Rezones properties located at 3200 Walnut Street, 3220 Walnut Street, 3254 Walnut Street, and 3235 Larimer Street from I-MX-3, UO-2 to C-MX-5 and C-MX-3 in Council District 9. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property located at 3200 Walnut Street, 3220 Walnut Street, 3254 Walnut Street, and 3235 Larimer Street from I-MX-3, UO-2 to C-MX-5 and C-MX-3 in Council District 9. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM.  REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-2-16.
And we are fully in support of this reason for this site. I think it's important for city council to prove this reason to continue the growth and activation of the neighborhood. Increased height means increased density near a light rail station, which then means increased street activation. And usually when you get this, you get better architecture and better materials and design when you have the increased height and density. One thing that was mentioned earlier that I think everyone should note is that this developer, Camden, is typically a long term holder, which means they put a lot more money into their products and a lot more care into how it's designed, how it's operated, and how it fits into the neighborhood. I don't think that is something. That should be taken lightly. Density within walking distance to a light rail station, as you all know, is very important. And I think we would be doing ourselves a disservice not to take advantage of that at this location with a great site and a great developer. Thank you. Thank you. Jamie Lee, go. Good evening, City Council. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. I'm Jamilah. I serve as the executive director of the Rhino Art District, the Rhino Business Improvement District and the Rhino General Improvement District. And we are also the registered neighborhood organization for the neighborhood rhino has been very involved in working with developers and as has already been mentioned tonight, we're seeing a tremendous influx. We're talking to developers on a daily basis about what's going on. And when we come across a developer like Camden who wants to sit down at the table with us and find out what's most important to the neighborhood, we are very responsive to having a conversation about how we make a development fit into the neighborhood that meets the needs of everybody involved. And that's exactly what's happened with Camden since last fall. They've been at the table. They've listened. They've responded every single time to our our requests of what's important to us. And I think every time we look at a development of a parcel, particularly in a neighborhood like Rhino, where it is literally being built out of the ground right now, at this moment, every single development, every single conversation requires thoughtful consideration. We've heard the word precedent. There was a lot of conversation about that in the zoning meeting. I think we as a neighborhood are taking each development on its merit, looking how it knits into the overall fabric of rhino. That's what's most important to the neighborhood. We've heard the neighborhood tell us that ground floor activation space for artists, affordable live work space, affordable places for for people to to build a life, having green space, having art space, having transparency on the storefronts are all very important, especially on our main arteries of Larimer and Walnut Street and Camden, as we've gone through the process of conversation over the last several months, has brought that to the table. Live work units that are affordable price for artists to keep them in the neighborhood, small space for for restaurants, for galleries and a design that really knits into the overall fabric. And as rhino as a whole as a neighborhood densify. And you know, we are having conversations led by Councilman Brooks right now about up zoning around the station. We are not seeing pushback on height. What we're seeing is a demand from the neighborhood that that transparency and activation and the ability to create a walkable neighborhood that's about people, that's about bikes, that doesn't require people to get in cars and go places is most important. And that's why we pushed Camden to really be thoughtful about that. And they've responded on every level. So from a neighborhood perspective and representing all the different voices, we are here to say we support what Camden is doing and we're we look forward to working with them for the long term as long term players and the rhino. Thank you. Thank you. Laura Phelps Rogers. Hi, welcome. Thank you for having me. Speaker at city council, I agree with everything that everybody said, but I did come here to protest a portion of this proposal, which is the 55 steps, that 55 foot setback for the view, the sightline. I also presented you with a small packet. At the bottom of that packet are two photographs that were taken from 29th Street into a development. They show you what a five story would look look like from the center of the street, from a three story to a five story transition, and then Photoshopped in at approximately 55 to 60 feet is what you would see. So I own the property immediately across the street from this parcel on Larimer, there is a lovely historic building right across from me that's included in those images in the packet of you looking north and looking south, which shows that there really are no five storey buildings yet in this area . So not for a long ways to the south and not for a long ways to the north. So it will be an entire city block will be five stories right there. So as it is currently said, I do support this change from the different types of zoning. But what it does include is three stories literally on Larimer and five stories literally on Walnut. There is a dividing line of the alley for most properties. In this case, it's unusual because the back alley was vacated. So again, on my presentation, it sure sort of gives you the story of what I would see if I was standing in the middle of the street. And it's quite extreme. I mean, I lose all of the blue sky. So what really is at issue, though, is I had a conversation with this gentleman here, and I don't think that this is the time and the place to hear about it. But literally when the first sign was put up, I called this gentleman and asked him, Does this zone change comply with the existing zoning in terms of height? Three stories on Larimer, five