licensing clerk please read the matter into the record?

[19:02] This is an application for recreational dispensaries submitted by 87 midnight's LLC doing business as Lavender Hayes with a premises address of 1 9 8 9 Cornelius Street, Boulder, Colorado, 8, 0, 3, 0, 2. With Rebecca Harkness, owner. And the licensing division and the applicant are hereby admitted as interested parties for this proceeding. Were they any persons who filed a written entry of appearance? Yes, we reward today. Real ward is here today as an interested party. They did file a written entry of appearance. Is the applicant, does the applicant object to the Interested party. Good afternoon. No, the applicant does not object. And they normally would have written and done a written. And. Is that true?

[20:13] Okay. Okay. They may not have done a written objection, but the applicant will have received any interested parties written entry of appearance so they'll hopefully know that they're appearing. And then. They'll probably. I don't know how the applicants will treat that, but. They may object. I don't know what grounds they would object on if they file the proper entry of appearance, but they may object and we'll have to deal with that then, but. Yeah. Do you have any other Kristianna stepping outside of your role of? Advocate, do you have any other thoughts on that? No, I mean, there wouldn't be a whole lot to object on until the testimony part, I would think, as long as they meet the definition of interested party. Okay.

[21:01] Unless they've had a lifelong feud. Reward is here where I admitted as an interested party. This is a public hearing before the cannabis licensing advisory board of the city of order to determine to determine whether or not the application of the applicant. Hmm. 87 midnight, LLC, doing business as lavender haze. Or a recreational dispensary license shall be granted or denied. This hearing is conducted pursuant to City of Boulder ordinances, laws of the state of Colorado and rules of the cannabis licensing and advisory board of the city of Boulder. The purpose of this hearing is to take public comment and receive information data. And testimony from interested parties in order to enable this board to make the findings. And to reach the conclusions required to be made by law. As to whether or not the license License applied for shop, 4 shall issue. Interested parties are the applicant acting through the owner. And manager of business as well as the city acting through its licensing.

[22:09] A recording is being made of these proceedings. Those who desire to be heard shall identify themselves by stating their name. Spelling their first and last name. And stating their pertinent address. Hey, shall also be sworn in by the licensing clerk. Before we begin, do any board members have or believe they may have a conflict respect with respect to this application. Hmm. Oh, and Ethan's got his hand up. Yep, go ahead. Ethan Stevens playing the role. Good job. Just want to call attention that I do represent a licensed cannabis. Infuse products manufacturer within the city of Bowler.

[23:00] Thank you, Ethan, for that disclosure. I don't believe that is a conflict and As the sidebar for the from the rest of the board, Ethan did request a sort of more formal analysis of. When license marijuana businesses should be conflicted out or might have a conflict that would require. Them to recuse themselves and so our office will prepare that but I think In essence, it's. And Christiana just raised her hand, but it really needs to be limited. I mean, the point of the board is to have representation. From businesses, including businesses that might be competitors of some of these companies. That was built into the boards membership. And so I think we need to be. I guess careful the extent to which we want to, or we determine that a recusal is necessary because otherwise. We would run the risk of having board members who are part of the business having to recuse themselves. Frequently.

[24:06] So it has to be beyond mere competition. It really needs to be. For sure if there's a direct pecuniary interest, which I mentioned previously, that would be grounds for recusal. And I would encourage disclosure, you know, if there's any risk of conflict, please do disclose. But that's kind of the, I guess, guiding post right now. Until we're able to get you something a little bit more formal, Ethan. So. And yeah. It's John. Thank you. Just echoing what Andy says when there's a conflict of interest. It's genuinely a financial, a direct financial like interest in the application and it's not just a general interest in like the type of businesses or being a business owner of the same kind or something like that.

[25:01] And Andy, I have a memo on exactly this. If you would like to see it. That sounds great. I would love to slap my name on that. And. So, yeah. Yeah. Brian? Would be in a customer of a. Business here also be a conflict in any kind of way. No, I don't think so. There wouldn't rise to level of a financial interest. You know, if you're a customer and you're exchanging. Discounts and product for a vote, right? That's different, but I don't think just being merely a customer would rise to that level. Yeah. Though if it's something you wanted to disclose, you're more than welcome to. But And Kate. I do know the interested party. That's not really attached to the. Business. I'm just saying that I know her.

[26:08] I was trying to play the role too. So. Okay. Can you go ahead and disclose how the basis of how you know her and what that relationship is, the history? Yeah, I, used to work for, the farm in Boulder, and no, from the licensing aspect of the business. So it would communicate with her on licensing things and then also through, obviously for, through the board. And is that going in any way? Impact your ability to be impartial in deciding the issues before the board. Okay, thank you. No, it's not. What a question sometimes be do you have a would that include a financial interest or something along that line?

[27:00] Or an ongoing financial interest. Cause Yeah, I could I could have maybe drilled down into that a little bit more with. You know, do you have a financial interest in this application? I, suppose I could drill down further with some of that. If we wanted to. Okay. How do we resolve it? Do we just, we decide each one as is as it comes up and then. So hopefully, Chuck Vincent, when When this arises, I'm hoping that folks will have notified me in advance to discuss the conflict or disclosure. Just so we have a chance to kick it back and forth and drill down, you know, as to whether it merits. Hi, the refusal or, you know, not participating in the voting process or just disclosure.

[28:03] So hopefully we'll have. Time to sort of think about that. But by and large, unless it's a pretty severe conflict, it's just going to be prudent I would say and to to complete disclosure and then move forward. So. Christiana, I don't know if you have any thoughts on that if we should go. Yeah, go ahead. Yep. Yeah, usually unless there's some specific rule in like the city's, ethics rules or anything like that, which I have not looked at. Prior to this meeting. But usually it's up to the individual member to decide what to disclose and then, you know, Andy kind of drilled down to the very core of the concern is will it affect you making an impartial decision and if your response is no, then generally it's just up to that individual person to decide that for themselves. And move forward and participate if it doesn't affect their decision making.

[29:13] Okay, ready to move on? Alright, I know I know the answer to the question. Are is there or are there any attorneys who will represent the interested party? Oh, you're mute. Okay. Whenever you're ready, Christiana. Thanks. Sorry about that. Christyuto McCormick, registration number 4 8 2 9 3 appearing on behalf of 87 Midnight's LLC DBA Lavender Hase. Thank you. And appearing with me is, the applicant. Okay, thank you. This proceeding will have the following order. First, we will take public comment. Second, we will hear testimony from city staff.

[30:04] Then the applicant. Then the interested party. Each presentation of testimony shall be limited to 10 min unless good causes shown for additional time. After each interested party's testimony, the board and every other interested party will have the opportunity to ask questions of that party. Finally, each interested party will have the opportunity to bottle testimony. The board will have opportunity to ask and then ask them additional questions of each interested party following their respectfully. Following hearing the evidence, testimony and presentation of evidence will close in the board will deliberate. Although deviating from this process is not anticipated, the board reserves the right to alter this process we're doing so promotes the fact finding of the board. Or is in the interest of justice. That said, are there any objections to this order of procedure?

[31:08] Seeing none, is the applicant ready to proceed? Sorry. Yes. Good, yes. Okay, is the city ready to proceed? Yes. Alright. So click, please, swear in the applicant. And we shared, I know this isn't in the script. Check in, but we should ask the other. Interested party if they're ready to proceed as well so we can add that to the script. That's true. Alright. Wonderful. Thank you. Miss Harkness, would you please raise your hand? State your first and last name.

[32:00] Spell your last name and give your address, please. Yes, Rebecca Harkness, AJ RK and ESS. 1 2 1 3 Lover Lane, Boulder, Colorado, 8 0 3 0 1. And do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide the cannabis licensing and advisory board this afternoon is true and correct. Yes. Thank you. Ms. Ward. Yes. Would you raise your right hand, please? Can you please state your name? Spell your last name. 3 will. And provide your address, please. Reward. WARD. 8 2 8 Alpine Street, Boulder, Colorado, 80403. And do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide the cannabis licensing and advisory board is true and correct. Yes. Thank you. Would you like to go ahead and swear in the interested party then also?

[33:06] Apologize. I jumped. I jumped ahead. Yeah, that's okay. We was sworn at this point, so. Oh, so she's, she's not representing, she also represents the city. Not today. Not today. And. No, not today. I'm. Yeah, and that was my fault earlier. So she's our interested party representative chair. Okay. Sorry. And I apologize. I'm in a bad habit with BLA where we just start swearing in everybody and move forward. And the city staff, the staff representing the city does not need to be sworn in. So this is. Something briefly that we discussed, Kristen, I think. I mean, I would prefer you. Somebody from the city be sworn as the witness we have the findings, right, that are emitted into evidence, so those should stand on their own, but I don't know if you have any thoughts on that.

[34:13] Typically, city staff is not sworn in, but I'm happy to be sworn in. Andy, if you think that's. Preferred. But the VLA, the city staff would not be sworn in. Correct. And I don't think in Kristen is this right, you don't provide. Testimony typically for the BLA. You have your report and that's it, right? That's correct. We're just, typically available to answer any questions from the board. Okay. And the attorneys are not sworn in. Okay. Okay, just checking. Nope. Okay.

[35:00] We already know that there's an interested party. So do I need to do number 7? I jumped the gun on that. I do apologize, Chair Kinsman. Okay, just checking to make sure I don't need to make sure there's no other interested parties. Cause sometimes they may identify. Well, I have a question. What is the time limit for each of our testimony? Thank you. Normally, 10 min. Unless there's a reason to, change that. Thank you. Does that happen much in the alcohol or VLA? That they need more than 10 min. We usually just give them the time, the applicant, the time that they need to, present their case and because there's not a presentation by staff. It's really up to the applicant. In front of the BLA to do the entire presentation show that they have met all the criteria and everything so We don't usually have a 10 min and Kristen, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but, for all the hearings that I've, done with the VLA, we don't have any 10 min time limit for

[36:14] the applicant. We don't need to run a timer. Hi, you know, I thought we should have some sort of time limit, but if we wanted to get rid of that, I'd be fine with us keeping that. Open, I would just. I, I guess the only risk well. I don't know if it's the only risk, but one of the risk of that is if you don't have a time limit period that somebody could get up like a disgruntled. You know, interested party could get up and take a lot of the time. I doubt that's a high risk, but. What if we said roughly 10 min or something along that line? And then we don't have PIRE running.

[37:03] And the other thing, for everyone to consider is that, you know, I was speaking about the, applicant, since the applicant has the burden of proving that their, application meets the criteria and everything. And then for interested parties, there, there could be a difference. In time, unless you think that that's just not fair. But that's just something to think about, I'd say. Are what we ask that you try to limit your testimony to 10 min. If at all possible or something along that line. Yeah, we could do that. For future verbiage. That's not an absolute. As you said, Christiana then. The African may need more time. More than 10 min.

