March 4, 2024 — Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Certainly so welcome everyone to the Monday, March fourth meeting of the Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board. Preston, if you would read the instructions for virtual meetings, please. Certainly. My! I am stuck with out a share button all of a sudden. Here, let me refresh my page. Here we go. Good afternoon for public participation at the beverage, licensing authority and cannabis, licensing advisory meetings. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive meaningful and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical, emotional, 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.

[1:03] More about this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found on the link on your screen. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised Code, and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during the 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 that they are commonly known by. and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Alright. Thank you. Kristen could use. Do you remember roll call? Please

[2:02] certainly remember, Christy did email us that he would be coming in late. So I will continue with Member Daniel. present Member Green present vice chair. Keegan. Present chair. Kuntzmann, I believe, is by phone president, can you? And and is my audio working? Yes, chair. Kunsten. Thank you. Okay. Member nink member, noble present ex officio. Member Thompson. Present. Thank you. We have a quorum. Alright, thank you. Kristen. Next we'll move on to approval of the board meeting minutes from the February fifth, 2024. Meeting anyone have any comments, questions, clarifications. From our February minutes

[3:10] it does appear on page 12, the packet alright! I hear a motion from time to approve the minutes from the February meeting. Do I have a second second from Robin? Thank you, Robin opposed alright. Most meetings. Minutes pass alright. Kristen, could we start public comment? Now, please? Certainly this agenda. Item number 2 is general. Public comments for the board. Public comments will be limited to 3 min per speaker.

[4:00] We will be showing a 3 min timer. If you are interested in providing public comments for the board. please use the raise your hand function. I'm seeing one so far. Vice chair. Keegan. I will promote Mr. Rodriguez to a panelist, so he can pro speak alright. Thank you, Mr. Rodrigue. Alright panel. all right, and then I will pull up the timer one moment. Do you guys want video on or not? Yes, please. Apparently the host has stopped my video from coming on. no, let me

[5:00] let me try that again. You should have mobility. There we are. Oh. okay, ready, if you are. Thank you. Yeah. Hi, everyone my name is Nabil Rodriguez. I'm an attorney at Holland and Hart, and appearing on behalf of my client fresh baked. Excuse me, for those of you that don't know their dispensary in the city of Boulder, located on the corner of Pearl Street and Folsom. Here it provides some additional context on the policy suggestion that we submitted, requesting that boulders regulations be amended to allow for drive up windows as general matter. It occurs to me that boulders regulations may be falling behind the times as they were put in place when cannabis was still what we'll call cutting edge. Therefore the regulations don't always line up with how business is conducted or the new licenses license types that have been authorized by the State of Colorado. Couple of quick examples of this are, one, the requirement for consultation room in medical dispensaries, which I understand to be a topic of discussion later today, and 2 allowing for hospitality licenses, to provide a legal place where canvas may be consumed.

[6:09] One additional item. And the reason that I'm here today is that boulders regulations appear to prohibit license businesses from establishing a drive up window. We've submitted a policy suggestion along with red line changes to the code that would authorize such activities. And this is the second time that fresh baked has submitted such a policy suggestion. Several other jurisdictions expressly authorized drive through cannabis businesses, including your neighbors, to the south, and where I'm currently located here in Denver. Frankly, since the pandemic, several aspects of our lives have changed to accommodate for well the changing consumer. The reason that most grocery stores allow for pickup orders was Covid. The reason that Doordash has become such a huge success and pain to some of our wallets was Covid, and frankly, the reason that most folks can work from home, and that all of us know how to use literally all of the video meeting applications was also covid.

[7:06] Retail cannabis should be no different. And, in fact, during the height of the pandemic. The State enacted emergency regulations. Allowing for drive up services which has since become official standing regulations, we just wanna help facilitate updating boulders code to come back in line with the State regulations for our perspective, allowing this change could help invigorate the struggling business sector. In addition to benefiting consumers who are either a sick like myself and wanna limit contact with the folks, or B just don't have the time to park and walk into retail location for our policy. C policy suggestion packet. We've demonstrated significant support from the community for cannabis businesses to have drive up services and respectfully request this Advisory Board. Take up the matter. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. We look forward to collaborating with this board on suggestions to Update boulders, canvas regulations and thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Do board members have any questions for Mr. Rodriguez.

[8:11] That book. It's hard for me to raise my hand. Go ahead and ask a question. Sure. So, Mr. Rodriguez, thanks for testifying or thanks for giving us public comment. So II agree with you. Things pivoted quite a bit during the pandemic and subsequently. And it's a new world. Then it was whatever 5, you know, you choose the timeframe. It doesn't really matter number of years ago, and so have some places have shifted back. But are are there good examples, as you pointed out. in other communities where drive through, drive up, or drive through, not for the correct terminology, but where it where it continues. Can you give a good example of that. II mean, Denver frankly allows for it, and and when I was doing my research, try to kind of pull language from Denver's municode to try to incorporate into the boulder code. They don't even like do it through any specific like ordinance. It's just one of the authorized powers or or authorized activities, I should say that the State has allowed for, and therefore I mean, I know of at least a handful of

[9:25] retail businesses in Denver that allow for it. Native roots who I know has other policy suggestions coming up today being one of those and then I know that years ago. and it's it's escaping me. But there was a community, some mountain town community, and they did this I don't know. Back in. Maybe it was from the time of 2016 to 2018. Tumbleweeds, I think, was the company, but I can't remember the exact Mountain town location that it was in. But I'm sure that if I were to Google it here, there, there are others that have expressly logged it haven't changed it. But if anyone knows that I'm happy for you to, for you to chime in.

[10:10] seems like maybe it was in fair play, but I don't know that might be it. yeah, I just found the Youtube video from 6 years ago. Colorado Hot Shop is the first drive through of its kind. Tumbleweed express drive through, but to to not open up the video and cause, you know, disturbance in here in into this meeting. we'll we'll just leave it at that? You have any other questions before I move on to Robin. Alright, Robby. Well, I just wondered, are we? Are we having this discussion right now? Are, we gonna have a more in depth conversation on the particular issue, just because I know there's a lot of history and boulder around, drive throughs for any product, and that the city generally tends to discourage that because we're trying to encourage more, less car centric

[11:08] type of businesses. And I also know that, you know, drive throughs tend to have to go through planning board. But II was wondering if there's gonna be a more in depth conversation about this later on. I don't have any particular questions, and I appreciate your comments, Mr. Rodriguez. Yeah, I'll just Rodham's question here first. So, yeah, Robin, we have got some time scheduled because fresh baked. It's a policy suggestion form. So we will have a discussion around that policy suggestion form a little bit later in today's meeting. But, if you have any questions from Mr. Rodriguez, you could ask those now. Alright, thank you, Robin. Any other questions. Alright, thank you, Mr. Rodriguez? Alright, 1 one more cause. Robin's question triggered a thought. You know, as as Robin points out, boulder at least likes to

[12:03] portray itself as transportation alternative. Friendly options, including, you know, pedestrians, scooters, bicycles. and and maybe this question is pertaining more to fresh baked than II live in that neighborhood, so I should know but it. if they're friendly to car traffic, are they friendly? To what would they be friendly to bicycle pedestrians, scooters, whatever. I don't have you given thought to that, I guess. That's a great question. And and actually my my wife works in boulder. As you know, Holland Heart has an office in Boulder, where we're pretty familiar with the fact that you guys are have a pretty pretty good bicycle. Culture is is what I'll call it. I would say, and I can't obviously pretend to answer as to whether or not fresh baked has thought about this with respect to their current facility.

[13:03] But would they be open to allowing, you know, I guess, a a ride up, pick up services as as well as drive up, I to the extent that it's authorized and allowable by you all. Or you know, it's something that we can work on as a suggestion to move towards the city Council. I mean, I'm happy to, you know, find a way to make that workable within any type of red line to the regulations that we put forth. But I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility. II will just quickly point out that I know that there is a drive through prohibition in downtown districts, but we did confirm, at least with the licensing board, that fresh bakes. Current location does not fall within that district, and they would just have to meet the other, you know, itemized requirements under that drive through specific provision of the boulder code?

[14:02] so hopefully that at least satisfies some additional questions. Thank you. Alright, thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Is there anyone else for public comment? Kristen, do you see anyone? No, I do not last. Call for public comment. Raise your hand alright. seeing none, Kristen, seeing none. go ahead and close public comment. and move on to matters from the cannabis Enforcement officer. If Officer Gignok is here. how are you? Did another round of compliance checks and everybody passed plus. I've been doing a lot tripled my amount of drop in inspections, and

[15:09] everybody knock on wood is playing by the rules. So that's nice to see. Thank you, Officer Gigi, any questions for Officer Gagnon. Alright. thank you, Officer Chignac, you're welcome. alright. So I'll just editorialize a little bit here. So I just wanna just help everyone calibrate. So next up, we're gonna have a presentation for the city attorney's office with Christiana Mccormack. We're asking about 20 to 30 min for that. So we're gonna have a chunk of time right here for 20 or 30 min for this presentation on needs and desires and neighborhood responsibility. Then we're going to move into a few sections here that are going to send our policy suggestion forms that have already been submitted, and a lot of substantive discussions about those, and there'll be a public comment

[16:05] for those as well. And then I just wanna make sure that we're all just calibrated, preserving our time, attention, and energy, that we also, do have some substantive matters at the back end of the meeting as well, particularly a memo template to writing feedback to council for the 2024. So I just wanna make sure that we're just like calibrating our energy and attention across those kinds of 3 big asks coming up here. So if we could, let's go ahead and move into agenda. Item 4 here. So the presentation from city attorney's office on these desires enabled responsibility. Please. Thank you. Hi, everybody. Can you hear me? Okay. so I'm Christian Mccormick. I'm with the city attorney's office, and I have been representing the Beverage licensing authority, and a little while back I was asked to give a presentation and answer questions from lab regarding the neighborhood needs and desires requirement for liquor, licenses

[17:09] and hopefully you all had a chance to review the memo that I put together, and everything. So what I'll do is give a short summary of what's in that memo, and I'll open it up for questions, and we can go from there. Okay? So the needs and desires requirement. Well, let me start off with. There is a requirement for a liquor license applicant to show that the neighborhood, and we'll talk about what a neighborhood is that there is a need and desire in that neighborhood for that particular proposed establishment. And what an applicant needs to do is after they submit their application. The beverage licensing authority defines what the neighborhood is, and you can see from my memo that

[18:06] the neighborhood is defined. There's no specific you know. Strict requirements for what the neighborhood is, but the beverage. Licensing authority goes based off of what neighbor, what the neighborhood is for previous applicants in the same or similar locations. And they try to get a. you know, decent size population of people who are likely going to be 21 and over, because those are the relevant people that we want to get information from for needs and desires and that can be residents or business owners, or but business managers in the defined neighborhood? And so, once the neighborhood is defined, then the applicant normally in the great majority of circumstances, does a petitioning process to show that there is a need and desire, so they literally either somebody associated with the applicant or

[19:09] A professional petitioning company goes around and knocks door to door and gets signatures from people again. Anyone who is 21 and older. Who is a resident or business manager or owner? In the defined neighborhood, and oftentimes the there aren't, at least for liquor licensing. There aren't a huge number of issues with petitioning, but the bla will ask questions. Concerning, you know the percentage whether there's a majority of people who signed in favor of the application, and they also make sure that any businesses, especially similar businesses in the neighborhood. We're provided an opportunity for feedback, so that evidence and testimony is presented at the application hearing and that's essentially the

