May 5, 2025 — Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:02] Alright. Welcome to the May 5.th cannabis licensing, May 5, th 2,025 cannabis licensing and Advisory Board meeting, and It says it's I just realized it's hybrid. How many people are in. So it was hybrid until no one was able to show, and it was changed to virtual for the email that was sent out. I mean, I just see the agenda still, says hybrid. So. Yeah. Well, the agenda had already been published. Yes, so go. Let's go ahead and start with the instructions for virtual meeting and rules of decorum. Thank you. Good morning. The city is engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives

[1:12] more on this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found at the web link you have 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 this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. Participants are required to sign up to speak, using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to do, to speak online.

[2:13] Kristen. I think I think the Board member, Jacques Decallo, has joined, but that he just needs to be oh, there he is, great. He is, and Mr. Decallo is an ex officio member. Okay. One moment, let me add him in. Hey, Kristen? He, coming through very garbled. Yeah, you are. Yeah. Apologize. My connection is a little spotty as well. Thanks for letting me in, though. Okay. I apologize. How about now? That's better. It sounded like you had a very bad cold. Oh, well, it's not too far off. Okay. And you also said Good morning. But besides that. Good morning morning. All right. We can go ahead and get started.

[3:00] All right. You wanna do the member roll call. Yes, I do. One moment. Here. I've got way too many tabs open at the moment. Story of our lives. Okay, member, roll call, member Foster. Present. Member Keegan. Present. Amber, koontzman. Present. Member, noble. Present. And ex officio member da Kahlo. Present. Chair. Kunzman, we have a quorum. Okay. Moving on to agenda. Item number 2. General public comments to the board. Public comments will be limited to 3 min per speaker. If we do have any public speakers for just this item on the agenda today? I will put a Google 3 min timer on the screen. If you are here to provide general public comment. Please raise your hand using the

[4:06] feature at the bottom of your screen, noted as raised hand. Do we have any funny for general public comment. Again, this is a call for general public comment. Please utilize the raise hand feature. and we will call on you. Chair. Kunzman. I'm seeing no one for general public comment to the Board. Okay, so it's time to go on to do. Item number 3, public hearing and consideration of the. Oh, yeah, I'll I'll go ahead and call that for you. Chairman. Alright. Thank you. Thank you. Agenda. Item number 3, public hearing and consideration of an application filed on February 21, st 2025 from the Dandelion, Llc. Doing business as the Dandelion, 1, 1, 4, 6, Pearl Street, Boulder, Colorado, 8 0 3 0 2 bright star Llc. As 67% owner

[5:09] with Peter Baylin. No nob as 100% owner of bright Star, Llc. Joshua Nathaniel Ginsberg, with 15.3 4% ownership, Rhett, Daniel Jordan with 13.3 4% ownership Jonathan Board, chief executive officer with 2% ownership, and James Michael Krieger with 1.3 2% ownership, and Shannon, Maria Pusinski, with 1% ownership, with a business mailing address of 3,150 South Sheridan Boulevard unit one, Denver, Colorado, 8, 0 2, 2 7 for a new co-located marijuana Medical Wellness Center. We do have several people in the room today as panelists. if you could please indicate on who would be speaking by raise using the raise hand function. If you will all be speaking, you can have more than one also, obviously.

[6:12] and I will start promoting you now. Okay, I think we do have everybody that raised their hand to be promoted to speak. I will have to one by one swear you in, unless you are appearing as an attorney on behalf of this applicant. If you are appearing as an attorney on behalf of this applicant.

[7:05] please raise your hand and enter your appearance, Miss Potter. Hello, and good afternoon. My name is Tanya Potter. I am the assistant general counsel for Native Roots, Cannabis Co. Including the Dandelion, Llc. And boulder. Rx. Llc. And I will be here, be appearing on their behalf. Perfect. Thank you, Tonya and I will go around and just call on you individually. Liz, would you unmute? Please? Okay, I'm gonna ask you to raise your right hand and repeat after me. I state your name. I liz zukowski. Please spell your last name. ZUKO WSKI. Do solemnly swear or affirm.

[8:01] Do solemnly swear or affirm. The testimony you're about to give today. The testimony you're about to give. I'm about to give today. Is true and correct. Is true and correct. Alright. Thank you, Liz Chad Ricketts, please unmute. Can you raise your right hand and repeat after me? I state your name. Hi Chad, Ricketts. Spell your last name. Please. RICK ETTS. To solemnly swear or affirm. Do solemnly swear or affirm. But the testimony I am about to give. That the testimony I am about to give. Is true and correct. Is true and correct. Thank you, Chad Erin, which he's on mute. Kristen before you go any further. Can you readjust your mic. Is it still.

[9:00] Yeah. I apologize. Oops without it. How about now? Is that better? Nope. I apologize. How about now? Okay, can someone say something to see if I can hear you? Because I now can't hear you. You sound, good. Okay, thank you. It's going to be coming through my audio. I don't quite know what's going on with this. So I do apologize. Where was I, Erin Erin? Would you please raise your right hand and repeat after me?

[10:12] I state your name. I Erin spies. Please spell your last name. SPIE s. Do solemnly swear or affirm. Do solemnly swear or affirm. That the testimony I am about to give. The testimony I'm about to give. It's true and correct. It's true and correct. Okay, I did see we had a couple of others. Miss Potter, that had joined, and then are no longer in the queue. Do you know, if you had people leave. I am not sure if we had anyone leave. I do believe our CEO and one of the owners you named John Board, has joined merely to observe, not to testify. Okay, all right, I apologize. Thank you.