[38:01] Okay, ready to go on? Application and related materials included in the packet are submitted as evidence and included in the record for this hearing. Are there any are there any other documents reports or other written materials? Any interested party wishes to have entered as evidence into the record. You, your hand is still up. Okay. Yes, I raised it again. I have a question. As an interested party, do I have to stay on camera the entire hearing? I don't see why. But I'm asking that. And stop. That's an interesting point. I don't think we have a Paul, policy on that, but maybe it's. Before doing a lot of these hearings virtual maybe it's worth mentioning a requirement that any person who's speaking should be on camera or must be on camera including person submitting testimony or something to that effect.

[39:14] I mean, we could add that as. A part of the script. Although if someone's doing their part by phone which would not be ideal, obviously, but if they They need to do that. And they're not going to be easily on camera, right? Yeah, I mean, we could add. Something they do the effect of, you know, barring. Good cause all persons who present or speak to the board shall appear with their video camera turned on. During the time that they're interacting with the board. Yeah. Which is that's what you meant real also, right?

[40:01] Well, no, I meant. Do I have to be on camera from here on out until the conclusion of this proceeding. I will seek input there. Good. Yes. Kristen Tee has her hand up, but I I would, I mean, I'll defer to the board, obviously. This is the boards. Call, but I think it's reasonable to expect persons who have the ability. To have their camera on to keep that camera on while they present speak to the board. Hey, Aka Rebecca. Sorry, Chris, and go ahead. I have the answer for you, based on best practice. Right. This is Caitlin speaking now, Rebecca. The city if Christian wants to go for stuff. I said again, your sound was jumbled. Sorry about that. I have the answer for you. When it comes to best practices, I'm speaking of Kaitlan employee of Boulder.

[41:03] For what that looks like for a virtual. If anyone is giving testimony then they are required barring any sort of any sort of extenuating circumstances that are approved by the board. They do have to appear on camera for the duration of their testimony. They don't have to be on camera for that entire time. So if you're looking at a hearing that has multiple applicants those applicants won't even be promoted to panelists until it's time for them to testify and then as soon as they're done testifying, then they're put back into the attendees so they won't even be able to appear on the majority of the hearing just when their items. Justin, is that what you were gonna? Yep, that's how we were working it with the VLA. Okay, and are you good with that?

[42:01] Yes, thank you. Okay. Other questions? Okay. Just some point of clarification. Do we need to ask the applicant if they are okay with that? If they're okay. Go ahead. I, I don't think. I don't think we do. I think we should add to the script that that component so that it becomes part of sort of the regular procedure. Required of the board. So. I don't think that's a permissive thing. I hate to get 2 bogged down with some of this, but I think maybe just one sudden stating. The standard that during the hearing. You know, unless there's extenuating circumstances, you're expected to have your video on when you're presenting or providing testimony to the board. And you think of a reason, Kate, that people might not want to? I was just saying like if there was I think maybe if there was an extending circumstance then maybe we would ask the applicant if they were okay with. For going, you know, video. That's all I was. But again, just trying to understand when to ask the applicant to, for their permission, right?

[43:12] For certain things to be noted on the record. So that was the only, but nothing other than that. And as board or city staff, what would be acceptable extenuating circumstances? I suggested one earlier that if they are able. Only to get on their phone. I think I'll just throw this out there. I think if the applicants okay with it. You know, The the important part is the applicant has a right to basically cross examine persons who provide testimony. And I think that right. Includes the right to see that person, including their attorneys to see that person asked and ask questions.

[44:00] And the visual. I'm trying to think of the words, Christiana. It's been a while since I've actually been in court cross examining someone but the ability to see their behavior can be important to the board. End of the applicant and assessing their credibility. And so that's where. You know if their testimony is going to be I don't wanna call it inconsequential, but if it's going to be something that's a fact that nobody's disputing, everyone's probably going to be okay with that person not appearing on video. My guess would be including the applicant if they're, you know, presenting, oh yeah, the code says this or whatever the issue is. But if there's, if it's anything that's in contention. My guess is the board in that. The applicant would want to see that person and see their behavior and demeanor on camera. And, you know, as attorneys we And I say we, even though again, I'm not like a litigation, but, but that's part of the attorney's job is to assess their demeanor and to demonstrate through not just what they're saying locally but through their behavior.

[45:13] You know, their lack of credibility or errors in their reasoning or things of that nature. So. Cristiano, do you have anything to add to that? Or Rewa. I don't I don't have a whole lot to add. I'll just say that, you know, part of the applicant's attorney's job is also to, you know, register objections for the record. And everything if an interested party is saying something that they don't think should be considered or something like that. It's not really their job to just prevent an interested party from. Speaking period, I would say. And so I think having you know, some guidelines as far as like what extenuating circumstances would be to let somebody appear by phone. And then trying to get everybody's, you know, okay with it hopefully beforehand before the hearing even starts, is probably the best thing that you can do.

[46:15] Okay. Okay, move on. Does any interested party have any objection to admission of document on the documents that we received into the public record? And everything that we have received would be in the public record. Okay, good. Just checking. All right, we will begin by taking public comment. Public comment is limited to 3 min per speaker and is subject to the board's rules of procedure and decorum. For each commenter, the board will have the opportunity to ask questions. Are there any members of the general public who wish to provide the comment?

[47:14] Chair Kunstmann, I'm not seeing anyone. Raising their hand for public comment. I think Kate was just about to raise her hand. No, oh well. Just to try public comment. Okay. Going on city staff testimony with no other comment. We will move on to the presentation by the licensing division. Okay. So of city staff. Board is accepted the preliminary findings and licensing staff into evidence. The licensing division or any other city staff wish to provide testimony or do the preliminary findings represent the city's position?

[48:01] Good afternoon. My name is Kristen Changeres. I'm licensing manager with City of Boulder regulatory licensing division. We have provided the preliminary findings to the board today and these represent the city's position. I'm happy to answer any questions about the application materials and the findings. That we presented to you today. Does that applicant have any questions for city staff? The applicant does not have any questions for city staff. And should I generalize that or should the texts generalize the applicant or their attorney? Or just a I don't know. Usually the attorney will, respond, but if there's something, kind of. Asked directly to the applicant or if you want to hear directly from the applicant, you know, the board member asking the question can usually specify that.

[49:16] But oftentimes the attorney will take the lead because they're That's their job to represent the applicant in the hearing. Does the interested party have any questions for Sydney. No, thank you. That's gonna make it harder. Come on. Does board have any questions or comments for city staff? Okay. Okay. Well, Tom, I do have a question for city staff just to. My question was just, is there anything not attached to this application because this is a mock hearing that would be normally attached to the documentation.

[50:07] Yeah, that's a great question. Thanks, Kate. So Yes, and no. So there were some, application materials that are considered confidential. That we that staff receives and we will not be providing in the packet. Things like security diagrams and financial documents. Okay. Things of that nature. That said there are sometimes documents that we We receive that we would include certain attachments that you're not seeing in this application because they weren't applicable so every application is going to be a little bit different. You might receive a little more information. Depending on what the applicant provides but there will always be some some confidential documents that staff will will not provide. Does that answer your question?

[51:01] Yes, I think there's some things on here like, there's like drivers license and like, and and obviously the security plan and things like that. So I was curious about those things. Yeah, those things we typically would not provide. Both because of confidentiality and also just trying to keep things. As the same as possible, not providing like a 50 page lease agreement. That's redacted out because ultimately the information that you need, which is the least term date we've provided in the preliminary findings. So that's kind of the purpose of the findings, summarize some of those more lengthy documents that might be either confidential or just really lengthy so that the board doesn't have to. Review all of those details. Wonderful. Thanks. For the board will make an assumption that city staff has reviewed those things and Check to make sure there is no.

[52:01] Unusual findings or or findings that would put the application in question. That's correct. We would flag, would flag any issues that we found. Both in the preliminary findings and in our testimony if there were any anything that stood out to us as being concerning or a potential. Barrier to issuing the license. And historically has that happened in the past with past cannabis applications and are alcohol applications. Especially the 2. Things, the 2 primary things that you mentioned. Financials and security. Yeah. So. For cannabis applications, this is our first time doing public hearings for these applications. So. Any issues we would resolve administratively with the applicant.

[53:04] And then for like her licensing, there's They don't have. For example, security diagrams for like for licensing. So those diagrams are more public information. So it's a little bit different as far as what's. Confidential for cannabis applicant and what's confidential for a liquor license applicant but So long way of answering your question that. Yes, for liquor licensing, if we had concerns about the application, we would provide that information to the liquor board. At the public hearing, but it doesn't happen. Very often at all. Typically we'll work with. Christianity, do you wanna jump in? Please feel free to finish, but I was just gonna add to what you were saying. I was just going to say typically we'll work with the applicant ahead of time if we do have any. Concern so that there's no surprises for them at the hearing as well. Yes. Just down.

[54:00] Thank you. And then just a really quick addition for the BLA, oftentimes the issues that arise, like Kristen said, they're either taken care of before the hearing or there's some sort of like show cause thing that we need to do before the BLA. So by the time the BLA gets it, we're either having to address a significant or a more significant problem or you know, the staff has flagged it, but oftentimes the biggest issues that we come. That come up during BLA hearings just for a little bit of context is, sales tax and, you know, other like city tax compliance. Sometimes those issues will come up and sometimes, you know, the applicant won't take care of that until the day of the hearing. And so, or the day before or something like that. So sometimes we're kind of, you know, getting last minute information and updating the board about whether they are actually compliant with sales tax or other city taxes or not.

[55:00] So just as an example. And when you say that, you're talking about existing or pre existing businesses. Yeah, whenever there is a, like a tax license like a sales tax license or, sales tax payments that are due in order for the license to be granted. Then, you know, those types of issues come up more frequently than others, I would say, at least in front of the BLA. Okay. There were some things reading through Number 10. That it just did not read well. Can, can we work on that? No, some of us. Later time. Yeah. Yeah, we'll take a look at that again. There's like a word missing and yeah. First time I read it out loud. And didn't catch it while reading through it. Okay, applicant testimony, number 11.

[56:02] Does the app kind of wish to present testimony or present evidence? Briefly, yes, the applicant would like to present testimony. Ms. Harkness. Hello. You've already been sworn in. And can you please restate for the for the board your name and role. Yes, my name is Rebecca Harkness and I am the owner of Lavender Hicks. Thank you. And do the preliminary findings as presented in the packet by staff. Represent the complete application that you have submitted. Yes, they do. At this point we would like to ask the board to Or, sorry. We.

[57:09] Respectfully request that the board take the application and the packet presented by the applicant as showing that the applicant has met all applicable criteria underneath the city code and state law and miss Harkness. Is there any additional testimony, for example, discussing, how you intend to be a great neighbor to your neighborhood and a good business. To your neighbors. Yeah, we, tried our best to submit a complete and robust application. So, everything that we plan to do in order to be a good neighbor and a good business in on the community is included in the application. I especially would love to point the word in the direction of the neighborhood outreach clear that has our purpose kind of outlined in there and how we've, been able to communicate with our neighbors.