stories on Walnut. He replied to me, Yes. And in part he was telling the truth. But there was. Information in that the intent of this group was to take come forward 75 feet, nearly 75 feet from the alley, changing what you see when you were either standing in the middle of the street, across the street or from anywhere else. So the only thing I object to is that the zoning be changed to allow that five storeys to come up to 55 feet on the Larimer side, that it be required to meet what the zoning requires at 125 feet. And one of the reasons I would like you to either consider that or postpone this decision is because of the misinformation that was received. So I haven't really had the time to prepare a grand presentation about why I think this is important. And it's, it's it's it's a difficult situation. I'm not the best editor, as you can probably tell, even from the stuff I send them. My eyes are not exactly 100% perfect, but I've tried so. Mr. Rogers, your 3 minutes is up now. All right. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Now, time questions from members of Council Councilman Espinosa. And so you guys and I'm sorry to my colleagues, but I've been waiting a long time for this one to come before council. And so bear with me. I've got questions for a lot of people. Let's start with CPD. So can you go to the Slide seven? Actually, you go to the planning board slide. And this sort of dovetails into my comments earlier. This was a split vote planning board. And planning board is far less political than this body up here. A lot more. Technical there's criteria that set their voting restrictions. The same criteria applies here. But our only obligation as council is to hear this request not to not necessarily to approve it. We're not mandated in that way. So. That said this was a split vote, five three. And when this was presented at plan, the slide set was considerably different, was it not? No, it was. Go to the slide review criteria. So. So there's one slight difference. And it's. It's that one. Slide so that there's one slide. So this slide was basically written based on the comments that I am going to be illustrating here tonight. It's really to circumvent the case that I am going to be making for a line in a plan having meaning. And so a lot was spoken here about the the advisory nature of these plans. But you do have a slide here. And bear with me again. You showed the 2009 plan that clearly marks. It is Slide 16 that clearly shows that in 2009, this property was bisected by a line in a small area plan and that the higher the defined area was 1 to 3 stories. Two slides later, slide 18, we get to this site and now two years later, this site is still bisected by that line. But we've now changed and through a public process, three stories define half of that site in five stories the other side of that site in. And so there is a split vote on planning board because of this. And you spoke to it in his comments, in his briefing about this line and the meaning of this line. So going back to the slide that was added, it was all about the the the the language days basically taking priority. But we as a people don't necessarily we know what we're drawing and these have meanings. So now to an actual question. Where is that? You mentioned that on when you were doing that slide that was added that there was actually was the next one after you mentioned that there was language about the average height of a pedestrian in the neighborhood plan. Is that correct? This the slide? No, it was the one after the review criteria slide that was added. It wasn't you mentioned it, but it's not stated in the language that's on the slide. So I just wanted to confirm that that language, in fact, exists in the applicable plan. So do you want the language from the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan? Does it say that it references the view from an average height person in the right away? Are you referencing this slide? The northeast, downtown neighborhoods swing. I don't know. Just say it there. Okay. So I see. I see. It. Is this slide? Yes. So you're asking me if an average high pedestrian use and specifically. Stated that in the plan, it said that you're basing it on a you had a reference height of the average height person. Right. So that gets to the interpretation of the plan. The interpretation. So that language does not exist in the plan? I don't think it does. I mean, I could do a word search on average height pedestrian, but that again, it gets to the the fact that a plan is providing guidance and advisory. And we have to say. You just added criteria, did you not, about the average height person. Like, why is that the average wise person and not the person on the second floor of a adjacent property or the third floor adjacent mx3. Right. Because there is a lot of language in the plan that talks about street level activation and the pedestrian experience and urban design from the from the street level. All right. There's a whole lot of language about that. And so as a pedestrian walking down the street, we found that the the plan thought that that was very important. Okay. We look to the average height pedestrian to see what, you know, where five storeys would be perceived. Okay. And then maybe the architect would answer this better. Yeah. So could we get Bobby from Capehart? And I am asking you because you specifically mentioned the concern about the pedestrian on the street. So if that was the concern, why doesn't the 55 foot step back, turn the corner on 32nd and third? Because the high transmission is specifically limited to Larimer and not necessarily the pedestrian connections on 32nd and third. As far as the three story limitation. So we're only concerned about because you drew some some renderings here that show to show the egregious ness of a ten foot setback, which is which is pretty substantial. Correct. But what you're saying is that's only a concern on Larimer, even though the better part mean a significant chunk of this is well beyond this this this dividing line that we were just discussing. Does not that does that line not speak to the intent of where three story was appropriate or not? And couldn't you have turned the corner so that at least that larger 55 foot setback basically applied visually from the street, as CPD talked about. Only in the sense that all the conversations revolved around and all the language, as I understand it, from the neighborhood code or the neighborhood comp plan. Talk about the transition at one. Not necessarily on any of the connecting streets going backwards. So it's really about the pedestrian experience along Larimer. And necessarily. 