[20:06] basics of needs and desires, and how an applicant shows, needs and desires for a liquor, liquor, license, application. And see, I think the the only other main thing for this is that you know, for the information presented on needs and desires to be relevant. It has to be people who are again 21 and over, and who are within that neighborhood. So with that it was a very brief summary, but with that I will open it up for questions and further discussion. Thank you, Christiana. Questions for the Board from the Board for Cristiana or her memo. Her memo starts. If you're in the reading packet on page 18, I believe, Robin, you have a question. Yeah. I just wanted to say, Thank you, Christiana, for the super detailed memo that was incredibly helpful for me, and also for your presentation. And I guess I have 2 questions. About the process. D is part of the

[21:17] is your sense that part of the reason the bla has this process is to create an awareness among people within the neighborhood and create some awareness for them to be able to come forward and speak up at the hearing. I just wondered if it has that added benefit of creating more awareness. And then, secondly, has the process ever resulted in a denial by the beverage licensing authority of any applicant. Thank you. Great questions. Thank you. So as to your first question. Because this is a requirement under State law. I can only speak to what I think. The intent behind the requirement under State law is

[22:06] so you you are absolutely correct that it has the added benefit of making sure that people in the neighborhood are aware of this. App the application and that somebody is proposing to bring a liquor license establishment into the neighborhood. and the other thing I'll note is that these hearings are like any city meetings and hearings also publicly noticed. And so there are those 2 aspects. Right? So we have the public notice. And then also with the petitioning, going door to door. Ii think that absolutely does help raise awareness. that the applicant is planning to have an establishment there and then. As to your second question, I will actually defer to Kristen Chang's and Kristen, tg, because I have no knowledge of any application being denied

[23:06] based on needs and desires. that said my history with the boulder beverage. Licensing authority isn't super long. So I'm not sure if Staff may have a better answer for you on that one. Thank you, Christiana, I can answer that for you. A couple of years back there was a liquor application that resulted in a lot of negative neighborhood feedback petitioning needs and desires evidence, and the beverage licensing authority did elect to deny issuing that application. That's the only one since I've been here there. So since, however, and I've been here. This is

[24:01] in in the middle of my seventh year. Yeah. And so I'll just add to that that. It's certainly possible, because it is a requirement to prove by the applicant that there is a need and desire. And so, if there is evidence that the neighborhood does not have a need and desire, and may have, in fact, the opposite. Then that's certainly grounds for denial of an application. Okay, thank you for that. I mean. II did pick up in your memo. you know, beyond just the narrow definition of who or the narrow determination of who can sign the petition people who live in the neighborhood 21 or older, and businesses and business managers that work there. But the other things was that it? It's a process that doesn't really If there's a lot of just negative information, that's I think the word was abhorrence of the of alcohol. Those things are not taken into account. This seems like the process is really built

[25:09] to make the neighborhood aware and give them an opportunity to know, and an opportunity to comment on how they feel about the the business coming in based on their needs and desires. So for all those reasons that I just appreciated your memo to make that clear to this board that this isn't, you know, an opportunity for people just to gripe. It's for specific needs and desires that they they may hold as residents of the neighborhood. Is that sound about? Right? Yeah, absolutely. and as you point out, general importance to liquor in in the case of liquor licenses. Right is it's it's not considered relevant because there has been a policy decision saying that these are allowed, and they're allowed to be there, and so just not liking having liquor for sale in your neighborhood or served in your neighborhood, isn't enough

[26:01] to push it over the kind of threshold to say, there's not a need or desire. There has to be more information. just, you know, more information that's more relevant to like the application, and it's criteria and things like that. So yep. you all set, Robin. Thank you, Brian. Yeah, alright. I got Tom next, and then Kate after time, go ahead, Tom. Hi, Christiana! Thanks so much for. and thank you for the all the information you provided. and Robin seems to be triggering questions in me. Good job, Robin. But it has to do with I'm wondering if you can give an estimate when they do these neighborhood. What is it those are called surveys or neighborhood neighborhood. You know, input from the neighborhood. How how many. on the average, how much, how many participants do they actually get information from. And I and reason I'm asking because it it seems like in the mock

[27:10] application review that we did. I might be remembering wrong, but, like the mock neighborhood survey got something like input from 3 to 4 people, maybe 3 to 5 or something like that. And and I guess my question ultimately is, is there a way to do this better? I mean. Robin's question is salient in the point that you know it. It gets the attention of people, but sometimes, after the fact like, Oh, I wish they had asked me. and I just I guess I'm wondering. Can you think of a way that this whole process could be done. Better. sure, to your one. Or quite point about the number of people. Usually it's it's it's quite a few the especially when there's a professional petitioning service that goes out and does it.

[28:09] There are oftentimes, you know. over a hundred signatures that are gathered in everything, either both for and against, you know, or from people who are both for and against the establishment most of the time. They're for it in liquor licensing instances. But I think that. I'm not sure if there's a better. a better way to do it. What II guess. you know, getting getting the word out and everything is really important. And that's what the public notice is. Process is for just you know, everybody. Everybody follows the public notice, process and everything. And so that's

[29:01] always the main legal requirement, I guess. For having a hearing and making sure that the public is aware. And that's why we also have really common posting places. So the newspaper or the website or areas like that, where people can easily or find the information they're looking for. and so II guess I don't have any ideas as far as making that process better, and making sure that people are better aware of a hearing or an application that's coming before board. But I can say that there are usually quite a few people who are included in the petitioning process when that does happen for liquor licenses. Just seems like, you know, like Mister Rodriguez's point early on, or one of his points, was, The world has changed, and the world has changed in terms of people. even having subscriptions to newspapers, much less reading them. And you know the the way the game right now is social media, or I don't know. It's like near impossible to try to reach a population of people

[30:09] these days on a message. And so I'm just kind of brainstorming. And and I was going to mention, I'm sorry I I'm on my way to go skiing in aspen, and a couple things have held me up like 1010 inches of snow today and yesterday and so I'm I'm still on the road. But I'm I'm Brian, and I pulled off to make a comment just to be on the safe side. But but thanks so much for getting on with us. Thank you, Tom. Kate got you next. Yeah. Thank you again for coming on everyone else's set. I appreciate the memo and the information. And you know, I did have a question similar to Tom's about, you know, like, is it supposed to represent a certain percentage of the population, or in that neighborhood? Or is there any, you know, defined terms of that or is there like at least from a professional petitioner. If there is a representation of that they're trying to to shoot for, is my first question, and I'll let you

[31:09] answer that. And then I have a second question, okay? Yeah. So there's nothing defined and no specific percentage or anything like that under the requirements for petition. It's kind of like. Do the best you can to get the most people within the neighborhood sort of standard, so as long as they can show that they tried tried to get as many signatures as possible. Then that's essentially meeting the requirements. So you'll often hear from liquor licensing petitioning companies, especially saying that the number of attempts they made versus how many signatures they actually got, so that they can show that, hey, we are trying to get every single signature that we possibly can here. So that type of evidence is common to hear in liquor licensing hearings.

[32:02] Nice? Yeah, thank you. And then my second question is kind of on to that right like, if a question like, what did you do to reach the most number of people during this process, you know, could be something that that somebody from a board could ask. The applicant. And do you have any other like questions that you have seen the bla. Ask you know the different applicants about this particular process of the needs and desires, hearing that we can add to our repertoire of things to ask or look for when we're evaluating them. Yeah, sure. So let's see, II think that as far as questions asked by the bla. II mentioned one of the main ones before, which is, they often ask more detailed questions about getting signatures and contacting or attempting to contact the businesses in the area. Especially if it's an area where there are a higher number of liquor license establishments.

[33:07] similar types of businesses. So they'll often ask more detailed questions about that of the petitioning the person who did the petitioning and And then, as far as the residents, I think they ask questions about, or there's evidence or testimony offered about the time of week, the day of the week, the time of day and things like that. So they're not trying to like. Go around at one am in the morning, or something like that bothering people while they're sleeping, or you know, but they show that you know they try to hit times when people are more likely to be home or during regular business hours, and things like that to show that they are doing their again best efforts to get as many signatures as possible. Does that help?

[34:01] Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Thank you for your answers. Appreciate it. and I'll just use my chairs prerogative that I ask a question in terms of different types of licenses. Are there different kinds of considerations that we should make. So I'll recognize at the outset that we don't have social consumption for cannabis here in the city of Boulder. but using the beverage licensing board as a model. Are there differences in terms of either the processes around this, or the kinds of objections or concerns that are raised by communities that should be given more or less weight, for, like a retail location versus a bar tavern type of license. I guess, as far as petitioning and needs and desires go. There aren't a whole lot of distinctions between the different types of licenses. It's just establishing the neighborhood and the type of license that is being sought is supposed to be made clear by the petitioner or the person doing the petitioning so that anybody who is signing

[35:03] and giving their signature. Is aware of what they're assigning and saying they approve, or or support, or don't support. So I think that's really the extent of it, as far as distinguishing between different types of licenses for liquor, at least. Thank you. And then my last follow up question would just be to who is responsible for doing the due diligence, for making sure that the signature is on a sheet or an application actually constitute the neighborhood. Is that all to staff or city's clerk or this board? It's like. because sheet of signatures. How do we like make sure that that's actually a neighborhood. So that's that's a great question. And one that as far as like checking the validity of the signatures and everything. That's that's a pretty big It's a big ask right? So I think that there is a presumption. And I will let Kristen T. Or Kristen Chang's correct me if I am wrong. But my understanding is that there's an assumption that the signatures are valid. And that question can be asked so that it's part of you know the testimony provided at a hearing as well when someone is under oath.

[36:20] and but we don't get into at least as far as the hearings go, and the pieces that I'm involved with. We don't get too far into trying to figure out if every single signature is valid on the petitions. I appreciate that. Thank you there. Any other questions for Cristiano. Those gears turn in alright. I think we'll close out this matter. Thank you, Christiana. So much for coming and joining us today and preparing this memo and sharing all your research and background space with us.

[37:01] My pleasure. Thank you all. Thank you. So we are gonna move on to the next agenda. Item, here, public comments for policy suggestion forms. So again, we're gonna open this back up to public comment mode. So again, we're gonna have a 3 min timer on screen. That Kristen tig is going to manage. And again, this is only for public comments. Optical to Kristin. T correct me, if I'm wrong, do we? Are we gonna open them up simultaneously or sequentially. Right? You're unmute, Kristen. Yes, sorry about that. I will be opening each session individually and then closing it. So it's a clear record. Alright. So we're gonna open up our first public comment suggestion for the policy suggestion for and from native routes regarding medical wellness centers. And this is a policy suggestion form from, I believe. June 2023. So

[38:01] yes, we will open our first policy, our public comment for this first policy suggestion form. Certainly, if you are here for public comment on agenda. Item 5.1. Policy suggestion form from native roots, referencing medical wellness centers from June of 2023. Please use the raise your hand function again. This is public comment, session for the suggestion form for medical wellness centers and their consult rooms. Last call vice chair Keegan. I'm seeing no public comments. I will close that session. Kristen. We'll move into our second element here. This is the policy suggestion forms from native routes. Regarding video retention timelines. This is a policy. Suggestion. Form is submitted in November 2023,

[39:06] and it appears as agenda. Item 6, I believe. Oh, sorry. Starts on page 31 of the meeting packet. We'll open this public comment now for this one. If Kristen wants to. Certainly, and opening the public comment. Session for agenda. Item 5.2. Policy suggestion form from native routes regarding video retention, timeline, or initially submitted. November 2023. If you're here to make public comment on this suggestion form, please raise your hand, using the raise, your hand feature and the zoom again. This is public comment, session for policy, suggestion form regarding video retention, timeline. last call.