[58:05] And then we also have our waste procedure plan in there as well. We really wanna make sure that we are following all. Guidelines based, look by the community and by the city border so that, there's no, you know, unnecessary waste coming from our new sensory. Thank you, Miss Harkness. At this point, we have no further testimony to give and the board should please feel free to ask Miss Hartness any questions. First Lister cities the city staff have any questions for the interested party For the, excuse me, for the applicant. Okay. No, thank you. And does the interested party have any questions for the applicant?

[59:00] What type? Yes. I do, reward. You know, what type of public outreach did you do? Our goal is to be, That's a great question. And all that is outlined in, the application packet that we submitted. And I believe it on page. Can tell you it's in the. The public packet that's available on the city's website. It looks like it's on page 43. We went on to we went by. To our neighbors and just let them know kind of what our business is about and there's a little outline of what we what we gave to them. Just letting them know kind of what our purpose was and how we intend to be respectful neighbors. You said all the businesses in the area, you do need the residents as well, correct?

[60:00] Thank you. Yes, thank you. We did when we look. I believe that we did our reach within. 2 block radius. Thank you. Okay, does the board have any questions for that? Okay. Does the interested party like wish to present testimony or present evidence? Yes, I do. I have prepared a short. Assured something to say here. It won't take much of your time, you know, and I do want to start with I'm sure the applicant is a great personist person and a wonderful business owner. But I just had to come forward. I'm a sixth grade teacher. I have 2 boys of my own and marijuana has just taken over this city so I really wanted to, to save my piece today.

[61:25] Okay, as I said, I'm a mother too. So I'm a mother of 2 boys and an educator for 14 years. I live within a short walking distance of this, proposed dispensary. And the proposed business will bring more people, more cars, more foot traffic in an inevitably more crime to my neighborhood. My children are growing up. I'm getting so emotional. My children are growing up watching people get high on the streets of Boulder. You may say, but it is illegal to smoke in public. Marijuana use is so normalized now that it's acceptable.

[62:00] The legalization of recreational marijuana use has theoretical, still unproven. Beneficial social effects regarding issues such as domestic criminal justice policy, but these effects to the justice system do not come without substantial public health and social costs. Our children are paying for those costs. Boulder has a approximately 29 recreational marijuana dispensaries. Medical marijuana dispensaries are not included in that number. Why is there a need for another one? What purpose will it fulfill? You may respond fair business practice or increase tax dollars. Recreational marijuana businesses in Boulder are export businesses. It is not limited to the Boulder residents alone. Due to polders, Boulders high number of recreational marijuana dispensaries tourists, young people and neighboring community members come to Boulder on a regular basis to buy marijuana and what follows.

[63:05] Crime Fathers in all forms, including driving while acutely intoxicated with marijuana. The more recreational marijuana businesses you have the availability of marijuana increases and you may think that an individual can only buy so much marijuana day a day but if there are 30 establishment Establishments. That is a lot of marijuana that could be reached that could reach our youth and that is reaching our youth. Boulder does not have a shared system that notifies each and every establishment that a particular individual has purchased their allotted amount per day. One more dispensary means one more rounds that can be bought legally and sold on the streets illegally. Who pays the price for all of this? I'll tell you, our children do and our children's future. Well, our future. Today's cannabis is not yesterday's marijuana. We have kids getting a large amount of PHC on a regular basis.

[64:03] Contrary to Barbary of the belief, the drug is addictive. With mounting evidence for the existence of withdraw syndrome. Data clearly shows that about 10% of those that use cannabis become addicted. This number is higher among adolescents and I'm around adolescents every day day in and day out at work and at home. A withdrawal syndrome has been described consisting of anxiety, restlessness, insomnia, depression, and changes in appetite that affect as many as 44% of users. Contributing to the addictive potential of the drug. Furthermore, it has been shown to have an adverse effect on mental health. Which is a national crisis. Has effect on intelligence, including irreversible B kinds in cognition and respiratory system.

[65:01] Reports of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia found on students at Boulder schools substances and drug paraphernalia found on students at Boulder schools were up 8 peripheralia found on students at Boulder Schools were up 8% compared to the same period in 2,021 even though the K 9 student population has fallen by 11%. Do the map. As an advisory board for the city of Boulder, you have the power to say no. Or at least we like to think you do. If the case is that you do have the power to say no, say no to this application. Put the needs of this community, your community. First, put the future of our children. First. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Warren. Does the city have any questions? Interested party. We do not. Thank you.

[66:03] Does the applicant have any questions for the interested party? The applicant does not have any questions for the interested party, but we would like to provide some. Will be providing that. Time in just a moment. Thank you. Does the board have any questions for the interested party? Robin? Is all that written down and could I have it? No, I'm kidding. Yeah. Okay, you didn't write it? Just. Okay. Yeah. Is this an appropriate time for a board member to thank somebody for coming forward with that or is there something at the end or how would you reflect on that or if you would you have to have some sort of question is a question the only thing that's appropriate at this particular. Juncture.

[67:01] I think there's nothing wrong with. You know, ensuring people have felt heard and that they know that they've been heard. So I guess to the extent your statements are Just an appreciation for appearing here. Great. But that's, this is the time for questions and. Rewa, which she presented. Was interesting because it It was basically advocacy in terms of changing the law. You know, and this is probably what Christiana is gonna get out with the, but it's essentially The law is set by the time these applicants. Get here. And so whatever law was in effect at the time of their application is what the board is charged with the. To the best of its ability. And so. That the only thing I'll note is that With that testimony, I mean, It sounded really good. It was a great presentation by Rewa. You know, I don't know if she's gonna be getting an Oscar for it at any time soon, but it was really well done.

[68:09] But I would steer it back to. What's the task at hand and that's determining whether the elements for a license have been that? And so while you have this person providing testimony in front of you, I think you should get at the heart of that and maybe drill down into, okay, so what is it exactly that? You know what's what is the basis for denial we have the law that's that we have the boulder revised code you know, and as a sidebar, obviously, Cloud has a role in making recommendations to change the law and evaluating the law. But that role isn't within this hearing. This hearing purpose isn't to evaluate the law or excuse me to change the law or consider whether the laws just or whether it's right for Boulder. The proceeding is to apply the law as it's written the best of your ability to this application. And so I just would encourage you to try to keep that scope.

[69:06] As narrow as possible and with everybody that comes up before you to try to really drill down to question, okay, what is it exactly that? You're asserting, you know, which elements aren't. Why aren't they Matt? Tell us in plain language why you think this element is not mad. Because otherwise you get you run into the risk of just having all these different issues arise that really aren't material to the task at hand. So that's. That's just one over our 2 thought when this comes your way, which eventually I think it will. So. It looks like Rewa has. Thoughts. Well, this is the city of Boulder, employee speaking, not Rewa. Emotional mom and educator. And you know People will play to your emotions. And that's what I tried to do. So don't, you know, so pay attention to that. I didn't really tell you much of anything other than marijuana is just absolutely terrible. And it's a affecting our kids.

[70:07] Well. We all know that, but you know, did the applicant follow? You know, you know, the law. Did they check every box in their application? And I was just wanting to throw in a emotional something at many of you. Many of you are mothers, right? And so, Just pay attention to that with the interested parties, you know. I guess, you know, my question would be, first of all, you had a lot of information in there that other people might be feeling as well. You brought forward an argument and this particular forum gave you an opportunity to come forward and say that in a public way. My question is if it's not material relevant or anything that the board could consider. Why have it?

[71:04] It just feels like that sort of feels like a farce. You know, I just, I don't really understand why you would have that as being part of this particular hearing. Okay. Okay. If nobody's able to consider it or take it into consideration take the public's opinions or experiences or lived experiences, concerns about expanding and adding a new commercial license if none of that matters. Why show up? Thank you, step back. There is a place later on in our deliberation. Where it could be discussed. The Essence of where the, you know, the Yeah, but what I'm hearing Tom from Brio and from Andy is it doesn't matter. Were the you know, were the different things that the applicant has to meet met. And if those things were met, this board, it doesn't, it doesn't matter.

[72:07] Then, then your problem is just an emotional problem. Too bad. So, so I think that's where the distinction between what we're doing in this hearing versus regular policy making comes into play. And I think for that. Person for rewiss character would be prudent for the board to recommend that they present you know, in a regular board meeting to discuss their views, you know, potentially during public comment. Because what Rewa was essentially pushing for is a policy making. Decision and that's not the purpose of these hearings. These hearings are a fact finding inquiry. You know, discerning the laws that's currently written and applying it to this particular application. That's the job. So I think, I think yes, you're, Robin, I think you're right that it doesn't. Really matter in the sense of what the boards immediate objective is. But I think, you know, a part of the boards purpose and a part of why And I'm speculating here, but why council wanted these applications to go through the board in the first place is to have some sort of a public venue that would be, you know, applicable to each application.

[73:23] That doesn't mean it, you know, that the board can make policy decisions on this. But it does mean that if there's anybody who has concerns about their ability And the whether all the all the elements are met for a license that if they have that concern that they can appear and speak that concern, right? And that That's part of the process for ensuring that the board has all the information it needs at its disposal. For purposes of making a good informed decision. So That's kind of the balance. I think that You all are tasked with is.

[74:01] You know, we can't and this gets out with your point earlier, Robin too, we can't control who. Says what in front of us? I mean people can come in and say all kinds of crazy things potentially I doubt I don't know how often that'll happen but I've certainly been in hearings where a witness has said something that was just, you know, like so off the wall. You know, but that's, I mean, that's. Part of it, we're not going to prevent them from speaking, but it does. Beg the question of what are we here for and What are the elements that they're trying that they applicant has to address? Have they met those elements? And if not, why haven't they met those? So. I mean, I don't I wouldn't characterize what Ri was you know pretend thing there is crazy. Yeah, I don't think. That's, yeah. Right. Or should be off the wall or I mean She had things to say that I thought were. Relevant. So I think partly you don't want to create an expectation for the public that this is a form to come and protest.

[75:05] An application based on something that's happening outside the regulations. Because what that does, I think, is it creates this illusion of a process where people have something to say. People need to be educated. This isn't the place to come and speak to anything other than XY, or z. On the application. These people have met this particular application and here's where you go to advocate for changes to the statute. So I think that would be really important in a hearing like this and I think it would be important for staff. To vet some of this stuff ahead of time if that's possible it may not be this is public comment but You're You're muted.

[76:00] Thank you. I just wanted to add. Part of the application process in the public hearing process is for the applicant to show how they will comply. With our voter revised code. And so some of the issues that real weight, for example, concerns about public consumption or underage sales. Those can sometimes prompt questions from the board. To the applicant and you can ask you know how are you planning to prevent underage sales, how are you planning to prevent? Public consumption, like some of the concerns that are raised. So sometimes those are. Even though, was getting more towards like wanting policy changes and law changes. Yeah. She did raise some some issues that could prop questions from the board that you could ask the applicant to explain and more detail so that the applicant is showing that they, have a plan to comply.

[77:00] With the requirements in the border rise code. So I don't know if that's helpful, but I just wanted to mention that as well. Well, another opportunity would be If we were to dissect. We was passionate plea. At least part of her plea. Was suggesting that 29 is plenty. Why do we need more? That was something that she said. And if. And if she felt if not reworked, but if a person got on. In their testimony. And, made that plea. We could turn that around and say, are you suggesting that, you know, The number is too much or they know that the distribution, the number, whatever. If you feel that way, then. You know, perhaps you should come back next week or next month for public comment or.