[11:05] Just a note to both the applicant and the board. You did receive an amended preliminary findings report as a separate email attachment that was also made publicly available prior to the hearing last week. Chair Kunzman, I'll turn it over to you. Okay, let me get my correct screen up here. I may not be looking at the camera because I'm looking at my other screen. So I apologize to those that are looking for that eye connection. But I hereby call or hearing to order, as the review of the licensing application submitted by the submitted by application of applicant, the Dandelion, Llc. Doing business as the dandelion

[12:00] could. The licensing clerk read the matter into the record. Again. Public hearing and consideration of an application filed. February 21, st 2025 from the Dandelion, Llc. Doing business as the dandelion, 1, 1, 4, 6, Pearl Street, Boulder, Colorado, for a new co-located marijuana. Medical Wellness Center. Okay. The licensing division and applicant are hereby admitted as interested parties for the proceeding. Were there any persons who filed a written entry of appearance. No chair kunsman, no written entry was filed. Okay. I don't. I guess I don't need to read the next line that there's nothing for them to object to. If there wasn't, if no one filed or written entry of the parents. This is a public hearing before the Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board of the City of Boulder to determine whether or not the applicant, the application of the applicant, the dandelion Llc. Doing business as the dandelion

[13:06] for a co-location of a medical wellness center into an existing recreational dispensary. A century license shall be granted or denied. This. This hearing is conducted pursuant to the city of Boulder ordinances, laws of the State of Colorado, and the rules of the Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board of the City of Boulder. Purpose of this hearing is to take public comment and receive information, data and testimony from interested parties, in order to enable the Board to make the findings, and to reach the conclusions required to be made by law as to whether or not the license applied for shall issue. Interested parties are the applicant acting through the owner. manager of a business as well as the city, acting through its licensing division. The record is being made of these proceedings. Those who desire to be heard shall identify themselves by stating their name, spelling their 1st and last name, and stating their pertinent address, they shall also be sworn in by the licensing clerk

[14:13] before we begin. Do any board members I have, or believe they may have a conflict. With respect to this application. I can't see my board members right now. Okay. seeing none. Are there attorneys who will represent the interested party. Yes, I, Tanya Potter, Assistant general counsel of native roots, will be representing the applicants. Okay, this proceeding will have the following order. first, st we will take public comment. Second, we will hear us hear testimony from the city staff.

[15:05] and then the applicant than any other interested parties. Each presentation of testimony shall be limited to 10 min, unless good cause is to shown for additional time after each interested party's testimony, the Board and every other interested party will have the opportunity to ask questions of that party. Finally, each interested party will have the opportunity to rebuttal testimony. The Board will have the opportunity to ask additional questions of each interested party following their rebuttal testimony. Excuse me, following hearing the evidence, testimony, and presentation of evidence will close, and the board will deliberate. Although deviating from this process is not anticipated. The board reserves the right to alter this process where doing so promotes the fact finding of the board, or is in the interest of justice that said, are there any objections to this order of procedure. Procedure?

[16:06] Okay? Hearing none? Is the applicant ready to proceed. We are. Is the city ready to proceed. We are. And right now there are no other. Well, there are. Are we counting all the others as interested parties? I guess. Right? Are they? Is everyone else ready to proceed. Okay, we already sworn in, or you did swear in the applicant. Correct. aside for witnesses. Aside from the applicant, are there any other interested parties or persons who will act as witnesses for the for an interested party. I believe we've sworn in everyone. I think so, and we don't right now. We're not aware of any public commenters. but we'll find out in a moment. I guess

[17:02] the Board has the preliminary findings from city staff included in the materials? Are there any? Are there any other documents, reports, or other written materials? Any interested party wishes to have entered as evidence into the record. The applicant has no additional exhibits or evidence that we would like to admit at this time. We just want to ensure that the clab received the exhibit. 3.2 preliminary findings amended that Kristen referenced earlier, which was corrected for names throughout. Now you're asking me to go to the top of the thing. Is that what it is? This the The preliminary findings of report. Sure an amended preliminary findings report was emailed out to all board members as well as made public on the city portal last week.

[18:01] Okay, yeah, I I believe I I can't see a date on this. Email was made for. Today's date. No, it was sent out. May first.st Oh, yeah, there it is. Okay. But at 8, 45 Am. Yes, sir. Okay. Alright! Does everybody have the same. Version. Just checking. I'm just looking to make sure, Chair, because I don't see a date on the top of this one. I think. So. Right one. But I want to. It's over on the side, at least on my screen. It was sent individually as an attachment in an email. It was not re-included in the packet, as the packet had already been published. Yep, I've got it. Thank you. Lunch. Okay? I guess, since there's no additional documents, I'll go on to public comment.

[19:01] we will begin by taking public comment. Public comment is limited to 3 min per speaker, and is subject to the Board's rules and procedure and decorum of procedure and decorum reach commenter. The Board will have the opportunity to ask questions. There are any members of the general public who wish to provide public comment. If you are wishing to make public comment on this actual application, please use your raised hand chair, Kunsman. I'm seeing none. Okay. City staff testimony with no public comment, we will move on to presentation from the License Division of city staff. The Board has accepted the preliminary findings of the licensing, licensing staff into evidence. Do the licensing division, or any other city staff wish to provide testimony, or do the preliminary findings represent the city's position. Chair. Kunstman. The preliminary findings represent the the city's position at this time.

[20:05] Does the applicant have any questions for the city staff. We do, and apologies, Kristen. If we're a little out of order here on how we're supposed to ask this, let us know. We just wanted to be perfectly clear in our application. Did you find it to be complete and meet all of the requirements as set forth in the boulder municipal code to grant this License. We did with additional information regarding zoning, which I will turn over to our city attorney, Mr. Ramirez. Actually, I have a clarification that we did not the application and the request is contrary to the Apologies. To the ordinance. There is no written method by which this application can be granted. If the clab, if the board wishes to

[21:03] to discuss alternative methods by which it can be granted. The Board certainly may do so by asking questions of either staff or the applicant, but, as requested, there is no method to go from a recreation. Recreational marijuana sales to co-locate and add the medical. Apologies. Mr. Ramirez. I misspoke. I was looking at the actual application materials itself, not the zoning we do have in hand, raised from Member Foster. Is there any reason that I can? Just people who have their hands raised? I can call on? I'm assuming. Sure I wasn't sure. You said you weren't seeing all of your screens earlier. Got it now. Yeah, thank thank you. I just wanted to ask a clarifying question, Mr. Ramirez. So

[22:06] I see that it under d in the memo there are a couple of of these land use issues that are raised, and then some potential options for for the board. You know directions that the Board could could potentially go if it decides to are laid out. I just wanted to make sure. Are those the the deficiencies that you were talking about with the application, or or was there? Was there something different. Sure. The the ordinance is concerning the land development code. Those concerns the distance between the like child daycare centers and the and the business that's of a lesser concern because the business existed before the Child Development Center went in.