[40:00] vice-chair Keegan. We have no public comment. Hey? Thank you, Kristen. So we'll close public comment for these 2 policy suggestion forms. Now. question is staff. Is this an appropriate time for the Board to discuss either these policy matters, or should that be tabled till later? Are this meeting? So just take the temperature. The board. Is there any interest in discussing either of these policy just in forums. anyway. Ever you heard anything more from Michael on Wendy might be able to join. I have that. and Kristen is not. I've got a hand from Kate, Kate, go ahead just just a question about. I know that last time we had talked about the the recordings piece and that we wanted to get Officer perspective on the 30 day thing, so I don't know if now.

[41:01] Sorry I kind of if now is the time to discuss that to see if she has any feedback or thoughts on that, or what the next part of this process was. So I'm sorry if I missed. Thank you for that reminder, Kate, and I think we'll grab off your kidneck while we've got her. So I guess the editorialize Kate or on Kate's behalf and correct me if I get this wrong. So, Officer Gignack, like, is there any sort of concerns that you have as a public safety officer and sort of responsible for doing these enforcement actions for changing this video retention policy or any considerations that we should keep in mind. Yeah, I've discussed it with our legal in house legal advisor, and I've even been talking to State met about it. And really our policies only 15 additional days than there's right now. So just means that if we have something come up, we need to really start our investigation quicker so that we can make sure we have video access? so it's kind of 50 50. Yeah, is the extra 15 days.

[42:10] Could it come into play in an investigation? Yes. But is it also a little bit easier for everybody involved just to mirror the state procedures. In this case I can see it both ways. So II don't have a huge objection. And just to clarify it. It's it's currently 40 days for the city of Boulder. Correct 40, and it's 30 30 for the State. So I think it's only 10 days. Okay. thank you. Yeah. I know that. We had talked about it last time and wanted to make sure that we got your perspective on it as well. I would just ask a follow up question for Austria as well. Is there? Can you recall any instances where

[43:02] you've required video evidence that was more than 30 days old in the last year or 2 years. Yeah, but it wasn't related to a violation taking place at the facility. It was unrelated crime that happened in the alley, and we needed their cameras to to help support or negate that investigation. Brian, can I ask a question. So, Officer, I just wanna make sure that I'm hearing you. I'm sorry to put you on the spot a little bit. But are you comfortable with this change. Well, I'm comfortable in the fact that we haven't had it impact us in a negative way. Yeah, it's not to say that if you know this change is approved, and then

[44:02] something happens, and we don't find out about the crime until you know day 35 But you have to set some limits. I mean, we can't say you have to keep the the videos. you know, for a year a year. so you just kind of have to play with what rules are in front of you. But, generally speaking, in your day-to-day you haven't 30 days. Feels like it's been sufficient. Generally speaking, there, it would be sort of outside an exceptional situation to need more than the 30 days. Correct. Okay, thank you so much. You're welcome. So I just wanna take the temperature of the board. Is there consensus, or is it worth? I'd be open entertaining a motion to direct staff to undertake red lines to or propose red lines to the building revised Code.

[45:08] That would reflect the changes in either of these policy suggestion forms. Tom, I heard you say something, but hear everything you said. Oh, I'm good with that. So is that a motion? I'm not sure I feel prepared to make a motion while still driving. I'm I'm moving, but not making a motion. How about that? Alright? Does someone want to back Tom up or or provide another perspective here. just just recognizing again that we've had. We've been sitting on both of these policy suggestion forms for 10 months and 4 months

[46:03] about. If I take over the chair for a moment and you can make a concise motion. I'm gonna get Ethan here first. Okay. you can go ahead. I will motion to amend the boulder Revised Code to align with the State rules. So this is for this the video retention? Yes. alright. So just would you entertain a friendly amendment. You, then would you entertain a friendly Matt? Yes, okay. So can we direct Staff to propose red lines to the bullet revised code that would capture reducing the 40 Day retention rule to 30 days Matching State policy

[47:05] staff. Is there any other clarification that you might need or ambiguity? Go ahead. Kristen. Hi Kristen, Changeri's licensing manager. I think this might be a good time to call your attention to agenda. Item number 7, which is the proposed process for policy suggestion forms. I know we haven't gotten to this step in the meeting yet. But this might be a good opportunity to look at that process and see if if that's something you're comfortable with. And maybe these are good suggestions to to start this process with. Okay. II like Kristen's idea. So we will revisit this. So. Ethan, I'm going to table your motion, but I'll entertain it again a little bit later, when we have a chance for get through this policy, suggested form process. So I apologize to Staff for

[48:06] that are stepping there. But we're gonna have a discussion about how to do these policy digestion forms here just in a bit. So that sounds good. I'll apologize for. Be premature. That'll give me time to polish it up, too. Okay, thank you, Ethan. alright. So let's close. Agenda might item 5 for public comments move. Now onto agenda. Item, 6. Policy suggestion forms received for March. So in the meeting packet we did receive a policy suggestion form for from brush baked this starts on page 35 of the web of the packet, reading packet. are there any questions? Feedback discussion? And again, this is on the matter that I'm sure Rodriguez just spoke about in public comment as well. So, Robin, go ahead.

[49:00] Okay, thank you. II just want to echo what I had said earlier about Boulder. Generally speaking, around drive throughs of any product. I wouldn't favor it for marijuana for a number of reasons. But I think There have been a couple of restaurants that have been denied drive throughs in Boulder, and the process was through planning the planning board. This one was on Twenty-eighth Street as well. It's where Alibaba's used to be. On twenty-eighth. They were gonna put some chicken place there, or something like that, and they wanted a drive through, and it went through planning board and planning board, said no one of the chief advocates, or I guess opposition groups was community cycles. Work on this issue was really just around encouraging anything car-centric business-wise. So they just really feel that drive-throughs are not appropriate for us at this time. And so I just wanted to give you guys that background information if you didn't already have it?

[50:12] Yeah, I I'm not hot on drive throughs for for anything, really, but but definitely not for that particular dispensary. I drive by it all the time. And it's a really busy corner as it is. And yeah. So that's my input thanks. Thank you, Robin. I appreciate that context. Are there any other board members with questions or discussions related to this policy suggestion form from fresh baked? So again, I will note that they added some red lines to propose red lines to the Bullar device code that would permit this as well as a collection of

[51:00] a petition signed petition with. Get to go these accounts of 10, but it looks like something on the order of a hundred signatures. maybe more. So I just want to acknowledge fresh bakes. Efforts to both collect these signatures, undertake the good faith. Red lines here and submit this policy. Suggestion, form alright again without prejudicing any decisions on this policy suggestion form. I think we're gonna close agenda item 6 here and move in agenda. Item 7, we're gonna talk about policy suggestion form processes more generally. Let's move on to agenda. Item, seventh year matters from the city attorney. We've got 2 matters here for both a process for policy suggestion forms. Hi, good afternoon, everyone.

[52:01] Kristin tig. Would it be possible to share to pull up the policy suggestion, form process and so that we can walk through it. That starts on page 86, the meeting packet. and if not, everybody can probably just follow along except for Tom, who's driving. and you're on the line, Christine. I'll try to follow auditorium. Okay, very well, alright. So we can take as an example. We can take the the one that came in from fresh baked so the way that the process that we're suggesting the process works is the the policy suggestion form gets filled out and we're gonna have the other form so that you can look at, but it gets filled out, and then it goes kind of back and forth.

[53:04] Between licensing and the company that's making a suggestion once it is in the form that it should be Then it goes to you for the first time just like it did today. And so today is the day that you decide under number 2 here today is the day that you decide whether you want to consider it further. and if you want to consider it further, then licensing and the city attorney's office will do an analysis for you in the process of doing that again. If you decide to go further, then you would set it for a public hearing for the next month. so that, or at least give individuals an opportunity and businesses an opportunity. To be heard at the next cloud meeting to either support. To support the suggestion or to speak against it.

[54:05] And then can we go down to number 3? So if you decide, yeah, you know what? We do want to at least consider it. We do want to put this for public comment. And we do wanna consider this for the next meeting. Then licensing, and the city attorneys office provides you a written memo that's gonna talk about kind of the historical reasons that we've had this whether the the change suggested would be permissible. under, for example, State regulations, Federal regulations, and we'll take into consider our ordinance. And so all of that will be would be included in that summary. It gets sent to you and licensing provides notice to the public that at the next meeting it'll be heard, and then if we move to 4

[55:03] alright. So then you get to kind of the second one. So again using the the fresh baked as the example. Let's say that you do decide. Yeah. You know what we wanna dig into this a little bit more. We wanna, you know, see what other things are are being considered in other jurisdictions, or we wanna see how it would impact your boulder. At the second one is when you would actually take comment on these proposed changes. Once you take that comment in, then you actually deliberate on whether or not to add the suggestion or the proposed change to an information packet that would go to City Council. if you decide. You know what we've considered what licensing has to say. We've considered with the city attorneys, offices, how to say we've considered all the comments from the public. We've decided we are not in favor of this suggestion or change. Then it stops right there and but again, if you decide, yeah, you know what this is a suggestion that we're gonna send to city council. Then the information packet gets prepared. The city attorney's office and licensing will prepare that so that it can be sent to city council as a proposal to make an amendment to the the ordinance at issue.

[56:26] Then again, then, now we're at our Third Cloud meeting. We're Number 6 on your screen here. All of that suggestion that we would be proposing to send to city Council. You're gonna review it, and you're gonna say, yes, this looks good. Please send it to city Council, or you know what we have some suggestions. Can you please make these suggestions before it goes to City Council? Once you approve of what you'd want to go to City Council then. In Number 7, we put it together, sent to city council for their next meeting.

[57:07] and Kristen take. Do you want to? Now? Sure. Yeah. Okay, so this is the new licensing, the cannabis, licensing Advisory board policy suggestion form. So what it looks like is the information that at the beginning is going to be filled out by the applicant making the suggestions. This is all the the what, the why, the when. And then what you're gonna see next is the portion for licensing and the city attorneys office. so this is all the information that the applicant would have to fill out. And then licensing goes in, starts working on it. And then using this based on what we just saw, will provide information about how the process is gonna work when the next cloud meeting is going to occur.

[58:11] Whether or not licensing in the city attorney's office gets direction from you to go forward on it, and it just has all the information there in this one document. This also, is where you would get just like I talked about. If if and when you decide yes, for this suggestion, we want you to do a little bit more digging. Give us the history of it give us how this might impact the city. Whether it would impact other parts of city government. This is all the information you're going to be receiving. And then again, this is just going to walk you. This is just the written portion of what we talked about in the process.

[59:07] Does anyone have either any questions or and we can go ahead and take this down? Kristen? Thanks. I do see a question. Yeah, thank you so much. Let's go ahead with Kate. And then we got Robin after Kate. Yeah, thank you for putting this together. Ii think it's great. I think the process makes a lot of sense it. It breaks it down into something that you know, we're obviously taking a look at it, and it gives multiple chances for us to ask questions and to get different information at each stage. I don't have any questions. I think it's great. I really like the the flow of it. I like the new form. I love just having a process documented which feels really good, so that the the city, you know, community members can see what to expect from the process. So just thanks for the team to for putting it together. Thank you, Kate. Go ahead, Robin. II wanna echo Kate's comments there, I'm I feel almost a sense of relief to see this process document and really appreciate the work and thoughtfulness here. My only question in looking at this would be, is it possible that the analysis that's listed in Number 3?

[60:19] Your document? Is it possible that that that could be done prior to the suggestion form ever coming to clab if it was done briefly. The reason I ask is that this as it stands. It's much better than what we have right now, but it is. It is a 3 month process for a petitioner, and I wanna be somewhat sensitive to getting people information, and I have a feeling that when somebody has sent us a suggestion form so far, all of these suggestion forms that we've gotten have been thought out and reasonable and worthy of consideration. I would say we haven't really gotten one that wasn't worthy of some consideration of this board.