[78:03] Put in a request along that line to re-examine. Number, because I was thinking as a double, I was thinking. You know, the reality is we're gonna do one of these maybe. 5 to 10 times a year at most. Is that correct? Anybody want to agree with me there? That's correct, Tom, based on our current volume of applications. Yeah, but if, but if take an extreme. Let's say we had to do 30 applications next month. Which isn't gonna happen but we might take pause and think huh 30. That's interesting. I think we need to take a look at this. And No, go back to Rio's. Passionate plea. Just think, think that through, think through the numbers.

[79:03] So maybe a response to somebody like, is simply, you know, I really appreciate you as a board member. I have a deep appreciation for what you're expressing. I happen to agree with you. I What the board is looking at today is if this applicant has met the requirements of their application and this board will consider that with care and we appreciate your comments. And if you want to bring policy changes. We can, you know, contact me, I'd love to tell you about our board or something along those lines is that an appropriate response to somebody like that? Or having them even apply for the board. Yeah. Christiana. I was just gonna say that's a that's a great response. And just you know. I think as Andy said before, making sure that the interested party or member of the public who might be providing comment.

[80:05] Feels like they are heard and then reorienting, back to what the point of the hearing is. And, just to add to what Andy and Kristen said, the script can even be a chance to orient the purpose of the hearing. Like as an, just as a suggestion for you guys to think about, but at the beginning of your script, you can even say, you know, what we're doing today is, you know, we are examining or evaluating the application, determining whether it meets the criteria set forth in the Boulder revised code and any relevant testimony testimony or you know evidence submitted that's outside of that context. You know, your, interested parties and members of the public aren't necessarily gonna know what's in the relevant box, right? So as has been said before. You'll hear all kinds of things sometimes. But then just going back to that, you know, having that as an introduction in your script and having that to point back to in times like this could be really helpful as just a management tool.

[81:19] Andy? Yeah, and I was just going to reiterate that. We and we discuss this maybe a couple of months ago but Ambiguity is really the enemy of this. Board. I mean, you're job is to get at the heart of the issue and understand exactly what everybody's position is. Ask you can and so If people come in with sort of broad arguments and like platitudes like that. That's a little dangerous for the board in terms of appeals. Because they can then Use any number of issues that they've raised within that argument on appeal if they wanted to sue the city.

[82:02] So Yeah, I would really appreciate this as your council to not let that sort of broad testimony float out there and to really ask that interested party, okay, what is it exactly that you're saying? Why are you saying it? Which elements are we talking about? And I think if you If you go down sort of that inquisitive path. You'll find that people's arguments are really much more narrow than what they maybe are initially arguing. And that's good because if they narrow what their position is and what their arguments are, and that's good because if they narrow what their position is and what their arguments are, that limits our exposure on appeal. So they can't go back and raise stuff that they didn't raise before the board in this proceeding, they can't go back and sue us about it. So if we was contention is really, well, they don't have a proper plan in place to avoid, you know, distribution to minors. Great, why not? Why don't, why do you feel that way? You know, what exactly is it that you've seen That leads you to believe that and really hone in on that both so that you get Rewis perspective.

[83:05] You know, her actual perspective, but also so that you're making sure you understand that perspective and that it's a narrow enough perspective that you know what you need to consider when it comes time to know what you need to consider when it comes time to deliberation. So that's kind of a broader, I guess, goal for the board is if you hear that those broad. Proclamations or arguments and maybe, you know, even if it's persuasive, if you're not really understanding how that fits into You know, Boulder revised code elements you're trying to assess and how they're Ask them and get them to narrow it down and if they can't narrow it down and they can't focus That's on them, but that's gonna hurt them if they decide to sue the city on appeal. So, The more specific the better, the more you can hone in on what they're arguing, the better. And it's gonna lead to better decision-making.

[84:03] Okay. Okay. I just had a question about an interested party versus the public comment period of the of this hearing and why and where you would see the difference, right? Like that sounded to me more like a public comment than an interested party. Right in an application. And so whether or not, you know, that is more, you know, like we would. Expect to see that more in the public comment period, but we may see it in the interested party and so being able to navigate like how to. Field that and then redirect and then question kind of about like how does that apply to the BRC and how can we you know like look at this application more directly but I just kinda wanna look at this application more directly but I just kinda want to understand if that Like, is there any, yeah, I think that I just wanted to understand like why in interested party as opposed to the public comment section.

[85:01] And how does the person decide? Yeah. Yeah, so interested party is defined in the Boulder revised code and it basically One, the steps that you have to take to become an interested party are prescribed by the code. So they have to take those steps. You know, which include filing the written entry of appearance. 2, you have to be interested. You have to be harmed by Essentially, if you're not the applicant, you have to be harmed by the granting of the application. So I could see applicants subjecting at some point to somebody wanting to become an interested party. And if we get to that point. Well, we'll address it. But. I think in Kristen Chengeres and Crest and Tee, I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but I think most of the comments that are just going to be coming from the general public are going to be people who aren't interested. And becoming an interested party. They wanna express themselves and they wanna provide that public comment. So that's the purpose of that, that public comment.

[86:04] It doesn't, you know, it's just a public comment. It doesn't come with your right to cross-examine witnesses and provide reversal testimony or the 2 big pieces that it doesn't include. And so that's our avenue for still letting people in the public come and express themselves and provide that comment. While potentially cutting off our liability to be sued because In essence, You know, I don't want to go into details on this, but you need to be an interested party. Barring extraordinary circumstances, you need to be an interested party. To sue on the merits of the decision of the board. And so we need to understand as the board Are you considering yourself an interested party with all these rights? Because we're gonna give you those rights, but we need to know. Are you an interested party? That's going to. Try to fully exercise those rights. You know, because we, wanna make sure we're providing you with all the same process, any other interest party who could potentially sue us, sues us, you know.

[87:07] Is provided. So I. I think that's kind of a jumbled way of maybe presenting that distinction and I'll, I don't know if Rewa or Christiana have additional thoughts or clarification or Andy, you're an idiot statements that you want to throw in there. No, the jumble is great. Yeah, did that help, Kate? Yeah, absolutely. I think, I guess I'm wondering, is there anything that they need to present outside of just saying that they want to be an interested party in writing that they need to submit saying why or what their because I know that obviously the city, the applicant, you know, the other, have like something that they presented to the to the hearing. And so is there anything required of the interested party to provide beforehand to better understand maybe where that is coming from that the applicant could that say we don't want we do object to this interested party and then therefore we could say well could we hear this person in public comment section so that they still have a voice of you know some kind.

[88:15] Right. And that's maybe the direction it would go in in live if the applicant was really going to object to somebody. But the part of the quasi judicial code that requires that people file an entry of appearance they have to provide their name. They have to provide they have to identify their basis of being an interested party. And interested parties to find in that and then will require them to state briefly what their position is so that I know we don't I don't think we have that in the packet right now, but I think If they've in there to written appearance, you would have that available to you so you could at least see. See what you know what their concerns are and contentions are and I'll add 2 points to this.

[89:00] One is that. I think Kristen Teaking, Chris, even though this is all a mock hearing. There's a lot that goes into this beforehand, both with the applicant to understand their compliance with the law, like chances are. They're not even gonna get this far if they know staff are gonna push back because it's gonna be their word against staff. And they may think they have a good position, but I just, I think a lot of applicants would be reluctant to even test that water. So that's point number 1. Point number 2. Is I think when there are issues that arise with an application they're gonna they're gonna slap. The board in the face like they're gonna be the point. Of contention and they're gonna be it's gonna be staff you know making a Recommendation that some issue isn't that and they're challenging staff. Or it's gonna be an interest party coming in with something they think is not bad. And if If staff in the applicant, the applicant has presented enough evidence to you and the staff's an agreement. With that, you're gonna have to decide whether, right, whether that's met based upon the interested parties.

[90:02] Testimony and So this is all been kind of smooth in terms of everything getting approved but Chances are if there is an issue in dispute, it's gonna be. It's gonna be this big red. Flag sitting out there that everybody's gonna know of like Christiana said with not paying their taxes. Or some. Some fundamental issue that you know you're gonna have to resolve that most of the hearing is gonna focus on. Okay. When the when the interested party was sworn in earlier had to do that sort of entry thing where they said who they were. We would, I might not have, I might have missed this, but how did you, how did you introduce yourself? I don't remember hearing you say what your interest was in the hearing as an interested party. I just remember your name, your address. And then you were sworn in, is that, am I remembering that right or was there? More and Yeah, I don't think I gave a purpose when I was sworn in. I gave a purpose.

[91:01] Okay. You know i was just you know at the beginning of my little spiel you know you. And have it defined. Okay, but to Kate's point. Okay, but to Kate's point you would have to have some sort of defined interest So that was I think that no I'm not criticizing I just think that was confusing. Sorry, are you suggesting that much? So interested party should be asked. What their interest is or what. How to clarify their interest? That's what I thought. That's what I thought Andy and Kate's conversation just was, is there would have to be some. Clarification of what the interest was at the outset of their Being sworn in did I? Get that. I think that it would have been on the written part of when they, submitted this to be an interested party. My And I think the question becomes, do we do we as the board see that somewhere? I assume that we do. I wasn't looking for it in the in the set of information we got here. So, is that a part of the application?

[92:08] Would it be there? Where would it be? Cause obviously the assumption is that the applicant would know that there's an interested party. So how does the board know that there is sort of the city? In the city of course could ever see that but yeah the board. Yeah, so there's without getting too much in the weeds of the quasi judicial hearings. I mean, People can present a written entry of appearance. Any time before the hearing so it could be the day of so you may not have a ton of notice and they might still. Qualify. I have, well, I'll say this. So the definition of interested person. And I'll just read this just so you Kind of understand how broad we're talking and how hard it is.

[93:02] I guess for us to. I think we'll have to think about it carefully to the extent somebody does want to become an interested person rather than just. Doing public comment and I think some of that may turn upon the extent to which the applicant objects, and what their objection is. But interested person means quote, any person described as interested by city charter, ordinance or code or state or federal constitution or law. Or any person having a legally protected interest under the city charter or denser code or state or federal constitutional law that is subject to potential injury in fact due to proposed final agency action. Or any person having a right to appeal from a proposed final agency action by virtue of a specific provision and all of those. So the I think the point being I I think we should press people on whether they're interested, truly.

[94:04] But. You know, I'd want to see their arguments and perspective to see. Before we make that sort of determination as to whether they're an interested party. You know, and unless there's an objection when in doubt. Again, this is unless there's an objection you should really let people participate and not try to exclude them on this basis so that's kind of That's kind of my. Okay. Again, jumbled way of thinking through this without having an actual. Real case in point and Yeah, Christiana or anybody else. Yeah, I was just gonna add that, it sounds like what I'm hearing from the board members is that it helps them for context to understand like how this person is an interested party. And so it could be that this is another like. Where a script would help, right? Even if it's the day of, you know, having interested parties and then part of introducing the interested parties.