[23:01] What I'm referring to is the definition of a located a co-located marijuana business under 6 dash, 16 dash 2, which states that a medical marijuana, wellness, center or cultivation facility that held a license from the city on October 20, second, 2013, that is permitted by the owner of the building to divide the licensed marijuana business to allow for both medical and recreation. So this request does not fall within our definitions. That's what I'm referring to. Thank you for for clarifying that and and just sorry while we're on that topic. I noticed. There was some discussion of the the pending ordinance doctrine. And I was wondering if you might be able to just say a little bit more about that doctrine, and how that potentially would apply here.

[24:02] Sure. If city Council desires to change, and specifically for this purpose to change the ordinance, to allow recreation to co-locate with medicinal it could start the process, and under the pending ordinance doctrine permit the use that is being requested. Adam, to get your questions answered? Yes, it sure did. Thank you. Ms. Potter, did you have any questions on behalf of the licensing. Not at this time. Thank you.

[25:04] So. Roberto, I also want to follow up on Adam's questions, because I want to put it into plain English for us again, going to trying to pull it up here on the other screen. Part D, so just to make sure I understood exactly what you said. We, the businesses. Businesses are allowed to go from a medical marijuana business to medical and recreational, but at this point in time there's no option for. or it's the Brc. Is silent as to going from the recreation to medical and recreation. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay? And then on. Furthermore, on Adam's question about pending ordinance doctrine.

[26:02] I don't know if it I'm assuming this would be in your interpretation is the applicant, or is that? Is this application adequate? So that I mean, I'm I'm reading the last line of that paragraph. Issue 2, and you have it in front of you. I don't. By starting this process the city could allow the co-location now relying on the pending quote, pending ordinance doctrine on quote, which provides that a municipality may take action on an application for a license slash permit on the basis of a pending ordinance. So can you put that into plain English for. Sure. So let's say that city council says, you know what this is really, really old language. We want to clean it up. We want people to be able to go from medical to medical and recreation, as well as from recreation to recreation and medical. So let's go ahead and start this process. Get us a draft ordinance. Once that process is in place, there is a theory in the law that would allow the city to say, well, this process has already started. It looks like it's going to pass. So let's go ahead and give them the permit.

[27:18] Okay, and what would be all the steps that would lead up to that point. I guess, I mean city council doesn't act that quickly. No, it. It only requires city council to give Staff the green light to begin the process. Kristen, Teague or Alisa. Do we know if we have started that process. or if we have the green light to start putting the ordinance together, maybe rewat. Read what was on, but I don't think she's on, or is she on still? Sorry. Sure I am. Hi, everyone we are no I am not aware of whether or not Cmo has given us the green light to move forward with that. That wouldn't be caos. That would be a licensing discussion with Cmo and then once we get the green light we can start drafting.

[28:13] Okay? And I can guess. But just for the record you use 2 acronyms there. What are those acronyms? Cmo, CEO. As far as city manager's office. I apologize, I said. Cmo. City manager's office, and the licensing, which is kristen and Elisa. No. That that would be the licensing department, and then the Cmo. Would be the city manager's office. I'm sorry. And Cao is city attorney. City attorney's office, CEO, city attorney's office. Okay, just checking. Okay, so just to be even further concrete, this process of this applicant and application does not start that process. It's an internal processes that that with the CIO and Cmo that decides to.

[29:08] In theory anything can start the process. I know that we have brought this to the attention of the city manager because of this application. Okay, but we don't have any. We do not have what we. We have no objections from the city manager's office. We do not have anything in the affirmative saying to begin the process to change the ordinance. However, if you decide that pending the ordinance going forward, if you want to grant this application or request, if you want to grant it. then we can certainly say, Hey, we have this. Do you want us to begin the ordinance amendment process? Okay. anyone else with any question. Oh, I see. I'm sorry I take that back, Adam. Your hand looks like it.

[30:03] I beg your pardon. I I think Brian was was probably before me. Okay, Brian, do you want to go in front of Adam. Sure this is a question for city attorney's office. do we have any understanding of whether or not the Current Boulder Revised Code language is more strict than the State code, or or similar state code governing these kinds of licensing conversions. We actually did receive something from the State. Which reads, after careful consideration and reviews of the Med rules. regulations, and statutes, we have determined that COL. Would not be denied on our end. If Boulder approves the COL. The co-locate. So the State is basically punting it to you, saying, Hey, if you're good with it, the state is good with it.

[31:03] Good morning! Just to clarify that the the limiting step here is city rules, not state rules. Correct. Bye. Well, further on Brian's question, though what so med would allow that? But what is their current ruling cause? That's kind of what he was asking. I. Do not have a room. Their behalf. I could only tell you what the information that we received, and I just read that. Oh, okay. All right. So again, they're basically saying, if Boulder's good with it, the State has no issue with them. Doing a co-locate. Okay. Oh, yeah. Hey? Thank you. yeah. And I I think the state you know, I would say, is more permissive here, because there are a few restrictions on location in the in the State code, mainly distance to a to a school. I think it usually is. But,

[32:04] you know, the State would issue a brand new medical or retail license. So I think this is more of a you know. As the the letter from the State apparently indicated. I think this is more of a boulder local issue than a than a state issue. I I was wondering if if Staff knew, and then then I'd have to ask the applicant if there was ever a medical you know, back when when there were medical marijuana centers before we had retail if there was ever a Medical Store medical Center at that location. But I guess I was going to ask Staff if that potentially would change the analysis. If there had formerly been a medical license at that that location prior to converting to retail. or we could ask the applicant, because if there was never a medical store there, anyway. Maybe it wouldn't. Maybe it wouldn't matter.

[33:04] Staff would have to go back into our archives to find any of that information. May I? Yeah, please do. This is a fact finding. Thank you. I appreciate the grace there. 1st of all, I did want to clarify. The Med. May use Col in a different context. They have a different application that we submitted to them called a change of location, and we are trying to move the medical license. Previously, at 8, 45 walnuts, which is under the Dandelion Llc. To 1146 Pearl Street, so they may be using co referencing the change of location application that was submitted to them.

[34:01] Also a point of clarification here, there, to my understanding and belief, I have not been at native roots but 7 years. However, it's my understanding that before that was a medical license here, at 1146 Pearl streets, under the same boulder, Rx. Llc. Entity, which later converted to rec. Miss Potter. What was that address on Walnut. 8, 45, Walnut Street. Okay. And Robin, do you have a question. Okay. I think the city city's document has 8, 54, walnut. Oh! But my question is, is that this so you're saying? Sorry, Miss Potter, that this this is not a new license. This is a license that's moving from 8, 54 walnut or 8, 45. I know. To.