[61:04] and I just wondered if the staff was able to help us skip that step. Just just would defer to you, of course, Mr. Ramirez, but I wondered if that might be a possibility. So thank you for that. That's certainly reasonable. The reason that we put it in this way is because we have a finite number of resources both in staff and in time. and so pulling those resources from licensing from city attorneys office before you give us direction on any single one that comes in, and you have to remember licensing covers all of licensing, whether it's alcohol, whether some of the the vaping whether it's all the miscellaneous licensing in addition to this. So there's one very small staff, and that's why, before getting into that, we did want direction from Cloud.

[62:08] Okay, thank you. And I appreciate a member nobles concerned here that like trying to be expedient about being responsive to these, I'm certainly mindful the fact that we'd have several public comment forms here that are aging, and I would like to see them clear, to move in some kind of ways that we can be responsive to public petitions. Are there again, just treating again. I also thank the staff at the think that I'm just echoing both Kate and Robin's comments that I think that I am very grateful to have clearly enumerated process. I should stay at that level just like process at at this kind of meta level? Are there any other kinds of questions? Feedback concerns about what's been proposed here with staff, like some kind of formal indication that we are all excited about this as well before we move forward with implementing this as a board?

[63:10] Or is there any other verification that we need to formalize this, should we just proceed, and understanding that this is those will be the process we use for public or policy suggestion forms going forward. Are there any objections to following this process for the policy suggestion, form? Hearing? None. I'm going to suggest I'm going to move forward with us with this process. Now. staff, before we engage with the substance of any of the previous policy forms. Is there something else that we you wanted to address? Discuss or address, or bring before the board? Or should we? Are we ready to run this process for somebody's policy? Suggestion forms? Yeah. Now that now that you are in agreement to follow that process. Now you can go back, have the ones you have the ones in front of you, and you can give us direction. Yep, you know, we as a board decide. No on the drive through.

[64:12] No, it's not gonna go any further, or you can decide. Yeah, you know what we want. Further information. Let us know. And we can just walk through that process alright, who's ready to take this process for a test drive so again, being mindful, I'm gonna proceed in the order of both the the having right asked for it. Step 2 first cloud meeting. More than that for all of these. Now, we've intake all 3 of these policy suggestion forms, medical wellness centers from native roots, video retention, timeline also from native roots. It can't strive through from fresh bait. I'm gonna just proceed in temporal order here. So on the first policy suggestion form from native roots for medical wellness centers from June 2023

[65:08] we've received this policy suggestion form. We've had a public comment on this. Is there? Trying to make sure I get this language correct. Does the cloud want to request that the licensing and to the attorneys office develop an analysis on these matters. And if Staff, who's already provided this opinion, and we've lost it in the sense of time, please correct me. But hearing that we haven't already done this step reassuring. Does the Board want to consider this first policy, suggestion, form, and direct staff to perform an analysis and research and bring that to the next cloud meeting for a pause, for all suggestion for regarding medical wellness centers.

[66:06] Ethan, I see your hand. I just wanna make sure that we're all on on the same page here. So with let me pull it up on the agenda here. with the policy suggestion form submitted by native roots in June. Are we now having this new process outlined? saying that we are now at step 3 or step 5. I think we're at step 2, whether or not. We want to direct licensing unit city's attorney's office to like. develop a research and analysis. Memo.

[67:08] okay, I would argue that we have receive that from the attorneys office. And I believe that's noted on the policy suggests in form. with a date of August seventh in the notes it says city attorney's office to provide review. August seventh. Alright. So you're looking at page 30 in the meeting packet. This is a section staff use only for this policy suggestion form received on June fifth, that there's a notation here for the discussion of August 2023, meeting with Cao comments and review.

[68:06] Thank you, Ethan, for that clarification. So we might have already received this reviewing analysis. I guess we would need to go check our august meeting minutes. I can do that for you real fast while you're doing that. Thank you. Kristen. So again, just the for folks following along at phone, we're just trying to make sure we're at the appropriate step that we've just. We'd step 2 or step 5. The other thing I would note is that we had a presentation from Med about the difference between the state changes and our current language, and then we also heard from Officer Igniak. who might constitute the staff response. Around this around this particular change.

[69:07] Thank you, Robin. So obviously, this was before my time, but at least in the information that I'm receiving, it appears that as the as a group, you have gotten information, not in writing from the city attorney's office, but you discussed it while you were on the record and got advice but I don't think a boat was ever taken to act on it one way or the other. I do have the minutes I can display them on my screen. That section, if you would prefer. Yes, please. As noted, it begins here. So the minute minutes say that there is a discussion regarding the June meeting policy, suggestion forum, striking requirements for medical dual license stores maintain private consultation room.

[70:10] Tony Froh Paralegal real work provided their staff research on smatter and reference, the zoning member questions. So I so thank you. To Ethan it seems me that we did have this discussion, and an analysis was provided. Again, that predates the cut, the process that we just agreed upon. But if we're to kind of follow through this process, I believe that we are at something like Step 5. So thank you, Kristen. For that background. Are there any disagreements with my interpretation there sod hand? Was it from Robin or Kate? It was for me. Kate, just. I wanted to mention that we had talked about it last month. You know about this this topic, and I think that there was some

[71:02] just discussion around how to to move forward with this because of the fact that it. It was intertwined with the the personal use qualification of the the land use code in title 9. And so there was some confusion on whether or not it could be separated from that or not. So I think that there was. At least my notes have it as we kind of weren't really sure how we were, could untangle it, or what we needed to do. So I think that there was some consensus that it would make sense to potentially not have bud tenders or or people giving kind of different advice, or even be construed as giving any kind of consultation advice to patients? And so, if that were the case, we we were kind of down this road of, can we? How can we do that? So I think that we are this one. I don't think I don't personally don't think that it fits snugly in our you know the new, the new process. I think there is some

[72:05] potential analysis, slash. drafting of language that I don't know if they could drop the language, except that actually is intertwined with title 9. And so, if that's the case, then it might require an analysis before we can go to the drafting of the ordinance. So I think it is kind of somewhere in between just because I I mean, I don't know from the city's perspective. If we think that we even can draft it. I guess that I guess that's a city question about, would you? Would you all draft a potential language, change to just the cannabis regulations, and then that would be presented to city Council with the caveat that it would also has to be discussed at a building and planning level. That's kind of where it just feels a little bit kind of in between and intertangled a little bit. Thank you, Kate. That's a really excellent summary kind of captures by understanding as well.

[73:00] I guess the 3 re summarizing Kate's question to staff like at this stage is following our process. If we wanted to, recognizing that this kind of falls between the jurisdiction of different boards here. Could we direct staff to include this in a memorandum packet to counsel or do we need to sort of take? Look at red lines first, or do we need to have some ping pong back and forth between the planning board and our board. or just the research that needs to happen before we even do that. Looking at red lines. You know, one of the things that we did not discuss is and so this is a very good example. So you've received some information. But you still have follow up, and you wanted to give us further direction. We can certainly do that. It'll take us back and then we would have to provide additional public comment. So today, the way it was set up

[74:04] in the agenda under Number 5 was to already take the public comments for those policy suggestions. So if you are not ready to vote one way or the other, if you want to send us back with additional research to do for you, we can certainly do that just now. It would take another month to provide additional notice and public comment. Thank you, Mr. Ramirez. Kate. I see your hand. But yeah, I was just gonna ask whether you know, we we could take a vote to say that. Yes, we want to move forward with this. I. But how that gets untangled is on on the city staff side, because if the board agrees that we want to move forward with it, then it is then city staff's kind of you know, prerogative to figure out how to how to do that, or how to draft that for council. So if that's the case, I think that that makes more sense than to ping it back

[75:04] to have to come back, because I think that we gave public comment. And we've been doing this August, and then last month. And now this month I think that in the interest of moving things along that would be my my hope or my suggestion. I really like Kate's idea. Ethan. I see your hand. I also do you want to just call your attention to the desires that are expressed in the suggestion form. To remove the requirement for a consultation room doesn't necessarily encapsulate their suggested policy. for suggestion to strike the rules. 6, 14, 7. That covers a lot more than just the consultation room. So that's

[76:06] caregiver services, including health treatments, therapy. physical therapies, massage, acupuncture like the rules that they're suggesting be stricken. Don't exactly align with just the desire to remove consultation rooms, so that. you know, like everyone's saying there's a lot there that's gonna need to be separated. and that suggestion form. I think, is kind of asking for 2 different things. One of them, I think, is a little bit more actionable than the other. Specifically, the consultation rooms, which. like we have said in previous discussions, would align more with the States rules. Ethan, since you sounds like you maybe have this code up in front of you, can you? Just for the record state is like or identify what part of the code references, consultation rooms at all? What section does

[77:05] from the State, or the Brc. From the Brc. that would be title 6, chapter 14, section 7. Subsection, 8 parts 2 and 3. In addition to title 6, chapter 16, section 7. Subsection G. Part 3. Everyone got that. Excuse me, Member Daniel, did you say? Section 8 or Section H. H. As in Hotel H. Thank you. Now that I'm done making Ethan play. Remember Daniel play as a as a lawyer, I want to make Member Green Role play as a lawyer here, like as a medical practitioner like in this kind of space what perspectives concerns you have about these changes, or as the impact your colleagues, your practices, your patients.

[78:03] as far as we're specific to drive through. No, this is just only for those medical wellness centers. Sort of special room. Yeah. II mean anything that's gonna promote the facility having a more medical feel, I think, would be favorable as far as more privacy. I think that there's a bigger conversation that I would want to have as far as medical versus recreational facilities, anyway. So that wouldn't be appropriate now. But I feel like that would come into play more in my personal feelings on this. Thank you. So just hurting cats here. do we want to direct?

[79:02] I'm just trying to get us back to or in our process form here. We're in our let's call this our second cloud meeting. Since we've had a public comment cycle here. do we want to direct staff to come back with a memo. That kind of identifies specific changes here that are appropriately scoped. To what Member Daniel sort of identified within our Blaine of the Bully Revised Code. Go ahead, remember, Danielle. and my suggestion is to solely focus on eliminating the requirement for private consultation rooms and consultation services.

[80:03] I don't know that we need a formal vote for this. But is anyone opposed to Member Daniels? Suggestion that we direct staff to? I'm back with red lines, and then research and analysis. On removing the requirement for consultation rooms and consultation services and consultation services. he's Member green making faces. So I wanna translate those faces into words. I guess I'm trying to understand. Process wise. We're just asking for more information. If we do that. Is that correct? Correct? Yes, but sorry, Mr. Ramirez, saying no at at this point, what what I heard the motion to be, or the proposal to be is for us to start the process to get you what it would look like to send to city council to make that change.

[81:02] and then we come back to you with the the proposed language. And you say, Nope, we do not want this to go to city council, or you say, Yeah, we want to go to city council, but we want to change some of the wording. So that would be our next step to prepare that document that would ultimately go from you to city council. Alright. That's staff. Need any more clarifications on our direction or intent here? Please look into it for us and come back to us, I guess. Is, is anyone opposed to that intent. We need to vote like, make a motion and vote. Is that, or is that kind of where we're we're already there? Why didn't know if we could just move forward with it like that, or whether we needed a vote. Yeah. So this is not taking action on on a form, something formal that's in front of you. So this is just you giving us direction. So as long as there's no objection, as I understand it. We would be preparing a document for your review that would ultimately go to City Council

[82:15] solely focused on the elimination of the room and service or the removal of the room and services I'm comfortable with that. Are there any objections to that direction for Staff going once like twice so old? Alright? Thank you staff. Alright. let's let's flex these muscles a second time. Alright. So we're gonna apply the process to the second policy suggestion. Form here from native roots for the video retention timeline. This is policy suggestion form from November 2023, so I guess my first, we should check in where we are in the process. We're gonna follow this process. So one has there been any analysis that staff on city that the city attorney's office provided on this one? Yet, Robin, I see your hand.