[95:10] Or naming them or listing them or something like that. Would just be having a little blurb about. How or why they are an interested party as part of the script. So that's just. Again, something to consider and think about. That I just thought of. Yeah, I mean, I like that, right? You could just read whatever the written, you know, what it was, you know, or a concise way of whatever was written. Yeah. That would be helpful, I think. Yeah, we can add that. I'm sorry, Chair. And we Oh, that's okay. And I was just gonna say we could have more than one interested party. Big a whole bunch of neighbors could show up. That felt like they were not included in the. In the plan.

[96:00] I can see that happening. Yeah. Good morning. Okay, I think we're ready to go on. We were, or do you wanna take a break? Like, I would love to get some water. We were on 12 3. Does the board have questions? 6 min break. Would you like me to continue with the recording and proceed from this point? Check consman. I think so. Actually, one last thing. Okay, so if we were on interested party testimony and does the board have any questions for the interested party? Which prompted. Problems question, which. Okay, I'll say that again.

[97:00] The question prompted Robin's question, which and the discussion ensued. So back to does the board have any questions for the interested party? Okay. I was hoping to ask interested party, if there are any things on the application that they felt that the applicant did not meet. In reference to any of the things that they spoke about. But that did not meet the This is why we need her on camera because we need to know she's actually there. Note to Andy. Okay. Are you talking to me? Yeah, I'm talking to you. What was the question?

[98:02] Okay, go ahead. Go again. Oh, okay, sorry. Yes. We wanted to ask the interested party, if there were. Yes. Yes, if there were specific. Items that you saw, that you thought were missing from the application or if the applicant did not meet anything in the Boulder revised code specifically. That you wanted us to address. No, not necessarily, but I didn't feel that the dissemination of their of their neighborhood plan was very good. I didn't see proof. I mean, I'm in the neighborhood. I didn't even know what was happening. You know, I so, you know, I'm not saying that they didn't do it. I'm just telling you of my experience and I didn't see any proof of it in, you know, in and around my neighborhood. Okay, thank you. That was my question. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? For the applicant, from, for the interested party.

[99:04] Okay. And I think we're ready to go on to. Is the city wish to present any dismissal evidence or testimony No, thank you. Any final questions from the board for city staff? Okay, do you wanna ask the same question? Thank you. Or make the assumption. The applicant met all the requirements as set forth by City licensing. Oh. I'm sorry. I'm not sure what the question was. Are you asking if I had a question for the city about the application? Well, if you were gonna ask the applicant, I wonder if it would be applicable to ask the city the same.

[100:02] Question. Or should, should we make the assumption that? And this is off off the record. Thank you, something that CITY has already revered. And Okay. Alright, I don't have any questions based on the findings that were submitted by the city. For the city. Hmm. Just because you're a chair and you're running the proceeding, you can always ask that question to directly to. I would prefer that the record be you know, clarified that, you know, you can say, is, there anything you heard from the interested party, Miss Jing, that changes the city's position? You know, why is it that you think that there was adequate Public involvement can you describe that a little bit and maybe just I don't wanna put Kristen too much on the spot, but anything we can do to. Clarify the record and bolster the record where if you as a board, if nobody heard anything from the interested party that gives you doubt.

[101:07] To go ahead and beef up that record a little bit with what your decision will ultimately be. Would, would be helpful. So and I think that's maybe what. Chair Coonsman was was getting out with that question to UK, but, just, as an FYI for when we're. Doing the real deal. We've got to be a better question for the applicant. Yeah, however it gets under the record, whether it's through the city in the city's position or through the applicant. You know, whatever you do, I just keeping that record bolstered. To the extent, you know, it sounds like nobody has any concerns based upon what the interest of party said. So. At least is with respect to the elements being applied. So if that's the case. Making sure the record reflects that yes, there was plenty of public outreach and participation and you know, let's go over what that entailed exactly just so it's in the record.

[102:08] So when Kate asked her question of the interested party just now and the interested party said, well, the problem I see is there wasn't a neighborhood, you know, survey that was adequate in my opinion. And is it is that the moment when Kate should say, do these people have a response or are we waiting for this dismissal thing or what's procedural, what's the right way to go about that? Yeah, you're You're right, Robin. So we're waiting for the, because we know the applicant's gonna have the last. Chance to speak and to make their plug in response to the interest of parties. So that's probably gonna clear some of that up. So. Yeah. It could be a better segue than me just saying. Okay, thanks.

[103:00] But is there a little bit of an open dialogue that's available or are we trying to just hit this hearing on this very careful basis of hitting each section. I think there's an open dialogue when it's that. Party's time to present. So when they you know, give them their chance to speak and then ask them the questions and and you as the board know, okay, you've heard. Their original evidence, now you know each of them is going to have an opportunity for a bottle. And use that opportunity as you all need to ask Kristen questions for when the city is up or to ask. You know, the applicant question. So yeah, I think. You want them to be able to present their case including their removal, but I also think you want to ask questions to narrow the issues and try to like I. Kind of been saying get at the heart of whatever the issues are. So.

[104:00] Okay, okay, thanks. And I'm just, I'm thinking of, you know, some of the legislative hearings that I've been to before where people move through the chair. Is that something that we do or, you know, can we kind of just open it up? A little bit. If Chair Kunzmann and I think he is okay with asking questions directly, I mean, I think that's what he's teeing up is, you know, are there any board members? Questions that for this. I think that's been a pretty good cadence. With Chair Cootsman just kind of cycling through giving them their opportunity to speak and then asking the board for questions. So. I think as long as you know each of you members know your chance for questions is coming up. You can kind of anticipate that and be ready. To jump in. So. Okay, thank you. Off the record I can see. That we are on occasion we could have situations where the applicant feels they've done quite well at getting neighborhood input or neighborhood comments and and yet the neighborhood.

[105:11] Some of them in the neighborhood will not have any idea. Somehow might have found out about this before the hearing. And, show up. They're not going to feel like they got enough neighborhood coming. I can see that happening. So this could happen again. Right, anyways, on we go. Where was I? Does the interest interesting party have wish to present any incor evidence our testimony? That's you where you are. No, thank you. I couldn't find my mute button. No, thank you. Okay. Any final questions from the board for the applicant? Oh, this is why are these in this order?

[106:04] So it should be for the interested party first and then the applicant. Alright. Yeah, right. That should be, so that needs to be changed. Does the applicant wish to present any rehabil evidence or testimony? Yes, we would like to present, briefly present some, dismissal testimony, please. Go ahead, would you like to do that or? What's that? Yes. I'll call Miss Harkness to answer some more questions. Hi, Miss Harkness. We heard from Ms. Ward about her concerns, on your business opening and I wanted to talk to you about that and bring up some points for the board. If the board and you can take a look at page 43 in the packet looking at the flyer that you intend to hand out.

[107:00] Can you tell me first, In regards to Miss Ward's questions about minors and kids having access to drugs that they shouldn't have access to. Can you tell me about your policies and procedures regarding making sure that you're selling only 2 people age 21 and over. Absolutely. So in our application. We have that we will be using and Telecheck as the ID scanner. So every single person who comes into the dispensary wanting to purchase product will need to use and will their ID will be scanned their intelligent. And then I of our, employees will be selling or checking IDs will be tips trained. And then they will have responsible vendor training as well so that will be in accordance with the state and city retail marijuana will be sold on the retailer only and willing to those who are 21 and then everything that will be sold will be in child safe containers.

[108:05] And then we will sell products, in accordance with state and city regulation. Thank you. And can you tell me more about, other deterrence that your business has to make sure that. You know, underage and underage kids and minors, do not consume or aren't able to purchase marijuana from your premises. For example, do you have any, interior seating or any way for people to just congregate and stay for a long time in your business. We do not. We don't encourage any congregation inside of our business. We don't want it to be a place where you hang out. You want it to be a place where you come in. Your idea is checked. You, get great service. You purchase what you want and then you leave. We have our own parking lot so there's not going to be increased traffic like on the street parking or anything like that.

[109:00] And then we also don't have any mention of dispensary in any of our signage. So our sign was a lavender, and there's not a way for There won't be any way for anyone to see inside of the dessert or any product inside. So all in the windows, if you can see inside of a window, which you probably won't be able to, but if you could, and you wouldn't be able to see any product or anything like that. So we do want to maintain discretion, in accordance with city policy and, just make sure that We are again being a good neighbor. And. You know, making sure that there's not people hanging out or congregating that we're just losing our waste appropriately, all those types of things. Thank you. And Could you also speak a little bit to the outreach and notice about this hearing and, your business opening that you have previously done. Yeah, so as you can see there's the on page. 40. Yeah, there's the fire that we Just, within a 2 block radius of our business and this again just explains kind of how we intend to do business.

[110:09] And then public posting was required for this hearing. So we also posted publicly at our business address. Okay. Thank you. No further questions. Questions? I lost my place in the line up but just a How, where do they need to post? This is just, this is not related to the, this hearing. Where would they be posting? They're notices upon like. Or just on the business itself it's gonna open or Go ahead, Kristen. And I apologize in the normal course of swearing in. We would also. Request confirmation that the applicant did post the public poster.

[111:02] With the, I believe we stuck with the 10 day posting requirements. Is that correct? Andy? I'm not sure about the answer to that. I don't know, Kristen, do you know? Are we? We would follow the same rules as BLA, so it would be 10 days. Yes. Okay. And so when that happens, the city prepares the poster for the applicant to come and pick up. They have to post it in a publicly visible. Street facing Okay, location on their premises, no less than 10 days prior and it has to stay up the entire time prior to the hearing. That's the public posting. So we can make and I can make an adjustment to that. Hmm. Okay, so just in a public place for 10 days. Close close to where the business is going to. No, it needs to be on the business premises.

[112:04] Let's see. I'm just trying to draw analogy. What's the rule? I'm renovating a business. For people to give input on the building. I know you are. A land use. You see those big posters. You'll also see them around town occasionally when there's a new liquor license or a permanent modification of a liquor or a special event liquor permit going in. Those are posted in the window. Of the actual premises, proposed premises location. Is that a 10 day thing awesome? I don't know about land use, but I know that for alcohol, whether that be a new a. Modification of premises. Or a special event liquor permit those are it's a minimum 10 days if the poster does not get posted within the 10 day requirement we do have to sometimes push it back like if the applicant fails to pick up their poster and post it in a timely manner.

[113:11] Who were following the out pretty much for following the alcohol Right. Okay. 10 days seems like a small window, especially in the winter. Or people might not be out walking around. Seeing stuff. That's probably nothing I can, we can change, right? It's a pretty typical hearing requirement. 10 days before. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I mean, and analogous situations I go and I review clinics for quality around the country and we require 30 days. That they have to be have posted up in the clinic for 30 days. So if anybody wants to come speak to us when we arrive.

[114:04] Yeah, so I just confirmed I mean it's 10 days as part of the BRC Yeah. Okay. A lot of our notices or requirements revolve around the 10 days. And then, so this. Mock. The flyer hand updates. I'd start on page 48. Those are almost all pretty much businesses. Would that ordinarily be what people would do? Or would they knock on doors and go to residences?