[35:00] It looks like I've got it up on my screen. It's 8, 45. I got a photo of it. Okay. it's 1 reference in the document. This is not a new license. This is just a license that's moving from one location to another. Is that right. Correct Ms. Noble, and at the risk of stepping on our own testimony here later. That was what we were told to do by Ms. Changaris, when we approached her in late 2024 was that we could submit a change of location to the Med. Licenses are quite expensive these days for a new one. and the Med. Was willing to just let us transfer from one location to another, and but there wasn't a similar process in boulder. So it was Ms. Changaris's advice that we submit this co-location application to effectuate the same thing. Okay, but it isn't. It's a new license in for it in terms of the way boulder views. It. Is that right? Yeah.

[36:03] That's my understanding. Correct. Well, I should. You're asking Roberto. Thank you. You, Miss Potter. I would defer to Kristen Teague. As to that question. You're muted, Kristen. Trying to preserve the integrity of whatever audio I have left. So for the city of Boulder, for a co-located marijuana license location. We will then it we do take the full new application packet just like we are right. Now. Then, when we get ready to issue it. we do have it take on the same license number as its counterpart. so this will end up with the same if granted, will end up with the same exact license number as the existing marijuana business that it's moving into

[37:05] one will just be recreational, and one will just be medical. That is how the city of boulder treats it, even though it's a new application to go in there. It will. So it's it's 1 license. But for recreational and medical. License number for the city. So like, for example, we have a couple of located, we have it like 18, dash 0 0 or 10 dash 0 0 7 0 is one under recreational and then or medical. And then, when we'd have the red, the recreational, that or the opposite when we issued it because they're stuck together, we effectively marry them. So it's not considered one location. There's the recreational and the medical, but they hold the same liquor license number to marry them so that they follow each other together. Does that make sense. Yeah, it does. I mean, the distinction's important, I think because

[38:02] coming back to the child care center issue, actually think that's potentially problematic because we're trying to follow the code. and then we can talk about that when you're ready. Chair. But the other question I have for you, Mr. Ramirez, on the co-locate issue. When you started to describe that, I thought what I heard you say was, once the city's process is underway, then it makes sense to approve this as a pending under a pending ordinance doctrine. But did you also say that the Enriwa, I think, said this process is not yet underway. All of that is correct, and you can certainly do if you wanted to. You can certainly do a conditional grant. so you can grant on the condition that city council begins the process so that you could just take all the information you need. Now make a decision so that you don't. You wouldn't have to make the the applicant come back before you again.

[39:09] Okay, understood, but it wouldn't necessarily be a full green light. It would be conditioned. Correct. Thank you. Correct. So trying to get all of the information in front of us. Or did you want to say something real? Okay, 8, 45 walnut so Ms. Potter, or at representing the applicants. does that mean? 8, 45. Walnut would then close. and everything would be consolidated into the 1146 perl. That is correct, Mr. Chair. And I'm just looking at the maps. I don't know who creates these maps that are submitted with the the circle, the big, the 1,000 foot circle, and the 500 foot circle.

[40:01] 8, 4. From what I can tell, 8, 45. Walnut was a little further away from at least the child care place in question or in fair to a assume. I don't know if there's other ones, but. Without having additional information. I can't confirm or deny that that there wouldn't be additional childcare centers near it. Well, yeah, we I don't know about that. I'm just talking about the one that is, is it? Within the circle of 1146. There may be others, but I'm not aware of those right now. but you already had a medical license at 8, 46 walnut. Yes. 8, 45, wallet, so. Yes. Okay, let me go back to my

[41:03] script if I can find it. Like Kristen. I have way too many windows open and you're somewhere. Okay? So we did. We didn't have public comment. We're on I think we're still Kristen. Correct me if I'm wrong. But we're still on city staff testimony in response to that. that correct. That is correct. Okay. Does the Board do the we? Probably they probably did already. But does the Board have any questions or comments for city staff? Additional comments. I guess. Or I did not ask. Do the other interested parties in the room have any questions for city staff?

[42:02] Adam. Sorry chair. I may have missed this. But what? What is the childcare business in question? Where? Where is that located? And and how far is the applicant from it? If you look at the map that's on page I don't have page numbers can't tell you what, Page, but there's pretty maps with 1,000 foot circles and 500 foot circles. and it looks like the childcare is on pine. I'm fine between. It doesn't show me this, although it looks like it must be 12th and 13.th That sound right. When the page numbers are at the top of the Pdf. When you have it open, it is 21 of 64, with another inset on page 22 with a little bit. damage.

[43:01] Is, is my interpretation of the map correct? That that's on pine between 12th and 13.th Yes, it is. Okay. Any other questions. Adam. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else with any questions. Then I'm going to go on to the section for applicant testimony. Does the applicant wish to present further testimony or present further evidence. We would like to present testimony today. And so the way we prepared this is just to have each of the people who have joined today. Speak on sort of their areas of expertise.

[44:07] If you'll indulge us with that again. My name is Tanya Potter, I'm the assistant general counsel for native roots, including the dandelion and Boulder Rx. And one of my primary responsibilities is the upkeep and submission of license applications. 1st and foremost, and I apologize that we're this far into the meeting. Before I've said this, thank you to the Cloud for agreeing to have this special meeting today. We really appreciate you guys taking the time to hear our application outside of your normally scheduled hours. And so, as I mentioned, we are here because of this licensing proposal that we got started on with Kristen Changaris back in September of 24. Moving essentially, what we're trying to do is move the existing dandelion medical license from its current location on Walnut Street to Pearl Street, where it would be co-located with our our existing recreational license boulder Rx.

[45:10] We conversed, Kristen and I about these logistics, and how the Med had a way to do this through a transfer of location or change of location. They sort of use those terms interchangeably application. But the city did not have a similar process, which is what led her to recommend this co-location application, and we submitted it earlier this year, both at the Med level, and then to you all. and it's our understanding, the same as you brought up earlier from the Med, that they're sort of just waiting with bated breath on what you all decide to, then make their own recommendation, and again to reiterate what we said earlier. We just want to be perfectly clear. We are not adding another medical dispensary to boulder. It would be a 1 for one. We would close the existing location there on walnuts, and it would be then just the one location on Pearl with both of our licenses there without further delay. I'd like to turn things over to our Associate Director of Retail Operations, Chad Ricketts.