32nd, 33rd. CPD. Could you bring up slide seven? So yes, this property had its alley vacated. And my concern will be later on as far as precedent and what sort of precedent this set. And I think there's some assurance that, no, this won't set a precedent because of the difference between this site and the adjacent properties. So this slide right here shows that both adjacent properties to the north and to the south actually still have their existing alley intact. So the defined characteristic if we if we. Is that those. I'm pretty sure but maybe I'm wrong CPD or I don't see those adjacent parcels getting the same dividing line and that the character of the those properties to the north and to the south along Walnut or along Larimer would maintain a three storey around that, you know. And so is our concern truly just Larimer Street or is it a three story built environment versus our five story built environment perimeter? I guess I don't understand the question. I mean, we looked at the plan. The plan says three stories on Larimer Street. So then this would, in fact, be acceptable on either on in either area, north or south, for the same reason, because the concern is only Larimer. So are you are you talking about other properties? Well, if our concern is only Larimer Street in the appearance of three stories, so either property to the South don't have they only have frontage on Larimer. I mean, they also have the frontage on 32nd and third as well. So is it acceptable on those two properties to define this, their their subsequent rezoning on either of those two parcels with the same 55 foot setback? Because the concern is only Larimer. So, you know, I'm not in a position to opine on a rezoning. Well, how would this criteria be different for those two adjacent properties? Well, it's a different property to start with. Is Larimer not? Do they not front Larimer. It would, yeah. Fronts Larimer. But again, it's a different property owner. It's a. So how does that affect the zoning and the physical things that you look at at CPD? So so let me let me answer your first question. Let me just try to get the. K I just trying to figure out how Larimer differs between 33rd and 34th and how it differs from 32nd to 31st than it does from 33rd to 32nd. So Larimer Street itself, the street isn't different. It's the land on the street, right? It's the ownership, it's the block configuration, it's the alley configuration, it's the existing zoning. It is a whole host of other things that have to be considered when when looking at a rezoning application. So again, I'm not in a position to opine on some other property. Should that property come forward with a rezoning application, I would likely be in front of you giving a presentation. But again, I'm not in a position to opine on some other property. Okay. So now my next questions are pretty brief. Todd Triggs with Camden. How many units would be lost if the line were moved from third to Mid-Block? Essentially the center line of the alley. You'd probably lose about 30 units. 30 units. How many of these did the community inquire about? Affordable. I heard mention of affordable live work. What percent army will those units hit? It is not anything to do with a percent of gross, am I? It's that when we develop live work units, they are typically larger in size. So if you rent a unit for 600 to 600 square feet, it would be priced about, say, $2.30 a square foot. Once you get a unit that is a live work unit that's 1400 to 800 square feet, all you really gain is additional space. You're not getting additional bedroom, bathroom, other things. So the price for that unit gets priced a lot lower than what a typical apartment would be. Okay, so it wouldn't be at 230 a square foot for that unit. How many of those units. In the dollar 75 range or something like that? So it's it's a significant. Difference in how many of those units do you plan at this point? We are still in the process of trying to figure that out. Once we get our zoning squared away, we'll be able to determine how much retail, where it lays out the live work units where they're at. You know, we'd like to do probably ten, 9 to 10 units, something like that. But. And then how many how many affordable units that region am I? 100 or 60 or 80%. Ami, will you have in this project? No, everything's. It's a market rate project. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Josh Katz from the owners. Were you approached by any non-profits or land trusts for this land? Because it's it was a bid process and we got around 20 offers. No nonprofits? No. Nothing of the sort. So how just a sampling of how egregious were those other proposals that this one stood out? There was about six that were in the same dollar range. Mm hmm. More or less. Then below that, they dropped off significantly. Another 14 numbers might not be exact, but it's on that magnitude. And then we had. One offer that was higher than Camden. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Ryan Seeley. Just a quick question. You forgot to provide your address. I'm also based out of Houston, Texas, at 11 Greenway, Suite 2400. So you're part of the development team, is that right? Yes, sir. Thank you. Ryan Legato or Jamie. Like, sorry. Like, oh, sorry. So you mentioned affordable. What is affordable mean to you? So in talking with candidates that Todd mentioned, they noted that it's about a dollar 75, a square foot for some of these units. And the way that they were looking to design them is two stories potentially with their garage door on the main floor, live above, work below, be able to open your garage door and sort of be open for a first Friday type environment. Obviously, as we look at Artspace throughout Reno, you know, we just had the binder on Blake, just put in 13 artist studios there at $2 a square foot. And, you know, they all they all sold out. That's sort of kind of the threshold, I think, of paying for kind of artists. This is a work live space. So that was just for actual workspace, that $2 a square foot those people have to pay to live someplace else. So when you can combine your work live space at somewhere around a dollar 75, a square foot, you're in the affordable range for kind of the