[115:07] Alright, Kristen. It depends on where the businesses located. If it's in a more commercial or industrial area. Their neighbors may be more businesses. If it's located closer to a residential area, they might actually have more residential neighbors, but it just kind of depends on. The location of the business. Especially for cultivation facilities and manufacturing. Those are going to be primarily in industrial areas where their neighbors will likely not be residences, they'll be. More businesses. And does the city have any guidance on what they expect for this survey? There are no. Exact requirements on the perimeter or the distance that they need to cover. We We run into this with the liquor board as well and it's up to the board to kind of set.

[116:08] What they believe to be. The neighborhood. Per purposes of petitioning that's required really for licensing. So, Andy, if you want to jump in, it seems like that would be at the discretion. Of the board to decide whether. There was sufficient outreach to the neighborhood. Yeah. Looking at the BRC, a neighborhood responsibility plan that demonstrates how the business will fulfill its responsibilities the neighborhood. For effective mitigation of community impacts including neighborhood outreach, methods for future communication and dispute resolution. So there's not much. There in terms of prescribing what that community outreach has to be they just it's gotta be a neighborhood responsibility plan.

[117:09] About how they'll fulfill their obligations, including community outreach methods for future communication. And dispute resolution. So it's It's not very descriptive. From the BRC. I think the neighborhood, as far as liquor applications go is far more an integral part of the application and petitioning process and so on and so forth. For alcohol, then, especially for recreational marijuana. Here that follows the BRC. You know, more so than state law. So they're expectations that the businesses might have understanding of before they. Come with their application. For the alcohol. For alcohol, yeah, there's a neighborhood setting. Before, let's see, gosh, and Caitlin and.

[118:05] Kristen T can help me out with. Describing the neighborhood setting. Yeah, no problem. So in the beverage licensing authority the month before the applicant is scheduled to appear at their application hearing. They, are required to be scheduled for a boundary setting hearing and at that point the beverage licensing authority looks at where the application is located. And then sets boundaries within like that. They don't have distance requirement necessarily from the location of the boundaries they like to get. They like to look at like a map and then get in, you know, a fair amount of businesses and residences depending on where the application is located. So if someone is located like in a more rural area, then they might expand the battery bigger so that they can get more. Residences or businesses.

[119:02] And that's just for, liquor license applications, right? There's not a similar requirement here here. It the requirement is the neighborhood plan that Andy just read from the BRC about. And so it's a lot more strict, I would say, or, formalized. As part of the process for liquor applications and it is here. Robin? 2 things. I wondered, Andy, if you could, and Kristen can send us. You know, super specifically what applicants for a recreational license are. Told to do in terms of a neighborhood responsibility plan. The example in the packet of businesses that they went by and what did people say and that sort of thing. It's just very nebulous and I guess I would just like to know specifically what that standard is and I guess I would just like to know specifically what that standard is and I think it was a really good example what that standard is.

[120:02] And I think it was a really good example that RIWA as the standard is. And I think it was a really good example that RIWA as the interested party brought up that she felt not included in that. And then the second thing would be Tom and Kristen Teake if you could maybe make a note that this might be something worthwhile for the clap to look at. Just as a. Something that maybe needs to get firmed up and maybe that's a recommendation we could make to to council. Which of what we're doing right now is borrowed from Be alright. Right. So could we not just include. Is it Christiana you made it sound like there's more concrete expectations.

[121:01] Yeah, yeah, there are more concrete expectations, for the neighborhood setting for liquor licenses. It's one of the things that has to have in either a neighborhood has to be set in order for the applicant for a liquor license to do their petitioning that's required under law and so they have to petition within the neighborhood or the boundaries that are set, by the beverage licensing authority. And so that's, that's part of their requirements. Yeah, Kristen, please go ahead. Yeah, thanks, Christiana. And in addition to what Christiana said. There are some differences in the requirements for a liquor license application versus the cannabis license application. So liquor licensing is Chris you haven't mentioned. They're required to do petitioning and the purpose of that petitioning is to show that they meet another requirement, which is that there is the need and desire.

[122:01] From the neighborhood for a liquor license in that neighborhood. So they have to applicants have to meet this. Standard of a need and desire for an additional license in the neighborhood and show support for that. That requirement does not exist. For marijuana licensing. Applicants don't need to show. I need and desire for the license from the neighborhood in the same way that a liquor license does. So that's just a. Kind of a big difference in. So like the licensing requirements versus. Please, marijuana licensing requirements when it comes to showing neighborhood support. Oh, Andy? I, I can share this section on the BRC so you can see just how succinct it is and I will share it with the caveat that one of the interesting things that I think it's going to come out of this board handling licensing applications so you can see the section.

[123:12] Right here that relates to that neighborhood responsibility plan and what it must include. It's pretty brief. And. One of the interesting things that the board will see is what the city currently does for its application approvals. And whether that is good, I guess, whether the BRC has what it should have in it in terms of Evaluating licenses and you know, making sure the cities being a responsible steward of its licensing authority and I think that's gonna be one of the interesting things that, will see is it's through this application process, you all will be getting.

[124:01] As well as the public a pretty, you know, a firsthand look at what this application, what's required, you know, and I think you'll be able to start thinking about whether you want additional requirements that you want to recommend to council. Or changes or things of that nature. So. Because as you can see here, I mean that's Yeah, all that says neighborhood responsibility plan that demonstrates how the business will fulfill its responsibilities. To the neighborhood for effective mitigation and community impacts including neighborhood outreach methods for future communication and dispute resolution. So The board ultimately will be tasked with assessing and light every with comments. Is this requirement, Matt, and you're probably gonna have to look at their neighborhood responsibility plan to. Determine whether all these elements are there. And if they're there, I would think you would. You would, approve the application. So. You know, right or wrong, that's, what's required is right there.

[125:06] So, just for a moment speaking as. The interested party. Do you feel the neighborhood? I wish I was still on the screen. Andy. The neighborhood responsibility plan was adequate. I can't get my camera to work. I'm speaking as the as the interested party, right? Right now you're speaking as the interested party only. Yes, yes, you know, I guess it could be called sufficient. But even in your testimony, you suggested that there. Well, if that's what they actually did. Like I said, I didn't see anything. So in my, you know, in my experience, I feel like it could have been better, but if they met the requirements, then they met the requirements.

[126:07] I'm assuming the reasons why the alcohol rules are a little more stringent. Coverage your product, Christiana, that they. That's correct. It's not just an acceptance. It's Welcome. What's the terminology? The, an alcohol license application has to do a petition for a needs and desires petition. That's one of the requirements for their application. Yeah. So. Robin, go ahead. Thanks, Tom. I just, you know, would remind everybody that we talked about that needs and desires. Requirement with BLA when we were debating social consumption and we made that part of our recommendations to the city council that if we opt into social consumption that a needs and desire survey, similar to the Bela's requirement is made applicable to anybody who's asking for social consumption.

[127:03] But I just think it's it's worthwhile thing for us to discuss more in depth in another clab meeting. And I understand the distinction I would love to see Andy or Kristen Chankars if it's possible. Maybe a couple examples of some of these neighborhood responsibility plans that have been submitted just so that we understand this one came in, it was in good shape, it was something that the city felt comfortable with and approved so that we can understand that in the context of things we might be making decisions on. On this part of the statute. That would be really helpful. Thank you. Absolutely, Robyn. And I just wanted to add that this We took this mock application. We took pieces from actual applications that we received. So what you're seeing as far as this neighborhood responsibility plan is a real plan that we received and this license was approved.

[128:08] So this is the, this is a real example of something that, we received and we're happy to provide. Additional examples, but I just wanted to let you know that. No, that's okay. I need to dig in a little bit further, Kristen. I'm sorry. I looked at that survey where it just kind of had the 3 questions. I'm sure there's more than that. I didn't quite get to that. So thank you. Very well. I just wanted to add, you know, the stature, the statue, the, alcohol has, a much more Yeah, it's much more stringent. They have to meet much more stringent rules than marijuana. So keep that in mind. So when Christian is speaking about, you know, what they have to do with regard to alcohol. You know, alcohol has been around forever, right? We've lived these rules and we've rewritten the rules and the statutes and all of that.

[129:02] Marijuana just isn't up with that. Marijuana just isn't up with that. So, marijuana just isn't up with that. So just keep that in mind when it comes to to, so just keep that in mind when it comes to, you know, the difference between alcohol and marijuana. We just haven't lived it long enough with legal marijuana like we have lived with alcohol to learn what's what's needed and what's not needed. I guess for no other reason I'm trying to circumvent future. Like maybe having, you know, the possibility of 10 interests of party show up. We felt like they weren't hurt if the businesses going into a neighborhood where they're actually our residents. That didn't feel they were heard. That they might not even realize that their voice was. Valuable.

[130:02] I just jumping in really quickly here. I agree with that and re- what for what it's worth, I totally understand this distinction that there's. Yeah. One, you know, standard right now for alcohol and there's not that standard for marijuana, but I really hope we can have this debated another clad meeting or conversation because we constantly talk about regulating these things similarly in some respects and then not others and I'm on both sides of those questions as well. Again, I think it's worth the conversation. CLAB to make sure that our community's voices are being heard. Because honestly, I think it adds legitimacy to applicants. As well if they cover that off in a way that is goes through a very public process and that people have had it. You know, a strong opportunity to weigh in, you know, in a logical way, not just an emotional way, but have opportunities to weigh in. So I think that could be potentially very good for us.

[131:06] We're on the list. I'm moving back to the script now. Unless anybody has any. Further comments on that issue. Stacey and Brian, you've been. Very quiet. Any 2 cents? I'm good Likewise. Just following along. Yeah. Okay, all right. Giving you the opportunity. Any final questions from the board for the applicant? I'm weighing. I'm thinking about what Rewa. Her plea towards the end.

[132:02] And wondering about. Asking Rebecca or Rebecca's lawyer. If they feel they have. Met the neighborhood. What was it again? What was the terminology? It was just on the screen long ago. Neighborhood responsibility plan. I was gonna add chair that obviously The more questions you pepper these. Whoever it is appearing before you the better. So if. I mean, I, you could hammer home. You know, what do you have any response to the concerns that were expressed by the interested party? What are they and just give them an opportunity to respond and chip in. So You don't have to ask questions obviously, but. For purposes of the record and narrowing issues and creating. As we've discussed, evidence that the board could then rely upon to make its decision.

[133:03] It's always good to. I think to, ask those questions and get that clarification. This will be the last chance before deliberation. Right? In principle, there's no going back. Yeah. And I will just add to that, individually once you've you know closed for deliberations you don't usually open it back up for questions but it's not usually open it back up for questions but it's not like for deliberations, you don't usually open it back up for questions, but it's not like forbidden either. If you find that you know you have questions that you need to make your decision that you want to ask. Of the applicant or an interested party or city staff. So. We have done that before. That's why I didn't close the door completely.