[46:18] Thank you, Tanya. Thank you. Members of the collab for taking time today. Again. My name is Chad Ricketts, Associate Director of Retail for native roots. I've been with native roots for 10 years in August and in the cannabis industry for 15. I you know, just want to talk a little bit about the state of cannabis in Colorado, as I'm sure most of you are anecdotally aware, we've had a lot of change in medical shopping trends over the course of the past few years to the tune of a 49% decrease in patients from the peak in 2011, and that trend reflects broader shift in cannabis behavior even in recreational sales across the State. But to us that change in members does not diminish the importance of medical cannabis in boulder.

[47:02] You know, there's people that use cannabis, and and it is a part of their daily wellness. They take it very seriously, and ultimately we want to make sure that we have access to medical cannabis for the boulder community it or it. This organization we're really committed to boulder. It's our belief that maintaining access to cannabis is a service that we're responsible for, because we're unable to co-locate medical on the Walnut Street location. We're actively exploring trying to do so here in Pearl. That's why, despite the State having this procedure, we're trying to take this route with you all. you know. Ultimately the state of cannabis in Colorado has led us to pursue this opportunity, because it's not fiscally responsible for us to have 2 locations in boulder at the same time, you know, in order for us to be able to provide the services we want in a fiscally responsible way. This option seems the most responsible for us. And it gives the opportunity to ensure that we're still present for those bolder medical customers that

[48:08] have been shopping with us since 2011. Ultimately we appreciate and respect your time, and hope that you consider that we are dedicated to being a consistent part of this community, and and hope that you let us continue that for years to come. and with that I'm going to pass it over to our director of public affairs. Liz Zukowski. It's Chad as Chad. Liz, before you start is. do you want to wait till everybody's spoken? And then, if people have questions for each individual, ask them after everybody has spoken, what would be your preference? Dandelion representatives. I think whatever makes sense for the club members, if you do have specific questions for Chad or Tanya, that have already come up, you know. We could take a pause here, and you could go ahead.

[49:09] I don't want to steal thunder, Liz, but I did have a question for Chad, and I can either wait until we go through everyone, or and I don't think we have a protocol, for you know. you know, do we do everybody, or do we do? We have everybody talk and then ask questions. but it. But also, you know. as Erin and I, you know Erin and I are the last 2 to speak, and if you you know, you might end up having questions for us, so it might be more streamlined to just let us finish. But it looks like Well, yeah, I was. I was hoping, Trigger. I was hoping to trigger Roberto's. yeah, thanks for for efficiency, and so we don't. Take up any needed time. We only allocated a very short amount of time for this. Let's do all the information, and then all the questions, please. Okay. Alright. Thank you for the official ruling. Roberto.

[50:02] Okay? Well, as Chad said, I'm the director of public affairs for native roots, and I wanted to share with you our commitment to community involvement and making a positive social impact. So at our company, we value a diverse, inclusive, and equitable society that welcomes all people, and our purpose is to enhance the well-being and happiness within our Colorado community, which began in boulder. We do this using 4 social impact pillars. So those are diversity, equity, and inclusion, sustainability, wellness and community and community is threaded throughout those other 3. We focus our engagement around social issues that are prevalent in our communities today to provide a grounding point for our company, to make decisions about key community partnerships and philanthropic giving and volunteer opportunities

[51:02] from addressing hunger to partnering with local organizations that uplift those who have been negatively impacted by the war on drugs and providing ongoing patient and community education on cannabis. We choose to invest our people and capital resources to help empower others. In Boulder. We're entering our 5th year of partnership with the Cu Boulder Change lab, which I know you all are familiar with, and they conduct research on the effects of cannabis on our minds and bodies. We're also a longtime member of the Boulder Chamber of commerce. We've held food drives benefiting the Emergency Family Assistance Association and have an ongoing partnership with Cdot and mad Colorado to provide education to employees, patients and customers to prevent impaired driving. We have a

[52:00] detailed 2023 social impact plan that's available on our website and our 2024 plan is going to be published later this month. So happy to provide those, both to the board. When you know the 24 one when it's available, the plans share an overview of the initiatives and organizations that we engage with across the State to improve our communities and fulfill our purpose. And I'm going to turn it over now to Erin, to close us out. Hi, there! I'm Erin, spice Director of Compliance and Regulatory Affairs for native roots. Our 2 dispensaries in Boulder, the Dandelion on walnut and native roots on Pearl remain some of the longest running stores in Colorado. It's no longer sustainable to keep a medical only store running, so our goal today is to add a medical license to our Pearl Street location so that we can serve both medical and adult. Use shoppers there and close it, and wine.

[53:03] as we understand from the cloud rules of procedure. Our goal today is to evaluate our license application in accordance with requirements and applicable laws. And Seti policy. As such we're happy to address any questions about native roots and our commitment to compliance with state and local rules in our boulder stores. Our medical license application includes an operating plan and a site-specific security plan for the Pearl Street location. Your packet includes a redacted version of those documents. Feel free to ask any questions about those plans. I'm happy to provide specifics or examples, especially in cases where the redacted portions are important for you to understand our process. We were pleased to see the preliminary findings report from the city licensing team which found our application to be complete, and that all requirements have been met. If the clab is willing to initiate a minor code cleanup, and the matter of the co-location definition in 6, 16, 2,

[54:02] for the addition of a medical license. we look forward to providing any information and answering any questions from the members of the clamp today. if our application is approved conditionally, we plan to operate our existing Pearl Street store as a dual licensed facility in accordance with all state and local rules, and to promote and build upon our strong culture of compliance and community and native root. We hope to continue building on this strong partnership we've formed with the city, and a commitment to the character of the town of Boulder. Thanks. And that concludes the applicant's testimony. Okay, let's see who officially is supposed to be able to ask next. does the city have any further questions for the applicants

[55:00] applicant and or the applicant witnesses. I do not at this time. Okay, Board, do you have questions for the applicant or the air witnesses? Robin. Thank you. Chair. Mr. Ricketts, thank you so much for explaining the reasons why you want to colocate the new location. I'm curious what kind of just give us as some sort of idea, what kind of sales volume increase do you anticipate from moving the customers you're serving on walnut to the pearl location. I'm gonna be really candid here. It's it's relatively low. I mean, we're looking to the tune of 20 to $30,000 in revenue over the course of a month.