creative sector to be able to actually make a living out of those spaces. When you put in things like the garage doors where they can actually have people come in to their space on a first Friday or something like that, you're kind of opening up a new realm of possibility for how we keep artists in the neighborhood as. They discussed lease provisions. Because I have lived work in a development that I pushed for the same thing. But the leases don't. They don't. They don't. They don't support that. Do you have actual guarantees that these will only be leased to people that will operate a business out of them? Very good question is the question I asked Camden when they came forward with those opportunities, because I said, what types of users are what is the process by which you select users for this? And they said generally it's a first come, first serve basis. And so what I put out there was would you be willing to enter into a partnership with the Bid Park District, so forth, where we could help fill those spaces for you? Because we are right now in the process of collecting information about artists who need space, what their requirements are, you know, what they're looking for. And we're beginning to pair those artists already with developers who are building space. So we'd like to do the same for Camden and basically come to them with here's a list of 20 artists that are interested or ready to pay or looking for the space. Will you give them preference? And Camden said they would be thrilled to work with us on that. We've seen other bids do it really well so we can take a model from someplace else. And that's something we're not just working on with Camden while we're working on with all of our property owners. Okay. And then last one. You mentioned design. So what assurances do you have that they'll memorialize these requests? You know, we the letters. So there was a letter after our series of meetings that we've gone through with them. And we have seen the conceptual change over time. And I think the last conceptual we saw was probably in January or February at our last meeting where they incorporated a lot of our requests. At that time we said, okay, great. We, you know, we've sort of gotten to a place where we're comfortable with this. They put that in writing to us. We in turn, and our letter that is in your packet wrote saying we support this on kind of these conditions. So we can't, you know, obviously we can't tie them to do anything, but we're hopeful. And given the fact they've put quite a bit of energy into working with the neighborhood thus far and responding to us, we're obviously very hopeful that, you know, they're good on their word and they carry through and we'll be there, you know , vocally supporting them if they do and causing a ruckus if if they they don't do. You do know that once this happens, this is a use by right development and no ruckus in the world really changes that if they don't follow through with their plan. Sure. Absolutely. We get that. But you know what we're seeing? We've seen we have some incredible developers doing tremendous things on their own. And right now and we have some developers doing really not great stuff who are who have done really not great stuff. And even on some of those developments where the neighborhood was, you know, didn't have an opportunity to participate in a discussion about some of that, we are now going back and it's pretty incredible. I think the tide has turned in right now where people see if you're not kind of in on the partnership thing with the neighborhood and kind of supporting the neighborhood character they are trying to work back in. So we're seeing developers that maybe didn't put in ground floor activation that are trying to see how they can turn a unit or two into a gallery space or a flex space or how we can mural that first floor to tie it into the fabric of the neighborhood better, you know, and working in every angle we can. So we can only do as much as we can do. We are working on efforts to do design guidelines and design overlay and exploring all that, and we are hopeful we can get that done. And we use some of the things that were important to us from those discussions in talking to Camden. So we're hopeful that in time we will have more of a lever to be able. To, you know, persuade or, you know, have developers sort of conform to the character. But in the short term, where we're doing the best we can to create a partnership with people as development happens so intensely fast. All right. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you. Councilman, I know that Councilman Brooks. Hey. All right. Since we had a whole 17 minutes of questions on the line, I just want to get our legal opinion around that. So, Mr. Lucero. So this is an interesting issue that has come up a couple of times. And I think it's important for, I think council to know I think it's important for the public to know when we draw lines within our planning documents, what kind of legal requirement are does the city have does the city council have to stay within those lines? Thank you, Councilman Brooks. And good evening. Members of Council Nathan Lucero, assistant city attorney and. Again, when. You're reviewing a rezoning application. The criteria is whether or. Not. The request is consistent. With city adopted plans. And so consistency is is something less. Than conformance or compliance. So. The lines that are that you see sort of drawn on a piece of paper are really just there as guidance. And again, as. Mr. Daley explained. The real crux is in the intent of that. Plan and what that means to city. Council and whether or not the application, again. Is consistent with the intent of the of the city adopted plan. Okay. So legally in making in our criteria, it's it's we are not held to that a legal standard that if we're not on the line in this particular rezoning, we are out of terms and in the legal requirement. So just to be clear, the line that's drawn in the plan is, is, again, just just guidance. And it's not regulatory and it's not prescriptive. Okay. On that line of questioning, Stephen, Ali. For neighbors who are listening. Because, you know, I think it's important that it be clear for folks and that that's the thing I want to be transmitted tonight, that it's clear. Is there an opportunity for or have you seen an opportunity? I feel like I'm doing five plans right now. And we do talk about a lot of