[134:01] Okay, well going on with the script with no further, the testimony and evidently portion of this hearing is hereby closed Board will now move into deliberation. Does any board this is why Brian and Stacey have been waiting. They've been writing up their comments. They're already. Does any board member wish to kick off the deliberation? Sorry, I wouldn't ordinarily do that aside in this quasi judicial hearing. Of course. How many angels can fit on the head of a PIN? Yeah. I don't know, is there an answer? Is there any answer to that question? So normal deliberation somebody would make the Motion. To accept. Okay, I would just even if people are shy. I. I would maybe go ahead if you're sensing that the application is going to get granted.

[135:07] I would go ahead and create a record about that, you know, and just say is there anybody who thinks that there's a basis for not granting this application. And see if anybody chimes in and if I mean if it seems like there's consensus and there's no discussion that's needed fine. But you know, the preference would be at this phase. To maybe do like a at least. That sort of statement or do you just sort of a round robin and just say, You know, if it's okay, I'd like to. Ask each member. What their thoughts are and just get each member on record as to what they're. Thoughts are with respect to the application. So. And that doesn't need to take a long time again, if it's, if it's a clear cut. Decision, it's a clear cut decision, but at least that way you're. Opening the floor. Not just opening the floor but getting each person's perspective on record aside from the vote.

[136:06] So let's do a straw poll. Going around the, virtual room in the order. That you are on my screen which you don't know where you are on my screen do you? But just a thumbs up or a thumbs down or thumb off to the side, I guess. How do you feel about approving the application? Stacy? And you can comment too, are you? You can do a thumbs up. Down, side, or I'd be more to decide at this point. Okay, Ethan. That's a thumbs up and Brian, how are you feeling? As a thumbs up. Robin, how are you feeling? Sign. I'm between up to side. Stacy, what would be your? Areas of concern.

[137:06] I would mostly wanna hear more, I think, like Robin have brought up, given the concerns that were raised, I think it I guess it's a good question of, you know, are we just green lighting or are we meant to kind of dig a little deeper? So I think I would want to know a little more and I like Robyn's idea of maybe talking more about that at another one of our meetings. Robin, would you like to? Elaborate or elucidate. I mean, you know, I'm just kind of like trying to envision how something like this actually might go and right now my gut tells me that what I'd like to do is say something like, you know, I appreciate the people who came forward too. Oppose and all your reasons are you know, important and you've been heard, but based upon the evidence I am likely a yes vote on this application.

[138:01] I mean, those kinds of things. I, I just have a lot in my head right now, so I'm trying to think about all of it. But, you know, I want to do the right thing for the board. I feel conflicted because I feel like what Rewa brought forward is are things that I hear all the time because these are folks that I'm in touch with. And so I want to think through ways to communicate with them. How to come forward and try to work on policy and make a change if they want to make a change. I just want to make sure people don't have a false impression that this is an opportunity to make that kind of change. And again, I really appreciated Kate earlier pointing out that this is probably an opportunity for public comment, which is good because it gets through to the board what people are thinking about. But that distinction between an interested party and a public common is important and sorry I've said too much, but that's kind of what I'm thinking right now.

[139:01] You were well under your allotted 10 min. Oh wait, that's not for you. So how about Ethan? Brian, how? Would you have any response to those that are? On the fence. I think the concerns about public engagement are important. And certainly there's things that could be maybe addressed in the policy level, but for the purposes of availing this application, I don't have any concerns. Ethan? Yeah, I would echo that. Specifically. Regarding this application. No issues, but. To Robin's point, I think that it is worth looking at the BRC and possibly considering. You know, fleshing out the requirements for the neighborhood outreach. Which do seem to be a little broad and could allow for so why ranges of interpretation?

[140:07] Regarding these applications and in the scope of these hearings. So maybe. Adding a little bit more detail to those recommendations will help us make our decisions a little bit. More efficient. Okay. And we. I feel like we're done with deliberation. Cause is there anybody else that feels need to comment? This would only be open to our board members at this point in time, right? Or the city staff, I guess. Real city staff, not the stand in. Take city staff or whatever. Hmm. No, you'll have heard city staff's perspective in the hearing. So you won't, this is just the board members deliberating. The quasi city staff.

[141:02] Okay, can we get a motion to close deliberation? Bryan motion supposed deliberation. Do we need to vote on that? Yeah, I think we should. I think we should formalize that closing process. Okay, you want to put that in the script too, by the way. Yeah. Yeah, and we can, I just, I think you can do maybe just a short form, form vote on this just. All in favor, all opposed. Yeah. That works. This put, slash, then vote or something like that. Just i mean i'm sure all in favor of closing the deliberation? Yeah, I. Any opposed? Okay. Can we get a motion to either approve or deny the application? Brian motions to approve the application.

[142:00] Second on that. In seconds. Now, would you like a formal vote here? Yeah, I think can we do or just as a matter of course have Kristen Tee do a roll call vote for this. Yeah. Okay, want to put that in the text. That's script. I mean. Okay, Christine, could you do a roll call? Oh, please. Certainly, member Daniel. Approve. Remember green? Yeah. All approve, but I'm gonna put an asterisk on that because it's You know, obviously this is a mock situation and I'm dealing with a severe migraine. So normally I'd probably just abstain from voting if I felt this way. But just to point of reference, you could abstain and then it would still be counted as an approval. Right. And. Is that right? No, so I would, I know you're struggling, Stacy. I, when we get to this voting part, you shouldn't have any comment.

[143:03] It should just be. Yay. Yeah, and 99% of the time I would normally do that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, so I would just keep it, keep it too simple, yeah, yeah. Okay, yeah, and now what if can you not vote if there was a you know if you hadn't already recused yourself earlier or you're stuck voting at that point. I think it would be really extraordinary for you not to vote if you didn't have a conflict. Not too. If you have no conflict. Yeah, cause you're like it or not, even if you're on the fence, you're charged as a board member with making a decision. You have to. And it's not right. It's a it's a majority rules decision. So You know, I would just. In the future when it is time to deliberate. I don't think You know, kind of there was some thumb sideways. I don't think people should sit down sideways these things either your yes or no and why it's not to say you can't be persuaded, you know, after having discussion with everybody, which side you're gonna lean, but.

[144:07] Take your sense, voice your concerns, you know, and I, you know, stick. Stick to the law, cause that's, you can't change the law right now in this proceeding. So stick to the law. And if you need, you know. Stick a fork and things that everybody wants to discuss later. Maybe we could do this better in the application. Maybe we could do this better, maybe the BRC should say this. That's all fine, but stick kinda, you know, set that off to the side. For actual policy discussion that the BRC is going to have independent of the hearing. So. Yeah. Sounds good. No, me, Stacy, I'm sorry to hear about. I did not know your head on migrating. Sorry to hear about that. I would point out that allowing assigned option gave me the opportunity to add those on the fence. Why they were on events. So I would like to reserve the. The liberty for Brian and I to ask us at least in that point.

[145:08] Yeah. Yeah, your baby. I, I think that's okay as long as we're drilling down to exactly what people's concerns are and how that relates to the Boulder revise code in the standard. I think anything you can do to flush out people's concerns like it's okay to have concerns and it's okay for us to have. Differences of opinion and robust discussion. That's all okay. I think the important thing is that the record reflect. You know what our decision was and why it was that way. And to the extent we can get consensus to the extent through discussion, this, some of these issues and we say, well, I don't think that part that requirement is met. Great. You know, again, it's, it's not so much the decision that I'm concerned about. It's the process for getting the decision and it's the it's the record. That, you know, we produce as a part of getting that to that decision.

[146:04] So. Hey, Kristen, would you like to finish the? Or did she, did she can vote? Remember green your vote please. I will vote to approve it. Thank you. Vice Chair Keegan. Approve. Chair Kuntsman. Approve. And member noble. Approve. Okay. Would that vote? This ends the hearing pursuant to board procedure. The board will work with city attorney's office to prepare a final written decision reflecting the decision and rationale. Thank you for everyone's participation. Okay. It is a little strange with the applicant. And their lawyer both going off screen before all of this because What were they were they conferring on the side there?

[147:02] What was happening in the I'm not sure what was happening back there. Sorry, Chair. Normally the applicant would stay on screen. Okay. Yeah, I mean, unless this to like as what I was doing to allow the board to just really talk among themselves without like being distracted by the applicant. Yeah. That's good. Good evening. Okay. I think we're ready to move on to the next top or what do you think? Staff and everyone involved. Go ahead Andy. I just wanted to say thanks to everybody for. Humor in us and going through this process. I think it's been really valuable. And I think there's some kinks that will work out and we'll revise the script to make it a little bit. More readable but you know, it's Unfortunately, some of this process is important and it helps to preserve rights and I just want to encourage you all to, I guess, stick with it, make the best decisions you can.

[148:14] Have robust debate and conversation and if you do that things will be fine. So Thanks. Thanks. Okay, anyone else? Right, Ethan. I just wanna thank city staff for putting all this together. I know I'm sure it was a lot of work and it was certainly very valuable to. To us for running through this and hopefully things will be that much more smooth there as a result of it. Yep, I agree. Thanks so much.

[149:02] Any, like I'm under agenda item 6 now. Matters from city attorney. Anything? Nothing, Chair. Okay, right. Matters from the regulatory licensing office, licensing office. As you all received, a copy, the recruitment for the, is now open. It closes on January 20 ninth. We have sent it to parties that submitted an email of interest as well as our regular listings. And so we will keep you updated as that. Move forward. Okay. And then, we always have the agenda topics for future cloud meetings. We're pleased to announce that the state marijuana enforcement division staff can present at the February meeting date.

[150:05] If you still do so desire. Seems like that would be a timely thing after our discussion earlier. Great. We will go ahead and confirm that with them. They do get extremely busy. Between March and the summer. So this is a great timing for that. Are there any other? Topics that you would like to see for future cloud meetings. Before we go on, so that will include any new rule changes that they might have made. Robin, would you like to propose that? Something along the line of what we just talked about. Yeah, I would. I'd love to propose a conversation on a neighborhood on the neighborhood responsibility plan and just a better look at the BL's needs and does neighborhood needs and desire survey.

[151:05] I can put that in there. Are there any? Thank you. I mean, maybe a BLA person could come and talk a little bit more about that process and I specifically what Cristiano was describing about how the boundaries are kind of laid out and how that works and how that impacts timing. That might be a good way to get the conversation going. We can go ahead and reach out. And see what availability they have. I would presume that you would like this sooner rather than later. I mean, I feel a sense of urgency, but. I understand timing constraints. So. Thank you, Kristen. Okay. I'll put it as, I'll make a notation, as soon as practical. Would that be the best subject matter expert? That might be worth consulting with.

[152:02] Okay. That's a good question. Let me think about that. Maybe all the board members can think about that a little bit and send Kristen a suggestion. Okay, so BLA person with the question mark. Okay. Yeah. Do we have any? Is that the, is that the word that Christiana covers or is she on? . With other Sports or commissions. That is the board that Christiana covers. Yeah. Yeah, I may be Christiana could join us for that conversation. A little more in depth if you're available and willing. Sure, I'm happy to help. Okay. Okay, thank you. Okay. As I said earlier, if nothing else, one goal would be to make it easier for us to. And evaluate applications.