[56:04] And and, to be candid at that volume, the location from which we are moving is losing money, you know. And and that's why we're having this conversation. We've got customers to the points made that have talked to you for a long time. Great people that that we're really proud of service, you know, and and ultimately, we're not trying to do this for the opportunity to gain extra revenue. It's more to save the money that we're losing, and to make sure that we're still present in this community for years to come. Well, I understand that, and I mean businesses are entitled to make as much money as they want. I don't have any problem with that I'm trying to understand in this location. That's closer to a school. What kind of volume increase you're going to see in the in the new space. If I'm honest, I actually expect there to be a decrease, I expect, as a result of the changes in

[57:04] accessibility with parking on Pearl Street, and just the the accessibility for Dandy. I really, I really do think that we're going to be looking at less patients, you know, it's more about making sure that those long standing patients have the opportunity to come shop with us that have good relationships. And I would say, too, you know, we're moving to make this because it's dual license open space, it will only be a 21 plus location. So any patients that we currently have that that shop 18 to 21 will not be able to shop in this location. So essentially, we'll be raising the age it takes to come into our shop and shop medically. Thank you. Can I? Can I add more to your questions, Robin? Please. So chat on that along that

[58:01] I'm sure you gave thought to consolidating businesses at the 8 45 location, which I don't know. you know whether that's within a thousand feet of a childcare? But I'm gonna assume not. But that's not. One can't assume anything, agreed. It's great question. Because then it satisfies 2 issues. I mean, they're not big issues, but the issues of the fact that we don't have the wave taking a current recreational licensee and and adding medical, at least according to the Brc rules. whereas you can go the other way. We we know that, and I don't. I mean, I'm just looking at it again at this map that was provided for us. I don't know about other childcare facilities, but you've had a facility at 8, 45, walnut.

[59:00] So you know there may not be the child care issue in that circle right. I can actually jump in with a little light. On this. We actually did look at this, and we are unable to add a rec license to the existing medical license because there are condominiums in the same building. I believe it's called a mixed use development, and it is a prohibited zoning issue. So. Yes, we that had been our 1st try. But. I figured you probably looked into it. Yes. Hmm, okay. Other questions from the board.

[60:04] I guess I have maybe one minimal or one quick question for Liz. Your. I forgot exactly how you build yourself as what your relationship with the entity. But you're you're the social. You're the person who's advocating social responsibility. Is that correct? Yeah, I'm the director of public affairs. So I do handle our corporate social responsibility aspect as well as legislative engagement. Okay. So I mean, I'm just kind of pointing out the obvious that it just seems like it. It's now it's not. It's not like the child care centers down the street. but it is within the 1,000 foot circle. So that seems like it goes against company's social responsibility. But I'm just a pediatrician. What do I know. Well, because we are already selling marijuana.

[61:03] And I'm I'm fully cognizant of that. And and I recognize that. Yeah. And and in effect, it is a change of location and not an addition of a new license. You know the. The proximity to that It's called the off Broadway Preschool. Fine Arts, located in that on. The one that's in the on the on the what street did I say it was on? I forgot. Fine. You you were correct. Yeah. we're not expanding access. and because we're also, you know, below street level, which is a requirement to be to have a dispensary on Pearl Street. Erin can tell you about how our none of our products are visible to anyone that's in the public from

[62:07] from outside of our location. No child would be would even be aware that we are selling marijuana in that location. Unless their parent or you know, guardian, were to share that information with them. Okay, back back to Ms. Potter or Tanya. Oh, do you mind me calling you Tanya? Thank you. You can call me Tom, too, if you want. and so back to the reasoning why you can't do it. At 8, 45, walnut! There's so much building down around the area of pearl. I'm surprised there aren't. There isn't the same reasoning that a condominium complex parole is closest or close to the.

[63:02] You'll have to excuse my ignorance here, but it's something to do with actually being in the same building and building goes back to like the early 19 hundreds, something like 1914, and shares services with the Condominium Building that is actually perfectly on the corner of Walnut. There shares like sewer water things like that. And so it's considered by the zoning to be one building and a mixed use building where it's retail on the lower level and homes up above. and the location on Pearl. We're sort of down in a basement, if you will. Off of street level and up above us is Lindsey's Deli. There is no condominiums above us. Okay, isn't there a second and 3? rd I'm trying to remember that building. Roberto, go ahead. Yeah, Hi, so notice was only given as to this application it would be inappropriate to be inquiring on something that you guys aren't gonna vote on.

[64:10] Oh, no, I we're not 8, 45 is out of the question. So, but the reasoning that they gave why they couldn't do. 8, 45. I was just wondering if that applies to 1146. Got it. Got it. That's okay. Just trying to keep us on our 1 h track. Okay. All right. Any other questions. I believe? Just so. You know, Thomas. at least on ours. It's there's a section in the Zoning Review checklist, and a box is ticked next to the proposed business is not located within a residential zone district or within mixed use development that includes a residence. So I believe they, the zoning people did check for this with regards to Pearl Street.

[65:00] Okay, all right, seeing nobody else with their hand up, I'm gonna go on to rebuttal. Does the city wish to present any rebuttal evidence or testimony. Well, I take that as a note. Okay, that's a no. do. Do I mean you're all in the same from the same party. But do do the other interested parties wish to present any rebut rebuttal evidence or testimony. We have no rebuttal evidence. Okay. Any final questions from the board for the applicant? Robin. I just wanted to go back to Mr. Ricketts one more time. Sorry and ask about you said that you're raising the age to 21, no more, 18 to 20 year old medical marijuana sales from this location. Is that

[66:05] part of anything official, or is that just your thinking right now or. Because the sales space is only one open room. You're not allowed to have medical sales take place in a location that has recreational sales where the patient is under 21. So so in order to go through the building, you'll need to be 21 plus. Okay. Thank you. Good question. Thanks. Okay. Does the applicant wish to present any rebuttal? I mean, you kind of just answered that. But I'm I'm just following the script. So any rebuttal evidence or further testimony. No further testimony at this time. Thank you. Okay. Any final questions from the board. Chair as a point of clarification. Is this our last opportunity to say anything before we take a vote? This is my 1st time in a quasi-judicial.