lines. Very rarely do we put those lines into the words of the plan. Right. The the the content of the plan. And so is there an opportunity to maybe back up those lines or how can there be some assurance for neighbors? Right. So as you know, we are going through CPD is leading an effort to amend the plans around the 38th Blake Station area. And that could I could look like a change to a map. It could look like more clarity in the text as to the goals to the intent of that language itself. There are different ways to present building heights in a plan. For example, the Cherry Creek Area plan shows a gradient and it really leaves the interpretation open and does really rely on the intent and the language. And so there are a couple of ways to change the map through a conversation with the community. Leave the map alone, provide more clarity in the text to provide that guidance. The gradient is is where you think CPD is moving towards? Well, I mean, CPD likes to get guidance from the community. And so I think, you know, the gradient has worked, but there was a lot of discussion. Yeah. Into Krieg about what the gradient really means. Think so? You know, we have a toolbox. Great. Couple of quick questions from the developer owner's rep. Did you guys get a chance to talk to I know we have Rhino, which is you know, it's it's part of five points, but it's the new brand of five points and very little residents in the specific area of Rhino right now. Did you guys get a chance to talk to Curtis Park? Yes, we did meet with Curtis Part. His name was Su Glassmaker. Yes. And and we all know SU because SU is the lead, what I would call architect for us when we're looking at design on Welton. So did she give you a thumbs up or down or just kind of stay neutral? Because I didn't see a letter from her? No. When we met with her, we met her on site. We walked the site with her and, you know, talked about our development and what we proposed to do and the zoning that we were going after. And she said that she recommended that we get with the Rhino Group, meet with them, and depending on whichever way they were leaning to go, they would probably follow their, you know. Okay, that's great. Yeah. Jimi? Yeah, please. Sorry. I just wanted to jump in at Curtis Park did reach out to us, and they did express to us that they would follow our lead on this one and that they would not oppose that they would remain either, you know, just neutral or, you know, they opted not not to write a letter of support, but they said they would follow us. Great. Thank you. One more question around this topic. So we did talk about affordable housing and our typical definition of affordable is some sort of subsidized housing that hits different army levels. Rhino definitely needs affordable housing and that's a part of the 30th and Blake revisioning a station area plan so we're looking at wondering if you'd be open to meeting with the Office of Economic Development and looking at some of those units to make sure they hit those affordable levels. You know something we'd have we need more time to consider that. I mean, right now, it's hard for me to say because I don't know what those rents are based on our pricing, but the seller of what. We're buying the land at. That wasn't taken into consideration at that time. So, I mean, that's not a whole new, you know, line of negotiations with everybody. I think so. But you we will talk about it and have a meeting to discuss them. I think if it fell within our what we're in our pro forma numbers that we've already kind of, you know, considered we would I don't know. Do you know what those numbers are, what the rents are or. Yeah, I mean, we can get down into the details of what the performer is. I'm not asking about that. I'm asking would you be willing to to meet to talk about me? I'm always willing to meet. All right. I just I can't commit. Thank you. And then the last quick question is I'm sorry, I forgot your name. Yeah, Laura. I just wanted one. Who's. Who's Councilman Garcia. You know, when. He's Mr. Right? Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers. I need to come up to the microphone. I'm sorry, Councilman Brooks. I haven't had the opportunity to meet you. And I was very active in the Upper Larimer Neighborhood Association, and I did sort of part ways in terms of my interest in the organization, because initially when it was founded, the primary focus appeared to me to be more on the Brighton corridor. Yeah. And even still that's where the offices are. And there's a great deal of change as everyone has seen on the bright corridor. So historically, if you sort of look at some of the architecture I presented in my portfolio that I presented to you my packet, there's a drastic difference between the bright corridor and Blake Walnut and Larimer, which are an industrial neighborhood that was mixed with existing. Excuse me, ma'am. Architecture. I was just asking. I mean, I hear that and I appreciate that. I was just asking, do you know who Councilman Garcia is? I do not. Okay at this time. When I looked up District one, that's who actually says. And so I didn't have the opportunity to direct. Got it. And I know that's okay. I just wanted to make sure that you knew who your councilperson was and that Councilman Garcia served the time back. I do appreciate it. And thank you for the extra moment. Just. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. All right. All right. There we go. 30 minutes of questions. Any other questions on 139? Public hearing is now closed. Comments. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a this is an interesting, you know, zoning proposal. Obviously, there are some some issues. I got a chance to talk to Joel Noble, who actually lives in Curtis Park neighborhood and is on planning board and voted against this because of his interpretation that potentially the plan might be misleading. And I certainly appreciate that and certainly appreciate the other conversations that I've had with other council folks and folks in the community about what kind of precedent that this will begin to set for others in the community. Again, I will be supporting this, and one of the reasons that I will be supporting this is because I don't believe in overprescribing our plan documents for several reasons. But it does require more conversation when stable neighborhoods are looking for, they're looking for assurance. And so what does that mean and how do we provide that from community planning and development? I don't think assurance is being overprescribed and requiring that our plans be a letter of law. Couple of things that this group did that that I really appreciate. Number one, there's no neighborhood group tougher, more rigorous than Curtis Park. And they went to them first, which is great. Curtis Park is a neighborhood that is not. They do. I wouldn't say that they're not pro-development. They have $300 million of redevelopment coming on Welton in a joint effort. And so for them to be supportive and take on two rhinos is one thing. Rhino Design Group met with this group and it is a let's just say I wouldn't say a snobbish group. I'd say that in the best way possible. But they care about Rhino because they want to live there for the next hundred years. And they met with this group and they scrutinize this group. And I really appreciate that because I think what greater rigor comes a great project. So I will be supporting this. Here's the the kicker in all of this. Plans are constantly changing, especially when they're in the urban core. We just finished our plan and global area Swansea and around this station of 3838 area station area plan we're amending it and it's only been a year. And so the environment is changing so quickly that we're trying to catch up with the very fluid nature of this area. So I'll be supporting this and I appreciate all the work from all parties and even folks who are coming to speak in opposition. And I think we'll get a good project. I hope that we can continue talking about affordable spaces for artists, because if we don't do that, we will lose the spirit of this neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa. Several things there. Councilman Brooks is right. Curtis Park is is among the toughest. So I think I don't I'm not comfortable putting words in their mouth and saying that they support it because there's no representative of Curtis Park. That said, so one thing they are very good about is communicating that in writing and particularly their support and the fact that that's not here. I read something into that, actually bonuses. So we have bonuses, density bonuses and other things that sort of are trying to spur certain needs of the city written into our zoning code. But the problem is, is they're not adopted or utilized. And the reason is, is because our base zoning is not restrictive enough. There's no incentive to take those incentives. And so that's where. The rest of my comments go because I understand completely that we are not bound by the lines drawn in the code. But the intent of the plan supports the line as it as it was drawn and it was shown. But I do understand that it can be moved. But when we arbitrarily move a line that has been vetted not just by the community, but supported by pass council, we should have more assurances in place to in place to support the increase in development potential that we're granting. You heard it here tonight. 30 additional market rate units are going to be captured by that line, moving just from the alley to this new point. And, you know, there is no shortage of 100% market rate rental projects in this city. What there is a shortage of is affordable housing. And so when we're moving lines, we shouldn't be doing it arbitrarily. There should be an ask there should be an ask of this city to say, look, we have needs. We're granting you additional considerable development rates because building these two floors and I'm a licensed architect, Vint here done that development is not new to me. The going those extra two floors is some of the cheapest development that you can do because you've already put the ground, the work in the foundation. You've already built that ground floor retail and and so now just repeating the same thing that you've done layer after layer cheap. So that's not a hard ask, but we don't ask it and we should. So, you know, the so that is the extent we have a line. It's been drawn twice. I think the intent of the code, the code as written supports that demarcation. I also think that it matters what third, the experience of 33rd and 32nd are like. If we're going to do this and we're going to honor that intent, that step back should actually wrap so that any place that side of the alley towards Larimer would have the same experience as if it were three storey mean zone district. So I will not be supporting this arbitrary move of this line. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman there. Thank you, Mr. President. I have great high regard for my colleagues and their comments. I also have the highest regard for Jayme Loco and what she's doing in Rayna Jaymes helping nursing Golden Triangle as redevelopment, an incredible urban environment there and develop lives. And. And when I hear her say she's going to be after these guys to build a quality development, they better watch out. I know what she's doing and go to trial cracking the whip. And so I feel very confident that Rhino's going to be the one of the premier places. It's going to be a really cool place to live and work and play, and so I feel real good about what's going to happen. I surely respect Rafael's comments. We've had this common conversation about lines and and architectural viewpoints on plans, and so we've got some good points to discuss further about support this project. And I really appreciate what's going to happen and a. Thank you, Councilman there, Councilwoman Black. Thank you. Very quickly, I didn't know who the developer was till I got here tonight, but there is a Camden development in my district at the Bellevue Light rail station. It's really great. The architecture is very attractive. The scale is just right for the area. The landscaping is great. They take really good care of it. So I just wanted to say a few nice words about them. Thanks. Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilman Espinosa, you back up? Yeah. Thank you, Councilman. You for reminding me. Yeah, there aren't any assurances. As hard as you're going to work to make sure that this project follows through. There aren't. Once we grant this use by. Right. That said, the development teams here, the ownership group is here. What I heard in testimony here is that you've made commitments. My expectation is that you follow through that these are going to be rented to artists, that that street is going to be activated and that you're going to make good on making affordable opportunities. That because that is crucial to that area right now. And so, Jamie, is it. If you're not getting the traction, call me. I'm going to I'll be in there. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman. Okay. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. President. I was having a site conversation over here. I wanted to express my support for this application a number of years ago. This was part of my council district. And this has been a neighborhood in transition for quite some time. As you all know, where we have our light rail stations, and this one is very close by. We're seeing a lot of a lot of changes in these neighborhoods. And as you drive up and down Blake Street, you drive up and down Market Street, you are seeing many, many different new projects. This is on the other side of the tracks from the Blake, the Brighton Boulevard corridor, where we're seeing drastic changes to the neighborhood with very high density development, which under blueprint, Denver was proposed as a new growth area. And so this is in line with that. I appreciate the work that the developer has done with the neighborhood. Knowing the Curtis Park neighborhood as as I do and have worked with them for many years. If they did not support this, they would be out here in force tonight and they are not. And that speaks volumes because they they are not shy in expressing how they feel about anything that's happening within their neighborhood. So I think this will be a good project for the area. And I just wanted to lend my support. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Any other comments? 130. Scene one. Madam Secretary, roll call. Brooks Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Oh, Flynn. Hi. Cashman. I can eat. I Lopez. I knew Ortega Susman. My black. Eye. Mr. President. Hi. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please. Because we've only announced the results. 11 eyes, one knee, 11 eyes. One day. 130 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. Moving on to our last public hearing of the night, 264. Councilwoman Black, will you please move to have comfortable 264 on the floor for publication? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 264 be ordered published. It has been moved. And second, walk up the one hour courtesy public hearing for council bill 264 is now open. Audience and Council Members, please be aware that we do have an interpreter who is interpreting simultaneously from English or Spanish. During tonight's hearings, audience members may be able to faintly hear the interpretation, and we ask for your indulgence to process. Any testimony in Spanish will also be said in English to ensure that those present and watching at home will be able to understand the comments. Thank you. All right. We are first going to start with an overview, but just a reminder, as people are coming in and transitioning out, I will ask that we keep the comments in the chambers quiet so that we can hear the speakers, as well as our reminder that we are not allowed to have people standing on the back. So if you are here to watch and you are not going to speak, we do have 391 open and available for you to watch as well. So for those standing in the back, I'm going to ask that you would please find a seat if there is one not available. I need you to go to 391 and this front pew right here, sir, we're going to have the speakers come up there. So we're I need you to leave that open. Thank you, sir. So, once again, for those the back, please find a seat if you are able Councilwoman Kenny or David Broadway. We need the overview. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to all of you for your patience getting to this hearing. I want to thank and speak on behalf of my co-sponsors tonight, Councilwoman Sussman and Councilwoman Black. And to all of my colleagues, my name may be one of the sponsors on this bill, but every person that I've talked to, frankly , has helped to shape this bill. I also want to thank David Broadwell, who has not had a weekend off in more weeks than any of us want to admit, as he has been working with this council. So we are here today just to make sure that everyone's on the same page, because we had a regulatory environment that expired. We had a list of people who could apply for licenses and a list of people who could not apply for licenses. And that expired on December 31st. So that was an intentional move by the prior council to make sure we had this conversation. Right. That's what a sunset is. It says we need to check back and talk about this. And so that is what we are doing is we are fulfilling that responsibility. I want to summarize the features of the bill before you tonight to 64 NS new medical centers and new medical cultivation licenses. I want to thank Councilwoman Ortega. Those provisions were inspired by her desire to say no to some classes of new licenses. This bill caps the existing number of locations for all growers and stores. Whether they are med, whether they are recreational. There is a set cap. It includes a numerical cap, actual numbers in the ordinance. And I thank Councilman Espinosa for that recommendation. But should the number of actual licenses in effect, the day this bill passes be lower than that? Then the caps will be lowered accordingly. So the bill includes caps that are a maximum third. This bill includes a very aggressive buffer zone for growth, and that buffer zone is around residential zoned areas, whether there is a home or not. If the area is zoned residential, the thousand foot buffer applies and it also includes a 1000 foot buffer from schools. Councilman Herndon, thank you for your inspiration for the residential buffer and councilman knew was very important to him to have the school piece number four because we have an incentive to move away from medical marijuana towards recreational or retail because we have greater controls as a city over retail, because you can buy smaller amounts because it does not serve minors. We are allowing in this bill new licenses for retail at existing locations. So that is an important way to allow that migration to occur. Without that provision, the world would be stuck in the medical realm with all of the concerns that exist on that side. And so this bill allows existing locations to add recreational or retail. Five. If and when the number of stores or cultivation drops below the caps for each of