[83:14] Thank you, Brian. This was this was the one I was referring to in my just recent comment, that I do feel like we've gone through that process. That's where I'm at. Between the med presentation on alignment and officer comments. Thank you. Thank you. So here again we've had a public comment cycle. So we're currently at Step 4. The second Cloud meeting where we've received some analysis from previous meetings. We've taken public comment on what was proposed in the policy suggestion form. And I guess we're actually a similar step now, where we might direct staff to come back

[84:00] with an analysis. And proposed red lines that take into account changing the video retention timeline from 40 days to 30 days. Is there any other additional or different direction we want to give to staff on this second policy suggestion, formatter staff. Is there any clarification that we can provide for you at this stage. Nothing from the city attorney's office. Are there any objections to directing the city attorneys, office and licensing staff to come back with a packet of information that would be passed on to counsel that would include an analysis, some potential red lines. I'm seeing no objections.

[85:01] Staff. Do you need any other clarifications on the second matter. Okay, look at us just clicking with gas. so now so those were policy suggesting forms. We received a while back. And so now we'll move on to our third policy suggestion form that we just received this meeting. So we are at that intake. We're currently at the first cloud meeting. Step here. and so we are again would request that, like licensing and the city attorney's office, like, offer, some analysis and direct licensing to include this as a matter for public hearing at the April. But meeting. so is there any objection of directing staff to undertake research and analysis around the third policy suggestion form from fash baked, allowing cannabis drive through.

[86:07] I guess I'll speak up, Brian, if that's okay. Umhm. I hearing Mr. Ramirez talk about the licensing staff their workload, the things they have to do, and thinking about the context of drive throughs in boulder the fact that they generally have gone through the planning board, and also that there are groups that are advocating To not have drive throughs to be less car centric. I would suggest that we don't ask the staff to move forward if the rest of the board wants to pursue this. I I'm not making a big stink, but II think this for me. This is the place to stop. I don't think we're necessarily the right board and I recognize what Mr. Ramirez said about workloads so for those reasons, I hope that we can stop this process right here. Thank you.

[87:07] Thank you, Robin. Appreciate that note of dissent. Are there other folks who would want to make a case for proceeding with through the process for this? Kate is here? Yeah, I mean, I think you know. II hear you know, Robin, and and and understand in terms of the workload for the staff. I also think that it needs to match what the the community or the people that are asking for it. Are asking for to at least do analysis and understand what the what the city's perspective is on what the historical aspects of it are and potentially what the operational impact would be. You know, they did not. Just give us language and a policy suggestion form. They did give us petitioning. So there is some needs and desires at least noted. In this packet. So I would say that that I think it's worth the consideration and the conversation that would ensue, based on

[88:01] information that the staff would provide. Get it. Remember, Kunsten, Daniel Green. proceed not to proceed directing staff member Daniel. I do want to acknowledge the amount of signatures that they did receive and their petition. And I do think that it it deserves. Yeah, at least public comment to hear what the rest of the community has a say about this matter. Remember, Daniel. Member Green. I'm inclined to agree with Ethan in that way. I mean, I'm agree with Robin that maybe this. you know should kind of. and here doesn't really look like something we necessarily want to take on, or maybe pragmatically come from what I understand. But

[89:03] at the same time it is something that constituents clearly want to have happen. So I mean, I hate to add work, but at the same time it feels important to hear like more information about it. Because if I understood Mr. Ramirez. that would be the next step. We're not agreeing to anything. We would just be gathering information which might answer more. Robin's questions about like, Well, is this more of like a planning thing, you know, like, where does this really fall? How does our role actually come into that? So I'd be inclined to or in favor of the next step. And I'm still trying to get clear. And what that actually is green. I'll put member who's been on the spot spot. Yeah. I think the commenters have gotten more nebulous and undefined as they have. I gone further. But besides that I am, I'm

[90:01] by the way, I can't the meeting link is closed, so I actually can't get in on my laptop. So I'm I have my laptop open to the meeting packet, and I'm just using the phone. tell me exactly. I mean, Stacey was a little nebulous there. What? So we're just the question is, do we want to even consider this as a matter and like, ask Staff to spend resources and time and expertise, like exploring and doing research on this. but this is the allowing drive through. So do we even want to direct staff to like perform research and analysis on, whether drive throughs something that's feasible, and that we would then follow up with more discussion? Or do we want to just stop all discussion of this matter right now. Well, I guess I would go back to if the staff seems game, which they as best I can tell they do.

[91:02] Then it's not like we're deciding to do it. And II guess I would like a full analysis of repercussions. And you know what? What are the consequences of doing such thing, if if that's possible, to elucidate. And so II guess I'm I'm have to kind of agree with Ethan. And more recently, Stacey, that it's okay to investigate this further. Okay? And I will agree with Stacy and Kate, and Ethan that I think that both the combination of signature gathering indicates that there is a constituency that would like this matter to be this. That's more, I think there was a good faith effort for bringing this matter for the board presenting red lines. And so I would also be in favor of directing Staff to present an analysis of this policy suggestion form for consideration of future meeting.

[92:06] I'm cognizant that we've now stacked 3 separate policy suggestion form analyses like on staff. And so I guess the question is, staff is, is there you have any suggestions or feedback about how best to stagger these or prioritize these? We take direction from you. What you feel is the most appropriate, whether it's of biggest impact or whether it's first in time. I know that the the first 2 that you discussed are relatively old. So you know, we take direction from you. Go ahead, Kate. Yeah, I was just gonna say, I think that it would make a lot of sense to move the first 2 forward and have staff draft that language and and get those prepped, and then move the the following to the to the main meeting. it's gonna be a little. Is there any objection to directing staff to move? The policy? Suggestion forms 5, one and 5, 2 for the April meeting.

[93:07] and then the policy suggestion form from fresh baked to the May meeting. So do the first 2 next month, and then the most recent one in May, 2 months from now. Any objection to that. Brian? Sorry, quick question. I'm not objecting, but I just wanna be clear that the third. the third, the one on the drive throughs. That's that's at an earlier point in the process. Right? We're asking the staff to do less on that. That's a that's not red lines. That's like, number 2 on that. Yeah, okay, thank you. Okay, go ahead. Yeah. I was just gonna say, I and and II don't wanna speak for Staff, but I actually think that you know some of that. At least the recording one is gonna be pretty straightforward, but I think that the the drive through might be more more research than and getting that together in terms of analysis. But I don't. You know I don't. Wanna.

[94:01] But that would be my guess. So I think, putting those together, the recording plus one other one. And then sure. so yeah, so like understanding Robin's question that, yeah, II think we want to sort of move these first 2 through. Have those be considered at the April meeting? If this third matter with the drive through does require more time to research, giving staff that runway so that we can consider that ideally at the main meeting. or any objections to that as direction to staff. seeing none. Staff. Do you need any other clarification? No. Well, at least not from the city attorney's office. We are the fourth of March. Our deadline would be the twenty-seventh. So that gives us the rest of this week, and about 2 weeks to knock that out for both of them and and get that to you.

[95:00] Alright. Thank you so much. Are there other matters in the city attorney's office beyond policy. Suggestion, length. no other matters. thank you. So, posing. Agenda. Item 7. Moving on to agenda. Id. 8. Matters from the regulatory licensing office. Kristen or Kristen. Certainly. Kristen C. Did you want to kick it off with any kind of Updates for board recruitment? Sure, thanks, Kristen. So for recruitment has closed. We did have a couple of applicants. For the open seats on Cloud Council will be making their final decision and appointing to those positions on March 14, at the council meeting, so we should have

[96:01] an update for you all. At the April meeting. I think Member Daniel has some news that he's going to share with you all in the next part of the agenda. But we we were able to recruit for all the open seats on the board. and next on the agenda. We do have the memo template for the feedback to city council. Kate, did you have a question. Yeah, I was just curious about in in times past we would see the applications for the the applicants. Or is that something that we can find online or if I know in the past they've been in, in packets or otherwise for and by next meeting right, we would know who they would be. So maybe including just the ones that made the put made the made the cut to the board. Just so we have a little background. Yeah, that's a good question. So I believe these the applications are available online. And we can find that link and share it with the board. So that you have that information prior to the council meeting on the fourteenth.

[97:11] we can just send that via email. Does that work. Yeah, totally thanks any other questions about board approval before we move on. and please keep moving. Great. So next on the agenda is the memo to council. So, as we mentioned at the last meeting, Council is providing an opportunity for all boards to commissions to provide feedback and it sounds like is interested in doing so. It is. It's optional. But at the last meeting we talked about moving forward with that. So Staff has put together just a very basic template for the memo, just as a starting point to start the conversation. So we just wanted to open that up to the board to to look at that draft. Memo, talk about those items and finalize that because it is due to council by March twenty-twond. So we'll need to finalize that feedback at the meeting tonight.

[98:11] And for everyone's reference that template is on page 91 of your packet. right? So on page 91 top community issues or opportunities and a collapse find. And we can have some bullet points underneath that. And top items on clouds work plan. So the point of order, I guess at this point is 4 45. This next sort of matter here might just we're we're close to the end. Folks want to push through? Or do folks want to move into a break before we kind of move into a new substantive discussion just taking a poll? Do folks wanna take a break right now before we get into like this future work plan, or do folks just wanna push through?

[99:02] We're making good progress in time. is is Michael here by chance, dizzy? Not yet. I am monitoring the attendee waiting room. And I have not yet seen him come through. Okay? Well, when I when I asked earlier, I texted them, and he his case, was like talking 20 s on a list on a docket list, so he probably won't be here. especially if we push through. I don't know, Brian. Maybe we could just take a 5 or 10 min break anyone opposed to coming back 4 54. Tom's great. You're doing a great job, Brian. Thank you, Tom. Alright, let's take a break, and we'll reconvene at 4 54. Thank you, Krista.

[100:00] Alright. So picking up where we left off. We're on agenda. Item 8 so we're currently looking at proposing template and feedback to council for this is on page 91, the reading packet so thank you, Staff, for starting to outline this memo. But the kinds of 2 issues. They've started to frame out for us, like, what are the top community issues or opportunities like collapse, mind? And then what are the top items on clouds work plan? so I'll just use this as an opportunity to open this up to this first collection, like, what are the top community issues or opportunities on cloud sign. So can we start to bubble up some ideas. Let's do some group brainstorming little trust falls all that good stuff. but if we want, I'll I'll we'll even like pass the baton around. So if someone wanted to start with 1, 2 or 3 of your ideas like, what are some of the top issues or opportunities you'd like that are on top of our your mind as a board member.

[101:12] Anyone want to kick us off feels like a lot like being a professor again. and I mean I'll jump in, Brian. II would like to thank you. I would like to see Cloud continue to do something that I think we've done, which is to talk about mo monitoring for trends and talking about what we're seeing health and safety wise in the community. I've appreciated this board listening to presentations like the one on cannabis, hyper emis syndrome, and inviting in a variety of experts when we talk about current issues. That may be happening in the community. So I think

[102:07] you know. And then and then one of those things that I think we've tried to do is through our conversations, and is to try to just improve, improve, overall public knowledge and awareness. Of risks, benefits, etc., of this product in our community. So I think one thing we could say about our top issues is to continue to. I don't know how you'd exactly phrase this, but remain apprised of what's happening. aspects around cannabis and hosting experts and exploring those topics. all great themes. Thank you, Robin. Falling, Kate next, what are some bees in your bonnet?