[67:06] Well, Kristen and or roberto can answer that, but I believe we're going to just convene as the Board after this. and there'll be time for discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong, Christina. That is what is is in the script. So you can go ahead and close the testimony portion, and then you can deliberate and then move on forward. From there. Alright! I, seeing no other hands up. I'm going to, with no further rebuttal. The testimony and evidentiary portion of this hearing is hereby closed. The Board will now move into deliberation. Does any board member wish to kick off the deliberation to thank you for all of you from representing dandelion, slash, nasal roots, slash

[68:01] whatever you know all the entities involved. But thank you for your time. Thank you for having us here today. We sincerely appreciate, like we said, the special meeting, and hope that we will continue the process. Moving forward with a conditional approval, pending ordinance change. Thank you. Okay, does any board member want wish to kick off the deliberation? Robin. You're muted. Thank you. Sorry about that. I just wanted to say I appreciate the thoughtfulness and care you all put into the application, and I'm inclined to support this. But I wonder if there is a way to also condition this situation with the school, and let me explain what I mean. So in December 2022 the club met, and we had A and Adam. You won't remember this, but Brian and Tom will that we had a

[69:09] a business come to us and ask for a change to the Brc. For a very similar reason they wanted nonconforming use protection for marijuana businesses, and we heard a couple of different situations that were similar to this. This is a business that wants to take its license and move from a place where it's has no problems with schools being close into a place where there's a problem because a school has been there. This was the exact situation we looked at and clab in that meeting. Let me just say that Clab was supportive of this, and the staff really pushed back on us, and they said, No operating a marijuana business in the city is seen as a privilege. We have very strict tenants on this.

[70:00] but the club passed a motion anyway, and unanimously that said, we moved to recommend a city council to amend the Brc. To provide marijuana businesses, nonconforming use, or grandfathering protections like those provided to other businesses. The Council took no action on that. So now we're here at the clab, trying to look at the Brc and make an interpretation and be supported in the law, and Brian and Tom will also remember that we went through a very long training on quasi judicial hearings with the club and the staff did a great job at this, and they took incredible pains to underscore that the law is your north star. The brc is what guides you. So you know. And this was not just for the city to avoid a lawsuit, although that was emphasized at the time. It was also for business operators, so that people could have some certainty about how and what they were doing, and what they were going to put time into, that they could rely on the Brc. In the way that it was written. So I'm really conflicted about supporting this, because

[71:26] I absolutely understand you're already selling marijuana in this location. I appreciate and totally accept and trust what Mr. Ricketts said about it, not increasing the volume of your business significantly, and I love that it will have this. that people younger than the age of 21 can't come into the building, but I am frustrated that the Council didn't take that up because we really tried to work on that almost 3 years ago, and I wonder if it's possible to make this conditional on both pieces of that? That there is a process for nonconforming use when a school moves in and changes the license. So that would be my suggestion. I don't know how to proceed, and I appreciate you listening. Thank you.

[72:28] Other Board, members, Adam. Hey? Thank you. So I thought it was a a good presentation. I thought the applicant did a good job of of presenting their point of view. As I'm looking at the packet. And you know these maps, I I do see that there is this daycare center at the very edge of the circle right at the at the outer limit of this 1,000 feet. I do, though, you know, as other members of the Board are, I'm inclined to

[73:04] defer to the the city attorney and defer to staff and the memo that they wrote. And you know, here they're talking about the ability to go ahead and co-locate because it's already a grandfathered location, right? So there's already the location that's or, pardon me, the existing retail license there. The volume on the existing retail license is going to be far higher than the medical sales, you know. That was the applicant's testimony, and and certainly makes sense in terms of where the market's at. So you know, you're going from 2 locations to one. You have a medical location that currently sells legally to. You know, folks who've met the requirements to get a medical card between the ages of 18 and 21, but the new location would only service 21 plus you know. So for the the folks who

[74:02] have concerns about cannabis and in the city, I wouldn't. you know, necessarily say, I want to make anything more restrictive, but just realistically. Here you're going from 2 locations to one. You're going from serving 18 to 21 to only serving over 21 and you know, I just don't think it's going to have any impact at all on operation of this daycare Center. I don't think the children who go to the daycare center are going to have any awareness that there's a cannabis store barely within a thousand feet of the daycare center. So I would like to, you know. Just follow the recommendations in the staff, Memo. and you know to the extent that council action is necessary. You know I would certainly request the Council look at that issue and take it up. But, you know, I would like to go ahead and grant the application. I guess on issue number 2 pending action by the Council. But to not put any other conditions on this application, you know I I do understand. If if Clab did some work. That

[75:14] Council hasn't taken up that that, you know. We might wish that Council would do that. But I guess I just. You know council has a full plate, and I don't want this applicant to get caught up with all the things that that Council is is working on. I think that. you know. If there's 1 condition for the pending ordinance doctrine that needs to be attached. you know, by operation of law, then that's how it is. But I would not want to attach any further conditions, and would recommend approving this application. Right. Yeah, I appreciate and thank everyone for their participation and questions and testimony. Here I share the frustrations raised by Member Noble and by Member Foster, that this is an issue that we had raised and shared with council, and that there's been no action. Again, I recognize Council's got many demands on their time and attention

[76:15] but would be my belief that we should follow the staff recommendation, approve pending ordinance doctrine, and then try again to get council to move on this, so that a location that is. I think, the only sort of question that arises with this childcare center. I would have more serious concerns if this was a high school or a middle school. But I'm not worried about under fives a thousand feet away from a business like this, having some kind of exposure, so I'm inclined to recommend passing with this pending ordinance doctrine.