[153:01] By having certain. Hoops jumped through up front. Whatever those hoops are to be determined. Alright, other, agenda items. Or speakers that we'd like to hear from. Even. I'd like to at some point revisit the policy suggestion form that was submitted by Aaron Spies from Native Roots. Specifically regarding the removal. Other requirement for consultation rooms. No, we had tabled that discussion to allow for the attorney's office to have a little bit more time to. Determine how that would affect. The BRC and what the intention of it was originally as it was written. But I believe that we owe it to the business. To come to some sort of a conclusion there.

[154:04] Andy, how are we? Yeah, I think actually Kristen and I did quite a bit of in rework too. Thank you, Rewa, did quite a bit of investigation. I think. Maybe we should add that for next months. Board meeting item I can't remember Kristen if we If we decided there was anything else we needed. Do on that. I would need to. It's been a couple of months since we looked at that, but I'm maybe maybe as another. Agenda item for next meeting if the board would prefer we could Now, you can take that off again. Hmm, thanks and Ethan for reminding us that's. Good idea. I actually thought. I was concerned if we were to discuss further this policy suggestion form from Sarah Miklich. That we looked at briefly today. If we were gonna actually change. The rule from 40 down to the MEDs rule of 30.

[155:11] Would we need to go through an elaborate process with public comment and Or is that something, I mean, it seems rather simple. Yeah, that would be it's in the boulder device codes. That would be a recommendation from clad to council about that change. And so I think maybe that's what Brian was getting at is if there's other changes. In addition to that, maybe in addition to to the extent we're going to remove that separation or recommend a removal that separation requirement to maybe consolidate that. Into a series of recommendations potentially with The actual changes, you know, suggested changes to ordinance provided so that it's all kind of made as easy as possible.

[156:01] If it were the only substantive Change that we would need to change our the BRC to. Good. You know, the MED. Would it need to be an elaborate process? Or you'd have to go to city council. So that makes it a lot of great. But. All the Ferdiwa, she's kind of the Yeah. And you know what, anything that changes the DRC would require an ordinance. I'm not saying that audiences are elaborate. They can be. We have had them. So you would put forward that recommendation to council. Council would say, let's just say sure, right? And then what would happen is the city attorney's office would get that on calendar on council's calendar for first and second reading. And frustrating would go on. Consent and then there would be a public hearing on second reading.

[157:03] For that ordinance and then after that after public hearing closes council would vote to either shoot it down or adopted as drafted or make additional changes. And then if they made additional changes, it would go to a third reading. To be adopted on consent. Okay, Kristen. I just wanted to add if the board is considering. Proposing some changes to the BRC. For cannabis businesses, we'd probably want to consider doing some. Yeah. Public engagement. As well with this board, maybe something along the lines of public hearing like we did for the recommendations to counsel around hospitality businesses that I think in addition to all of the steps that Riwa outlined. At the council level will likely want to discuss. Some engagement. At the at the board level as well to to collect feedback and show either support or opposition for the proposed changes.

[158:14] And you'd want to do that before we brought their recommendation to council, correct? Kristen or would, right? Yeah. Yes, I would recommend doing that before we go to council because council. Will likely ask. What engagement we did. Yeah. Exactly. That's what I was gonna say. You're gonna ask. And and what the community feedback we received was. I just wanna make sure that I was thinking what through thinking. Thank you. Yeah, thanks. So we'll get a presentation by an MED. Representative or representatives next month. See if there's other issues that we should address. And, then move forward. Along that line. Correct. Yes, I have for February the MED presentation. Then I also have suggestions as soon as possible the conversation on neighborhood responsibility plans.

[159:03] Look at BLA, need some desires with either a BLA person and or Christiana. And then, revisit policy suggestion form. Discussion. From NATO routes for the console rooms. And I'm and Andy or and Riwa, do you want that maybe under your matters to where maybe you can expound a little bit on that? In this February too, maybe you can expound a little bit on that. In this February too soon or do you want that somewhere else? I think that's fine under my matter and I think February is fine. Thank you. Can we have any updates on? Where the city the current city council is the new city council is with respect to the hospitality discussion. No, okay, that's an answer. Okay, that's fine. You know, I don't know that it's gonna be brought back up within council. So if you guys really wanted to, hit this new council.

[160:06] So if you guys really wanted to, hit this new, council. So if you guys really wanted to, hit this new, council up, I would suggest that you, reiterate. You know, whatever it is you want, council to look at when you submit, you know, your, report, your update is to what, you know, is doing, that type of thing, and see if this new board is interested. In moving it forward or not. Because, you know, with the new more board members, they may have no idea. Whatsoever. That this was once, you know, a question before them. I know it's not going to be mentioned in any type of council retreat or anything like that. So, I would suggest, of course, with Andy guidance that, you know, if you really wanted the new council to. Think about it. Put it in front of them. Be a little itch in their brain that you put it in in your presentation to council.

[161:06] What's the timeline if all goes well or if all goes optimally when we'll have a football? All board again. Application. The interviews. Decisions on who is chosen. How many months out are we talking? Until we have a full complement board. So the new members would start on April first. Okay. And there's there's a city council retreat this month next month. Which one? This one? January, correct. Middle of the month.

[162:04] And then they hit the ground running. Let us speak, yeah. Say that semi facetious. Yeah. I know, Get the ground soon. The ground keeps moving, so. Right. Hmm. Well does anybody have any I mean one idea would be to make sure Wait until we have a full compliment. Let the city council get settled in. And then decide whether to revisit. Maybe. Months ago probably over a year ago. Express that like the Retreat is the moment when the city council sets its agenda for its whole legislative working so that if this is a matter we want city council to consider. This isn't a small audience change. You can imagine that over the course of the multiple readings, and the drafting of this ordinance to be substantial, public comment input reflecting the kinds of conversations that we had.

[163:10] On our port here as well. So, and just recognizing the politics of the issue and the different interests around it that it would probably be difficult conversation that wouldn't be unanimous decision. So I think for all these kinds of reasons why the last council punted on it. If this is something that this board wanted to move on. I would encourage us to get it on the city's agenda. Or the council's agenda earlier than later, but yeah, that's a decision for this board. To me. Good pizza once a year. City council recently. Yeah, okay. Right. Yeah, I mean it almost feels like we need a better process among our board for you know, here's what our next 6 months are gonna look like.

[164:05] We're gonna discuss these things and we hope to have a report off to City Council with a list of recommendations by such and such. A date. I think, you know, that might be a more effective way of working together. As a group. And also. We've had we've had a lot going on with the learning about this quasi-judicial process and that sort of thing. You know, we're gonna look at the red lines for MED in the next meeting. That's a fairly significant document of rule changes. And each one of those things can be debated and discussed and that sort of thing. So. I don't know. I think maybe we have some sort of a date in the future that we say we'd like to have, a formal clab recommendation document or presentation ready on an annual basis and something we can work toward because it's always been sort of nebulous.

[165:06] I like deadlines. One problem that we've encountered before when we Have thought along those lines is that. We might have an idea of how things should be presented to city council, but. They're the city council. We're just one of 20. How many? 2422, 20 something. Boards and commissions. I'm not sure how many there are, yeah. A bunch. But that's really the, you know, what's communication? What's what is the value of our work, what's what is the value of our work if we're not able to communicate that and move it forward if we're not able to communicate that and move it forward in some meaningful way. If we're not able to communicate that and move it forward in some meaningful way. I, I felt like, you know, the last process on social consumption as imperfect as it was, everyone showed up, we did the work, we we got the document together, we got that off to council.

[166:09] I thought that was actually a fairly big accomplishment for this board and for the circumstances that we were working in. But, you know, maybe we think about that a little bit as to how we get a yearly or every 6 month type report to council with a list of recommendations. Just you know, with pros cons and here's our recommendations and votes. We're always going to be divided, I think, on a lot of these issues. But. How do we communicate what we're doing here? How do we make that work meaningful? How often, so there will be things that that might come up that. We may want to. Give the city council's attention, but otherwise it's once a year they're interested in.

[167:01] Hearing for is that correct? I mean, they read our minutes. I've been told. Notice put that in the minutes just kidding. Wasn't it like? In general, once a year that they kinda wanna have a summary. You know, I don't know if it's once a year every 6 months. You know, I know that, have this discussion early on and I can't, I will, I need to go back. And look to see what was decided on. I'm not sure if it was in a memo that Kathy wrote or not. Something is just, it's sticking in my brain and I can't quite, I can't quite bring it all out. Let me. Let me go and look and see what I can find. You know, whether it was agreed that it would be every March or if it would be, you know, every April or June. I, you know, I just don't remember exactly what. What was decided on? So I don't want to necessarily answer that, but at the very minimum, yes, once a year, definitely.

[168:10] But you don't wanna move. You don't want to move council move to council so late in the year that it ends up in your third or fourth quarter Right? Because when you're in their fourth quarter, you were rushing every single one of us are rushing to get things out. Nothing, nothing will come of. Any type of suggestion or. If it comes in the latter part of the year. It just won't. So earlier in the year is better. Only for council planning. You know, getting on the calendar, having council make a decision and if the decision is made, you know, does staff have the capacity to take on that work? You know, and what type of work. Would that entail what type of ordinance work? You know, you know, you know, and Kristen's department would have to, to give it on calendar.

[169:03] Did they have to write the memo? You know, so there's a lot of things that come into play when getting something to counsel and council. Yeah, let's move forward. Then there's the Okay, sure. We'll do that. Now what is the capacity of staff and how fast can we get it out and how fast can we give it on calendar? Now, council tells us how fast we're going to do it, then that's how fast we're going to do it but if they don't you know it would have to work in, you know, staffs. Abilities. So again, earlier you can get your recommendations to counsel the better. You don't want to get buried mid year or heaven forbid fourth quarter. Hmm. All for your suggestion, I'm just wondering. If we will, we can be. Saying all sorts of important things. But it might not be heard.

[170:05] But I mean, based on what Rewa just said. If, if we wanna, we may wanna discuss our. 6 month agenda. At some upcoming upcoming meeting. How does that sound? What's our priorities? Including ones that have been past priorities. Cause just like, I wanted to be heard. We all want to be heard too. So. We were playing reload. Whatever. Okay.

[171:00] Was there anything else matters of the? So do you stop? Okay. Terror or board members. And we have items for next. We have enough items for next month, Kristen, T. Would you say yes? Okay. Do you want to add? 6 month priorities. To the list. I did make a note upcoming. How did I phrase it? Upcoming priorities plan. Okay, good. And Kristen, I'll get you the information I find. I know it was discuss sometimes somewhere somehow. Yeah, and I can't remember exactly the details either, but I do remember that happening. Okay. Okay. Motion to adjourn.

[172:01] Bryan motions to adjourn. Second. Anyone opposed? To that adjournment. Alright, thank you. Kristen Kristen and Andy, maybe Brian too. I'll need to stop the recording. Do you have a secondThank youAlright, thanks