[103:02] Yeah, no, I echo what? Robin said. I think that you know, like we to continue to, you know. I think what you said was kind of improve public knowledge, right and awareness. I think talking about different trends in the market. And and what's happening in cannabis and our communities, and hosting those experts to to help provide, you know, information for good policy. Movement. So I think that I would agree with that. I think we've talked previously a lot about, you know, youth prevention and and educational programs, and we only have so much that we can do in that space from our where we're sitting. So II don't know that I would add anything there, but I do think that it's something that will always be, you know, on our minds as we go through this process. I think you know. yeah, I you know, I tried to think about this about, you know the opportunities. And II keep thinking about you know the work plan, and more more about like these quasi judicial hearings and kind of stepping into that role as a board. And what that's gonna look like for us? And then also thinking about the advisory and the policy side of the board, and how we can continue to grow and and you know, continue to keep a pulse on those things and what that would look like. And

[104:13] yeah, I think it's it's trying to figure out, you know. Are there other studies that are going on, locally or otherwise, that we can focus on but I don't have anything explicitly. I do think that focusing on something that that is research based something that's policy, based something that's, you know, gonna make sure that we're still doing the work that the community, you know, requires at this board nothing too explicit, unfortunately. Thank you, Kate. let me put you on the spot. What are your opt 3 for community issues or opportunities on the clouds. Mind? Yeah, I just lost my. am I mute? Okay, this is really hard on the phone.

[105:05] hey, Tom, there was a new link that was emailed out. That's the link I used, and it said it was expired. but cause I'm going back and forth. I mean II didn't have the packet open on the laptop but but right now I can't see my mute button or anything. I can't see anything but me. As a matter of fact. I can blur my background, I guess. But whoops! Huh! Alright give me come back to me alright. We'll come back to Tom. Ethan, do you wanna take a crack at this? What are things that we should be focusing on here? Well, I guess I'll start with a question for staff regarding the hospitality recommendations that went for the previous Council. and if there's any process in place to ensure that

[106:06] gets in front of the new council, or if that is just kind of it's been pushed off the table, and it's is that left up to us to bring it back up. II can take that one. We didn't really receive clear guidance from council after that presentation on next steps to bring this back a so III don't have a great answer for you. I think. If this is something that the Board is interested in pursuing. That would probably be a good thing to include in this feedback, so that they kind of have have a heads up about that, and then we could look at next steps to submit like another informational memo, or kind of what that process would look like. But we did. We did not get clear direction from council when we presented to them last time

[107:09] I had similar question, Ethan. Thank you, Kristen. Sure no, no worries. but yeah, I think a lot of you know, time and effort. You know. Sweat and tears went into that, and I'd I'd hate to see it just disappear. so. And I know that there's a lot of potential businesses are are waiting for a decision to be made. and you know I think it rely. They're relying on us to to see that follow through one way or another. So hospitality is one. My other suggestion would be industry feedback reaching out and and unison with that also community feedback. Just reaching out.

[108:05] What does a community want to see? Within the next couple of years. What is the industry want to see within boulder within the next few years? And then my other big highlight is just Updating the Brc. To be more in alignment with updated state regulations. As well. Thank you, Ethan. Stacy, I know your camera's off. So if you're there, we'll yeah, I'm just on my mobile, like Tom now. But I'm still here. Let's see. So my thoughts, I definitely think it is important to get regular, or maybe even we could come up with a way to have regular updates, all say industry in general, but that would include, you know, any aspect, legal, public health, medical, whatever it does feel helpful, because when we are here, having these discussions often, you know, one or more of us don't know about some of those, you know, pieces of news that might

[109:19] at least affect our thinking so. It seems like that could be helpful. It seems like with, you know, council in mind. That would also be useful for them to have note of that in our record as well. You know what's going on, whether that's federally at the State level, locally, etc. I would support the idea of the hospitality discussion. I think we did a lot of work on that, and it kind of felt like it, just like fell off, you know. And so maybe somehow revisiting. That would be useful. And the other thought for me that maybe because of the space I work in and I know, Brian, you've brought this up already in the past. Is this question of should this board have crossover in this? Very

[110:12] quickly growing, I won't even say emerging anymore. Industry revolving around psychedelic treatments. You know, mushrooms just being one of that like. So as I've been. But that's there's a lot of that right now. That I am seeing out there, and it feels like as much as there is. It lacks any sort of oversight regulation, etc. Very much the same way, you know. this cannabis industry began, and as it's been there, there's been more and more, but that seems an important space. I don't know if that's under the purview of this board, or what. But just that question in general, I guess. Thank you, Stacey. Yeah, I'll just apply in here. Now that I share Robin's concern and like interested in making sure that we continue to provide oversight and tracking and staying up to date with the emerging science as it manifests through

[111:14] medical public health and other kinds of fields. Public safety. I think that shared the concern that many other board members have already articulated around making sure that all the work that we put into hospitality, that we get some sort of closure on that from council. So getting more clear direction from council, that whether they invite revisions to what we've proposed. They don't want us to consider it at all, or something else and then just building on top of Stacey's. Third comment there, that The space of natural medicines is like developing rapidly, and that our board is the closest thing that exists within the city of Boulder

[112:00] to having any kind of overlap with the the issues in that space. Recognizing that it's under a very different kind of regulatory model than that that exists for cannabis, but that, nevertheless, that I think that citizens of Boulder deserves some sort of forum to provide input and expertise on matters related to this natural medicine space. And so I think that whether that's our Board's mission expanded to include that or another board is included, I think, as a matter that city council should give us some direction on having heard all this. Does anyone want to synthesize. triangulate. improve upon in any kind of ways. Discuss more vice chair, Keegan. One thing we never did circle back to chair. Kinsman. Oh, yeah, sorry. Thank you. Kristen. You're not getting participation.

[113:00] I'm ready although some people have already commented on the things I was gonna comment about on. But I do wanna kind of keep one thing on the radar. because we had a really nice presentation about Jane. I mean, I know it's up to the State and and what the State calls things, but you know we are the cannabis Licensing Advisory Board, everything else at the same level. Well, actually, it's confusing. But you know the made is marijuana, but you know, in terms of be more inclusive. I think we've if we can. We should try to revisit that name. changing everything in our city language from marijuana to cannabis. if possible. And and so we. We touched on that at 1 point time, but we also yields it to what the State? you know, determined the language would be.

[114:03] II agree with you and Stacy about as as you know, because you and I met with the Naropa folks and I think it's worth a question towards city council to see what they are thinking about. Further direction. With respect to natural medicine, psychedelics, etc. I think we're in a logical spot to help out with that. But it also might be obviously, and a big new challenge, too. and and and everything's different in terms of regulatory, or you know, the whole structure. Everything's different. But I think it's worth a question towards city council on that issue. You know there's a news from last month that our Attorney General joined was like 12 other attorney generals asking for them to reschedule cannabis.

[115:03] and that's gonna keep hitting the radar, and I don't know if it's possible to get ahead of the game on that one until the till something actually does change, but think it might be worth further discussion. And and education by all involved. I think I'll leave it at that, for now. So just to clarify, to make sure, I captured chair. Kunzmann regarding State terminology being more inclusive away from marijuana to cannabis, and then, of course, natural medicine, and that what? That, what surrounds it is that do I capture those correctly? So there was only 2. Okay, thank you. Seems like there were 3. But hmm. no, maybe not. Alright. Let's know if you've come up with third time. Kate, I see your hand.

[116:04] Yeah, just trying to figure out how to consolidate it into like, you know, bullet points, or how we want to do this. And I didn't know if if if this idea of questions to counsel could be part of this memo or whether it which I know th right now, it's top community issues or opportunities that are on our mind. And then top items on our work plan. You know, the question piece is is slightly different than that and I don't know if that is something that we could request as part of this memo but wanted to ask the city staff if if that's something we could do, or whether we should talk about them as our focus, and then request advice within that. So just follow up Kate's question. I guess, like my question to Staff, too, would be, what might we expect back from council, if anything from this, or what has happened in the past? I struggled. We see lots of things, and perhaps Council has responded and has acted on our recommendations. The past. I recognize that but that within this kind of feedback.

[117:10] Mechanism! What might we expect? And I would also remind the Board members that, like the deadline for us to get this to Council is the 20 s. So, unfortunately, our meeting right now is like our one shot to kind of pull. Gather these recommendations. We won't really have a chance to workshop these and like, look at this again at the next meeting. So this is our kind of one chance to kind of get some of these through. Not the one chance dramatizing a bit. Are you? Are you suggesting like that? We could give, you know, a specific sentence at this point, and then talk it through and decide if we I mean the things that I heard. I don't know. III you know the thing that we discussed about monitoring, you know, emerging research and that sort of thing. I think that's something we're continuing to do. But I could suggest a sentence on that if that's helpful. But how do you wanna go about doing this? Because we are gonna have to agree, I guess, on what we're putting forward? I mean.

[118:17] yeah. I think Chris and T. Was capturing some of these things. I think the goal was that maybe she could screen share. Like as we. it's in a very, very brief, very, very shortened note, taking format. It's not fully flushed out. I can kind of give you an overview of what the recurring themes were if you would maybe. Let's do this. If you've got a word document where you've got this template up, maybe we can start to just like put some language to each of these, recognizing the different themes that we've each. II did have a a thought about that. I just wanted to know whether or not we could have a questions category of the memo. And then I do have some potential like language that we could add. But I just. I wanted to understand whether or not we would. We could have a section for questions for council, and if they would respond, or whether that's out of the table, and that'll change the language that we provide in other portions of this memo.

[119:13] I am open to having that questions to counsel section. I was just gonna clarify, too. The memo does not need to take the form that we provided to you. It can be in any written format that the Board desires. We just put this together to kind of get the conversation started, but whatever written format the Board would like to do, we can we can submit it that way. Thank you, Kristen. See. my suggestion would be that if Kristen T. Could put up like a word document that starts this temp there goes. Thank you. And it sounds like we've already heard from all the board members with different themes that are important to us. So we could start to try to translate that to

[120:03] the language. again. This I would encourage. flex those Buzzfeed muscles, and see if we can sort of capture. the attaching, the imagination of counsel, the way to get them to engage and respond. But recognizing they have no obligation. Okay. yeah. I just put together. 3 so the first one kind of based on what Robin had said. And, Robin, please, you know it kind of incorporates what you said, and then some of the other things that that other members is that as well. But to continue to monitor and inform ourselves on cannabis, research, public health information and studies, industry trends, regulatory state and federal updates and host experts on cloud to inform policy change is what I had for the first one. I'm happy to slow down and save. So what I need you to do is if you have the ability to email me

[121:03] after you guys discuss email me the final language. or I mean, I can start typing in here for certain. But I want to make sure I'm capturing exactly verbatim what you as a board. Kate. What did you say? Can you go back just a little bit? Can you read it one more time, a little more slowly to continue to monitor and inform ourselves on cannabis research, public health, emerging research indust industry trends, regulatory state and federal updates and host experts to cloud, to help inform policy change in Boulder. I'm good with that. Thank you. Yeah. My suggestion would be hey? As a set of them here it sounds like, so maybe we'll go through Kate's one by one. And so after Kate reads each one of these, we can like workshop it.

[122:04] Yeah. with so much conversation going back and forth. I'm afraid I'm gonna lose the intent of the yeah. I mean, is it? Okay? If I if I say them first because I don't wanna? I mean, unless you guys want me to just send them to her. But II had no, so my suggestion would be like, Kate. Let's like, just like you did like, read one, let's discuss it. And if we like what you're saying. you're okay to email it to Kristen to include. And then we'll move on to the next one. Oh, do one at a time. So for that first one again recognizing we don't have the language in front of us, but the sort of the general intent being that, like our ports, gonna continue to monitor the science and talk to experts and track the emerging trends in the industry.