[77:01] Doc, do you want to weigh in. Yeah, I'm happy to wait. And I apologize. I'm having some camera issues today. But yeah, I would just like to appreciate and thank everybody for their input. Well, I don't necessarily have a vote. I do want to support what Adam was saying. And what Brian was saying that y'all should be in support of moving forward with this. I do understand the issue with having the school within a thousand feet. But, that establishment has been there for many years, and think it being grandfathered in is a correct action. Thank you. Brian, you still have your hand up, but I can't tell if that's. I apologize. Thank you. Okay. So I have a comment and a question. It just

[78:04] interest. I I thank you, all of you, for your comments, and I can. I'm torn, I can. I can get behind what everybody said. I would point out one thing that Brian said. I'm looking again. I pulled up that circle again. I love this graphic circle. it's interesting. That Boulder High School is one block outside the circle. So no, it's not in the 1,000 foot, but it's not far and but that's just an fyi. So my question is for Roberto. Let's just say, Collab agreed to go ahead on this application, and we went with what you wrote about the pending ordinance doctrine. How would that all play out. Yeah. So if you grant it, pending

[79:03] the ordinance process, then we would immediately reach out to the city manager's office and and see if we have the green light to start, the ordinance change. and the moment that we get the green light, then the application is granted. And the green light would be our green light. That was what you're saying. Well the green light for staff to begin the ordinance amendment process. If you know, someone still needs to make a motion, and we need to vote on it. And blah blah blah! But that that would be your green light as you characterized it. No, no, no! The green light would come from the city manager's office to begin the ordinance amendment process. So if if right now, you all take a vote, and there's sufficient votes. Then we go to City City manager's office. The Cmo. I got it. See, I just. I'm a medical person, for Chief Cmo. To me means chief medical officer.

[80:04] So sorry, Robin. Mr. Ramirez, do you anticipate that this will sort of get a lot of people making that trying to make a change similar to this? Or do you have others waiting in the wings, or. I don't know that we have anybody else waiting or that has applied. I don't know any other businesses that were only recreation that are trying to go medical. Thank you. Okay, and I gotta go back to my script. Hold on any further questions by anybody, for any for those that can speak anybody for anyone. Alright, then Can we get a motion to close deliberation. So moved.

[81:00] Okay. Second, by. Second Brian Seconds Foster, Member Foster's Motion. Do we need a a hand vote on this one, Kristen? I can't imagine. But. I prefer. If we just do a voice vote. Okay. Is there anyone opposed or abstaining. and and all in favor say, aye. I. Hi. I, okay, is anyone ready to make a motion? But basically, the motion is to approve or deny the application unless you have something. I would move to, I would move to approve. You know it consistent with the memo from staff. Exactly. I mean. And and then so more specifically as Mr. Ramirez described. you know, that would leave issue number 2 for the the city manager, but otherwise I would vote to approve.

[82:02] I'm sorry, Member Foster. Can I get you to please restate your motion? Yes, so I would move to approve the application. With the conditional issue that Staff had flagged as issue number 2 in the staff. Memo. And I could try again, because that wasn't that clear. But basically, you know. Yeah, okay. I think I got it, and it's not the staff memo. It's the just to clarify. It's the preliminary findings. Memo. Okay, thanks so much. Yeah. So per the move to approve. You know, per the the memo. And then, you know, with the condition that's flagged as as issue number 2 in the Memo. Adam, are you open to a friendly amendment on that or friendly rewording? Let me just. Yeah, I didn't do a very good job with it. So.

[83:00] No, you did fine. You did fine. I would just suggest that we say, and I'm not making the motion, Kristen. I'm just making a suggestion on wording that we say, pending the resolution of issue number 2 in the preliminary findings document by the city staff. That's a good way to phrase it. And and yeah, if we, if we may amend and make that the motion, I think that was a good addition. Okay. So, Member Foster, I have an amended motion where you move to approve the application with the conditions as to number 2 in the preliminary findings. Memo. And can you provide that? Just a little bit more for me? Again, member. Noble pending resolution pending resolution. Yeah. from city council, right?

[84:03] Of the pending ordinance doctrine. Does that work for you? Kristen and Roberto. I'll go back and re-listen certainly close enough. I got a head nod from Roberto, just verbalizing his head. Nod alright. Second on that motion. Brian seconds, the motion. Okay? And I'm assuming at this point, you probably want to do a roll call vote. Can definitely do that. Can you read the resolution one more time, please. To the best of the recollection of typing Member Foster moved to approve the application with condition as to Number 2 in the preliminary findings memo with pending resolution from ordinance doctrine with the city manager's approval.

[85:00] Okay. That sound right? Robin. If we want my better than I did, so if we were captured it better. I would love to hear what that is. Would be City Council's approval. Are you talking about? I just want to clarify. You're talking about the passing an ordinance by city council. Right correct, Robin. Yes, you you, said city manager, and I just wanted to make sure it was that that Robin was was referencing city council. That was all. Thank you. It's the it's the code cleanup. Once that passes that that would then green. Light the whole thing. So just let me make sure. Oh, and sorry not to be difficult, but I think if if I'm getting it right, I think the the city manager would have to to recommend bringing up the

[86:01] the issue with Council. But then, if if it's pending before council, I think the application could be granted, or or Mr. Ramirez. Would it have to be pastor? Would it just have to be the city manager taking the next? The next step. As soon as city council. As soon as city staff begins the process, then it'll pass. because it is a pending ordinance. Meaning our this application would pass. Correct. Okay, I understand. Okay. Now, are we ready for vote? Certainly. Okay. Member Foster. Approve. Vice chair, Keegan. Approve. Member, noble. Approve. Chair koontzman. Approve.

[87:01] The motion passes unanimously. Okay with that vote. This ends the hearing. If I can do that, Kristen. This does end the hearing portion. Yes, sir. Okay. Pursuant to board procedure, the Board will work with the city attorney's office to prepare a final written decision, reflecting the decision and rationale. Thank you, indeed, everyone, for their participation today. Tonya City staff will be in touch. Wonderful. Thank you, Kristen, and thank you. Club work. We sincerely appreciate it. All right, continuing on with our agenda agenda. Item number 4 matters from the city attorney. Nothing from me. Thank you. Everyone. As this is a special hearing, we do not have many issues, but agenda. Item number 5 matters from the regulatory licensing office. We did send out an email regarding board recruitment and the deadlines for that to take place is in notation the next regularly scheduled cloud hearing is July 7, th 2025. It is quarterly, and it is a hybrid packet materials. Anything for that meeting is due on Monday, June 23, rd

[88:17] moving on to agenda. Item number 6 matters from the chair and members of the Board. Anyone. Okay, Adam, you move forward as if you're gonna unmute yourself. So. Just just eagerly anticipating what will come next. Motion to adjourn. Then you may do that. So moved. Okay, second on that. Brian Seconds Member Foster's Motion. Anyone opposed or abstaining all in favor, say, aye.

[89:02] Hi. Thank you. Everyone. Thank you.