[123:02] Does that capture the sense of like your first one? There reasonably? Is anyone opposed to that? I mean, I think you do have to have public health somewhere in that sentence. I think Kate had that. agreed. Yeah. no objections to Kate's first bullet point there. Okay, why don't you take us to your second thematic bullet, point second one to present the hospitality recommendation to the new city council and request direction on how to proceed any feedback on that. I'm good with that. I'm also good with that. Any objections? Okay, Kate, you're good on the second one. Go for 3. Oh, this one's gonna be less less successful.

[124:00] some of the Cloud members have interest in educating ourselves on psychedelic MoD medicine and curious. If the City Council. Has interest in us pursuing it. For beyond right? Yeah, I would workshop that into something like, should the scope of clouds advisory capacity be expanded to include other national medicines. I appreciate the rephrasing to a question, because personally, that is so far out of the scope for me personally. And but I but I recognize that it says opportunities on collapse, mind. So I you know, I think it's fine to ask the question. I do wanna come back to something that Ethan brought up, though, around aligning the State code to to boulder and you had something else, Ethan. I'm sorry that was outside of these as top 3. So alright, so grabbing great points. I want to get to those just want to close out Kate's third here. So like this third one was just like, whether or not cloud should expand to natural medicines. Is there any objection to like posing that as a question to counsel?

[125:16] Yeah, I mean, I just I would. I we're gonna get to see these right? Because I wanna make sure that once I get the email from Kate with her. The Board's fabulous wordsmithing. I'll pop them in so everybody can take a view, and then we can continue to work. Smith, from there that way. I'm not re-typing like 15 different times. Thank you. Thank you. Kate. Let us know when you're ready for more discussion, as you're doing the heavy lifting right now

[126:09] we're waiting on Kate. Robin, Ethan, do you wanna just go back and forth like Robin? You said that Ethan said something really smart, so I wanna make sure like Ethan remembers the smart thing, he said. Well, I don't know if I characterized it. But you did bring something up about aligning the code. Yeah. I don't. I don't know if I expanded on it that much, but that is. I think, going. If if we, if we do move forward down that road that will help to alleviate a lot of confusion that arises out of conflicting regulations that we see between the State and the city level. You know, these policy suggestion forms that we've discussed are perfect examples of that.

[127:00] I mean, maybe this is just a suggestion, Ethan. But you know, maybe we put down as one of our, you know, opportunities is that we are going to work harder, to be more responsive to policy suggestion forms. And those include times when people are trying to get the code to align. I mean, because I think there are some reasons why boulders code is different from the State code, but we should be more responsive when that conflict is causing a problem that for no good reason. So I do think we had this really great discussion today about a new process for these for community concerns. And maybe we could maybe discuss what you're talking about a little more broadly as a goal. I support. Yeah, this, this aligning local state codes as an ongoing

[128:01] or and element. We got new stuff coming in. Okay. I would also like to remember that one of the things that we do still have are the 3 are some top items on the Cloud work plan. I don't know if that would be considered with some of your items as well. Yeah, if you've got those handy, I know that's in the packet here on page 10 of the packet discussion topic, social equity transition to quasi-judicial role educational programs updates the latest research legislative rulemaking updates from state feedback from industry. but these are excellent ones. We should find ways to incorporate into our document here as well. I would argue. okay, so we have these 3. So we there was a fourth provided in that. And that's the desire to align the Brc closer to State regulations.

[129:10] Do you see that falling under the community issues or opportunities in clouds, mind, or as part of your work plan propose. I think, the case for work plan. But open to other ideas. I agree. Okay, I think it's more of a work plan thing, especially because we want to clarify that we're doing that as a way to be responsive to licenses concerns. But I would just separate those out, Robin. So I think they're both really important. So I'm just say that ensuring consistency between state and local rules. Let's see, we can start with that. Yeah. And then I think Robin's second point is important to capture here.

[130:00] Say it again for us, Robin. Okay? Well, again, II just wanna clarify that II don't necessarily think that Cloud wants to take on just a full force alignment, because there are reasons that boulders codes are different. Okay, so desire to align the Brc closer to state rec regulations. as you know. Consider requests by licensees, for I I'll go ahead. Sorry I'm so mealy-mouthed. I'm I'm so tired I'm sorry hee hee! Yes. and I think Robin's second point here, I think, deserves to be a second bullet point here it'd be being more responsive to policy. Suggestion forms. So what do we think about the rewarded number one on the work plan? Or are we wanting to move on, to continue to fill this space up and then discuss it at all? Items, work, plan number one that you just wrote there

[131:08] any objections or word smipping here? Maybe it's just opportunistically align the Brc closer to state regulations based on requests from policy suggestion forms submitted by the public and industry. Alright, I'm good, but I'm not that good. or maybe responsibly align. Sorry response of Yeah. Hi. you just have an extra line tacked in there. Thank you. I was gonna redo this. So responsibly responsive responsive be both.

[132:00] I would building on robin suggestion. I think that implementing the process that the attorney's office just introduced for us to be more. This is and end up being redundant. To be more responsive to policy suggestion forms. I would say that a pop item would also be for the cloud to be more responsive to policy suggestion forms. Unless folks think that's already captured number one. there's definitely less of it. Number one, more. Video, yeah. what about that? Through? Maybe. Okay. does that capture what your intent was? Member noble?

[133:02] So. yeah, I think so. Someone that brought up this transition, the quasi judicial role. I recognize. This is also discussion topic. So I think this is, I would move for this to be part of our workplace as well. Sort of like completing our transition to our quasi-judicial role. Kate, you have a hand up. Yeah, I was just gonna say, I, I'm not just to change one that we already have. But II know last time we spoke about developing an actual like annual work plan for cloud. And this idea of how often we wanna bring things forward to the council. And

[134:06] you know that I met kind of incorporated this idea for the process of suggestion forms and and updating council on our progress. And you know, quarterly, you know, giving them. You know what whatever it was. I just know that we had mentioned that last time that this there there's a desire for some kind of like work plan from cloud and like putting together a process of of kind of doing that and updating them. And so II didn't know if maybe that could kind of incorporate this idea to. you know. Like, look at this. The suggestion forms, you know, more closely to also evaluate the Brc compared to state regulations, and, like all of that, to say that our goal is to to create kind of a, a more streamlined process for providing updates and direction to city council, not direction, but providing like,

[135:04] yeah, I'm trying to trying to piece all together, too. And I'm struggling with kind of where this form that, too, cause II also don't necessarily like Number One to be honest. But II don't know, cause II think that II guess I am. I have a question. Ethan, about like when you say align like, what is, what does that mean? Because II think that the panel, the main line, advisory panel kind of did a very deep dive into analyzing kind of how to to better align. And so I think align is actually the wrong word, which is one I use, not you. But is there a better way to state what what you're you know, like there are. There's been an evolution right of regulations in in Colorado based on businesses and and industry stakeholder groups, right or stakeholder groups to to to change different things, and so maybe evaluating those things to to kind of I just don't II don't actually think that there is at least in my mind, an alignment issue. But more of a understanding of of what we truly are allowing and not allowing in bolder and if that is what the community.

[136:17] that there might be differences between the state and local code. We want to make sure that those differences are intentional, or have some sort of intent behind them. And it's not the fact that things moved at the State. They didn't move at the city right? Yeah. And just from my perspective, just trying to make sure that I don't know. The desire is to align. I think it is to from a boulder perspective. Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense, Kate, and I appreciate you. voicing that that to

[137:02] closely capture, I think the direction that we're wanting to go in. cause. Yeah, I think you know the the Me. D. They're frequently meeting with stakeholders. even at A monthly cadence at this point. and we see changes occur on an annual basis. So I guess that kind of brings up the question like, how how frequently. as bolder. reviewing those updates and choosing to act upon them. Thank. think for Kristen. I would just maybe add, like, change that closer to side response to evaluate the puller device, close code relative to state regulations.

[138:00] Yeah. And then maybe that first word through that's after regulations changes to based on requests. And Kristen. Thank you so much. No, not a problem. I just I don't wanna like muddy it so much with so much going back and forth. I'm used to be taking notes, so I don't want us to start typing and completely muddy it up. So I'm being very intentional. And when I wait to put stuff in, so I appreciate the the process. Tom, I know you brought up this and this is also captured in the matters for future. 5 meetings of things that we've discussed and presented before around the marijuana cannabis terminology. So a other board members have an interest in like putting that on our memo. Here

[139:04] was that question again. You just indicated like a a desire to continue to excise. Yeah, I'm I'm editorializing. But to excise marijuana from the boulder of ice code and replace it with cannabis. Yeah. revisions, I guess. Yeah. So we've discussed this in the past. Is this something that other board members wanted to continue to pursue. explore Stacy, go ahead or just agree. I would kind of put that way down low on my triage list. Personally. I get the importance over all of it. But I just feel like we have so many other things that we can talk about that feel at least personally to me, like more important focuses of our attention, but I could see the point of having that on our list just for me. It would be low.

[140:01] sure. I second Stacey, but would suggest maybe it could be captured through a broader scope. or a lens of from a social equity standpoint. Sure. So this is like also a discussion topic. So I think that my suggestion synthesizing these might be that for a top item and Labs work plan is to continue to engage with this to continue to engage in discussions around social equity. injustice in policy, making and licensing of cannabis, industry. social equity keep going. I'm sorry.

[141:00] Social equity and social justice on policy and licensing in the cannabis industry. Alright. So we got these 6 up here. Now as okay, Stacey, do you still have your hand up, or should I drop your hand? You could drop it? Sorry. I don't know how to do that. I'm looking. I was just gonna just similar to you kind of well on Number one, just adding, You know something at the end of the first one to say and bring suggestions to City council. I think that just informing them that part of our work plan is to come to them with suggestions. So that they are expecting that I think that it would just be a good addition.

[142:07] Look at the AI something to that effect. Kate, are you happy with that? Any objections mothers define scheduled. Well, that's what would need to be come up in your work plan. Okay. dumbfounded would be my thought. Other board members are there things that you would want to communicate City Council. It's not currently captured in our draft right now. Yeah. Sorry, Kate, go ahead.

[143:00] 5 k I was just gonna say, with number 3 on the on the top part. I would say. If so provide some direction. cause that could be a can of worms. Oops. Thanks, Kate. Robin, you were gonna say something as well. This is just a word submitting thing on the first point. I think. First point which one sorry at the top. Kristen so to continue to monitor and inform ourselves on cannabis research. emerging public health trends. Maybe.

[144:01] So. Do you wanna trend, slash research, slash, study, slash information. Because we do have industry trends right here. Why don't? Why don't we just say emerging public health information? They give me all of that. Yeah. it was so that people could select which were they wanted. And I can take information out here. This out. Yeah. alright. Go ahead, Stacey. and this is kind of just touching back on something Robin had said earlier with this idea is the local concept cause. I see the Federal and State listed there, and it's not so much regulatory as much as trends in that sense, because I think you know, obviously as a city board. That's of utmost importance that we're made aware. Or you know, we are kept aware and stay aware of trends in our own community, because they may be different than ones we're seeing at State and Federal levels.

[145:20] Do you have a concrete suggestion? What we can change in the language here? Well, looking at it. Let's see regulatory state. I mean, you could just throw the word local in there, regulatory, maybe federal, comma, state and local. And even though it's not just regulatory in the sense, I'm thinking so. Maybe industry or strike that word and change it to something else from regulatory, because I mean, the updates should probably be more than that. But we're already including public health and the other you can strike regulatory Kristen, I think. Yeah, that looks good, because that just keeps it more broad and encompasses whatever it is we feel is important to discuss at those different levels.

[146:10] Alright, we don't have to stay within 3, for each. Is there a fourth, you want to add would be open to adding a fourth here. Can I make one more small tweak on the, or suggest one more small tweak on the first one that I think will make it stronger. Sorry. This is a little bit nit picky, but where it says to continue to monitor and inform ourselves. Could we just say, to continue to monitor cannabis research, emerging health just and inform ourselves on? Yeah. Sorry, thank you. Alright. much tighter clear. Thank you, Gilbert Robin. Anyone want to go for 4 in any of these or expand to augment reimagine?

[147:01] I like it. Look at us where it's missing the document all in 40 min. Proud of us. I could not see it until I got on the computer here now. So III hear what Stacey said, and I'm not trying to make. Choose my words, mountain out of them all. Hell, but we've been writing wrongs in society in the past few years, such as changing Mount Evans to blue sky and I guess I would just add in that that clouds work, work, work, plan and number 3, maybe just add language social activities, social justice in policy, comma language and licensing. Or maybe even, you know, in parentheses something about

[148:00] removing marijuana, or something removing the word marijuana. I think like language could encompass that, but commit us to it. I mean. we did receive a attorney's memo on this in the past, that I may be misremembering. But some of this definitions, what marijuana is are in the state code that we can't really touch. But like that's. I think it's a good addition. Thanks, Tom, but I like this is like a so like we should be leading the state, not following the state, this is Boulder. Yeah. Alright. Are there any objections to staff presenting this to counsel as a memo? This language? Let's see any objections. I don't hear any objections. Thank everyone for your contribution to this.

[149:05] just to give us a share and save one moment here, so I don't lose it. Just give me a moment here. Whoops. Learn how to type. Kristen. Okay, that has been saved and shared with city attorneys, office and licensing manager. Thank you for your patience. No, not a problem.

[150:03] Alright. So. City regulatory licensing office. Do you want to close out agenda? 8 agenda topics, future lab meetings and updates the deadlines. So, going forward for the next month's meeting, we do have a couple of oh, I have frozen my word document so we have. The 2 policy suggestion forms going forward into the April meeting packet, I would make reminder that packet and policy materials are due. Monday, March eighteenth. Do we have anything else other than what's been discussed. Books have been the other agenda items they want to add to our roadmap here beyond our recent exercise.

[151:07] Alright matters. We okay to close out. Gender. 8 licensing staff. Nope, it's just the 2 policy suggestion forms for next month. I just wanted to let the Board know that I am planning a leave of absence that will begin towards the end of this month. Kristen, Tg. Will be acting as the club secretary. In my absence. I should have like periodic access to emails. But please make sure that you're continuing to reach out to Kristen. If you need anything. Excuse me or Roberto as well, but just wanted to give the board heads up about that. Alright. Thank you for the Update Kristen. Alright. Agenda. Item 9. Madison Board, members of chair and members of the board. Ethan, you had flagged something. Do you want to kick us off?

[152:07] Yeah, I had to make the tough decision to resign from this board. Some unforeseen circumstances have arisen at home, and these personal matters require a lot more bandwidth than they did in the past. and have kind of forced my hand. subsequently. I'll I'll likely be moving outside of boulder. This was a tough decision I could have served longer. but decided to depart now, so that the vacancy would not go longer than needed. So in this way. There will be adequate representation from the industry.

[153:01] Exit by exiting. At this time I felt that that was more important than trying to milk a few more months out of it. So I'm really sad to have to depart at this time, but it was an honor serving with all of you a really valuable experience. And I wish you all the best. Well, Ethan, that's on behalf of the board. I just wanna express my gratitude for all the work and expertise and like attention to detail. You've brought, like everything, part of this, and so thank you for your time and service, and like we wish you all the best, and appreciate you being proactive about timing this in a way that ensures the integrity of the board as much as possible. As well. do you folks want to comment? Yeah, I mean, I just echo that right. I think. Really great to have you on the board really great in terms of your demeanor, and your addition to the to the board. I think that it was a good it's a good kind of balance of of things, and as a stakeholder group.

[154:09] You know they'll definitely miss you. I hope that you know things are okay on in your world. And I mean, obviously, you have to make decisions that are right for you. So maybe a a hard decision, but an easy one, too. But yeah, I wish you all the best in the future, and just great seeing with you. Get with you or seeing you again and working with you in a different capacity. It's really cool. So all the best. Thanks, Kate. I'm sure it won't be the last. You know, Ethan, I've really appreciated your thoughtfulness on the board and ability to engage on things that on all aspects of all issues. I've I've appreciated you being here. I'm I'm sorry you're gonna you have to go. But thank you. Thank you. Alright. Waiting

[155:01] waiting for Stacey to see if she wants for a time. Okay, well, I would echo what everyone else said, and we'll miss you and it, I wish you great luck on everything that you just described. And if you know you are gonna be in Boulder, we still never have that coffee. I'm hoping we could still do that. Someday, yeah, most definitely we can circle back to that. Yeah. But thanks so much for your service, and I know your insight is always invaluable, and we'll miss you, and we hope that somebody else will be able to fill the shoes. Find out about that soon. and I'll chime in. Thank you for all your work, Ethan, you've been great, and I totally get the complexities of family, and how that might need to draw you away. So best of luck, getting through everything. You have to thank you for all your work here.

[156:03] appreciate you all. It's been an honor. I just one last matter. So I indicated this already to Staff, but I wanted to sort of like, bring this before the board, and then just to have them give a more formal direction to staff. But I would just. My proposal is that I would like Staff to be able to present at some sort of regular frequency, like updates on sales data. Staff has already started to identify. Some data that's already public around sales tax revenue. But whether this. my thinking was that this could be modeled in a way that's similar to what Officer Gignac does with sort of the updates on her side of just like enforcement actions. I would be interested, like getting updates from city staff about the number of sales or sales, tax revenue or number of licenses. If those numbers are changing month to month or quarter to quarter it. I open it up back to the board like what would seem like

[157:08] this is appropriate. Ask, is there kinds of data you'd be interested in tracking over time. My interest in this is that The industry was operating under one slope of like sales going up for a long time, and that slope is started reversing since about 2022. And it's causing a lot of pain, and I think that has are really kinds of profound downstream consequences for the city in terms of budgeting and sort of the ways like the this tax revenue date is like used to support other kinds of programs. I think it's something worth tracking over time. or board members. Is there any other kinds of directions or questions you might have or want to like. Ask Staff to consider and providing some kinds of regular monthly or quarterly updates on sales or other kinds of data.

[158:05] Yeah, I mean, I think it's a great idea. I think that II would just need some more time to think about potentially what that would be. But I think. yeah, I yeah, curious to see what what information would be provided staff. Is there any clarifications that we can provide about this request for direction. So I'm happy to chime in and kind of give the board an overview of what information we have available to us. So the city already prepares a monthly revenue report that shows trends in marijuana sales tax revenues. So that's something that we could provide on a monthly basis in your packet. We also have a licensing database that allows us to run reports on licenses that are issued.

[159:00] so we could also provide like an update on the number of licenses, or like a an abbreviated licence list something along those lines. So those are 2 2 data points that we we could easily provide to the Board about something that you were interested in. I would be ashamed both. So I think that'd be a great place to start. I don't know if this needs to be a formal motion, but like, if there's any objections to staff providing updates on both sales and license numbers, are there any objections to staff providing those updates on some monthly or quarterly basis. Brian? I don't have any objection to getting the reporting. I'd be interested to see the the information, too. But I would just really remind the Board that there are many aspects of what's happening on the ground for different people in our community that are not easy to monitor. And we don't have context sometimes for what's happening. I mean, there's a theory out there among some of the folks that I talked to that legislation passed in 2021 that really tightened up the medical card for 18 to 21 year olds, and tightened up purchasing limits, for those folks has had an impact

[160:19] on industry sales, but there's no way to monitor that. There's no way to see that we talked to the the cannabis, hyper emissions folks who came in and gave us a presentation. But we know that there's no hospital code, for instance, at the hospitals that track. What's happening in the emergency room? So I'm II hope I'm not going off upon too much of a tangent. I'm fine with getting reporting on sales numbers. But I would just really urge the board that we keep having people come in and talk to us to provide context that is not formally or well tracked in the community. Yeah. Understood and completely agree with those sentiments. And that importance, Stacy, is your hand.

[161:03] I'm just curious, Robin. Do you have any ideas on ways that you know we could do some of that? Or are you just more suggesting, like, we want to keep this on the radar, even though we don't have those formal measures like we do in sales. Yeah, it's a really tough one, Stacy, I think. For for instance, cannabis, hyper emissions in hospitals. Again, that code has not come through yet, although the the medical group at the State is working on it, that would be one mechanism. But it's developing on some of these other things. They're really really hard to track and so again, having experts come in, I think, is the best way for us to make sure that we are, have our hand, our fingers on that pulse that makes sense. Thank you. Staff, on this matter. Is there any other direction or clarification you need? Or is, are there any objections to staff pursuing regular updates?

[162:09] Alright. just to confirm the capture that I have? Is the Monthly Revenue Report. Once it becomes available. and then an abbreviated list of licenses by type. Is that correct? And I think needs to be a list of probably should be like a number of licenses by type, or something like that. Yeah. Stacy has her hand up. But did you clarify? That's an old hand. Sorry like you couldn't figure out something on the mobile on the Mobile. I can't, it said. It doesn't say my hand just raised. Still sorry that I don't know. I'm good. Okay. alright, that's all I had for my matters. Do other board members of matters. I just have one other thing, Brian. We had this nice presentation today on the neighborhood needs and desires petition process. And I thought we might come back to that. I could. I would really love to see that because I do think that's an input from the community that could be potentially valuable to the process. I didn't suggest that we added it, add it to the work plan, but I just wondered if we could take that

[163:23] temperature on the board to see if that's something we could put in process in a similar way to the policy suggestion forms. what's the concrete? Ask Robin. The concrete ask would be, maybe a motion would be something along the lines of moving to see, to advise the city council to add a neighborhood needs and desires, petition requirements similar to the requirements of the beverage, licensing authority for new retail marijuana and marijuana grow license applications. we're just trying to think how best to handle this with

[164:00] should rob and submit those like a policy suggestion form. It seems like a really substantive kind of thing that I want to make sure that gets a full hearing. Or should we after like or well thought out position here in some other kind of way? Hey? I was, gonna I mean, if the State, if the city wants to answer. First, I wait. We could work within a policy suggestion framework. Rob, would you be comfortable with submitting that through a policy suggestion framework? Okay, thank you. And my question was was, follow up to that like that. am I? Is it not correct that we were planning on doing that through the the hearing, the needs and desires is not part of the requirement moving into the quasi judicial hearings. I thought that was part of what we were requiring. Is that not? Wasn't that in the? It wasn't in the rules of. I think we made the suggestion that if hospitality went forward that that would be included.

[165:04] So this would be a change for just regular apps. I see you're lit up. Yeah, Robin answered the question. It was a recommended change as part of hospitality, but if you wanted to require it for all license types, it would require a code. Change any other clarifications. Matters alright. I will entertain a motion from Ethan for adjournment motion to adjourn. Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Robin, for the second meeting is adjourned at 60'clock. Exactly. Thank you. Board members. Thank you, Ethan, for your service. Thank you, Staff, for all your support. We'll see you all in April. Thank you. Everyone especially. Thank you, Brian. Thanks everyone. Thanks, Brian.