those categories once a year, the department is directed to hold a lottery to issue any potential new locations. There are very high prequalification standards to enter that lottery higher than are required to apply for a license. Right now you have to have a very clean record if you're a prior operator. And so those those lotteries only occur if the number of locations drop below the cap and then you are pre-qualified and you meet all of the licensing requirements, then you may enter the lottery. Six. The bill between committee and today added a new incentive for that lottery so that there would be more entries for those who were from non concentrated areas, areas with fewer stores or areas with fewer cultivation centers. That language is likely to be stricken by an amendment that I intend to support tonight from Councilwoman Gilmore. So I'm not going to go into a lot of detail, but I flag it because it is new. It was not in the committee version. It was it came from feedback that we got at committee and after committee. But it may it may go away through an amendment number seven. The bill allows pending applications to proceed following the longstanding practice that this city has had of applying rules going forward and not changing the rules going backwards. So it allows pending applications to go through for council members. I do have a new handout that I just got this afternoon. I'm going to pass it around or if the secretary might assist me. It covers all of the pending applications in the thousand foot buffer zones and where they are at with their building permits so that you can see what types of building permits have already been issued. So, Madam Secretary, if you would, please pass those out. Number eight, this bill does not make any changes to manufacturing facilities or to testing facilities, so they are not addressed specifically in this bill. Now, I think it's critical to understand that this bill does not exist in a vacuum. There are other pieces of the statute that remain in effect and that apply, and there are other powers the city has. So really quickly, I just want to summarize things that are not in this bill but are important to understand it. First, there are existing limitations on stores, and there are also needs and desires hearings that have been used by neighborhoods very successfully to either kill liquor applications in the past or to get them to agree to community standards such as hours of operation and how to be a good neighbor. So that tool needs and desires and those distance requirements already exist in existing law. That's why they are not in this bill. They already exist too. Tomorrow, the City Council Committee on Safety and Health, chaired by Councilman New, will be hearing an odor ordinance that requires significant improvements for those stores or I'm sorry, for those facilities that have not invested in carbon scrubbers and other proven technology. That odor ordinance will be considered in committee tomorrow and then will work its way, hopefully through this council. But it is an important piece to consider about a request folks have had that's not in this bill but is moving forward on a separate track. Third, the city of Denver has budgetary powers. Many folks have asked whether this bill could include a special tax to tax marijuana businesses to improve communities. It can't without a vote of the people. They've asked about impact fees. It can't unless those impacts are directly related to marijuana. It can't be used an impact fee, can't be used to fix sidewalks or lighting or things that are not the problem caused by marijuana. But we as a city do have very powerful budgetary authority. And that is why on Friday, April 29th, when this Council convenes in our budget hearings to help to shape the mayor's proposed budget, I will be suggesting that we create a new marijuana community improvement fund that is existing to take tax dollars already flowing into the city through either the base tax on marijuana or through the special tax that's just on the retail side. Both are taxed at the base level. Retail has an extra tax to take those some dollars and set them aside for the top most concentrated neighborhoods and to allow those neighborhoods to participate directly in the allocation of that budget dollars through a participatory budgeting process. Denver has never before used to participatory budgeting where the citizens directly engage in how to spend dollars. This is our opportunity, and I believe it is an effective way to get at the concerns that folks have raised about whether or not this bill or whether or not marijuana dollars can be used to improve their communities. So with this overall package of an odor ordinance, a community improvement fund that uses existing dollars through council ordinance authority, write a separate ordinance. And then this bill, we are taking significant steps towards protecting communities, balancing some basic fairness for businesses and really maintaining a high standard that if you are going to do marijuana business in the city, you will come to the city for a license and we will set the standards rather than fueling a secondary market where businesses alone get to choose who enters and who doesn't. With those introductory comments summarizing the bill. I will now thank everyone for coming and I look forward to hearing your feedback in the hearing. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Committee. So for those that are unfamiliar with our one hour courtesy of public hearings, let me give you a brief overview. The. The clock starts from the first speaker and it goes continuously for 60 minutes. We have 52 speakers. So just by math, you understand that not everyone is going to get the opportunity to speak. And I do apologize for that. The way that we choose the speakers are when you filled out a speaker card, you noted you were there for against their neutral. Once you noted how you are the staff, not council members, then that the staff goes in order shooting cards randomly by support, oppose and neutral. So council members will have the opportunity to hear from everyone who has varying opinions and each person has the right to take up the entire 3 minutes. If you had the opportunity to get your minutes in your comments in 2 minutes, I'm sure the 21st speaker or the 22nd speaker would greatly appreciate that. So as my role as Council President to continuing to move people through so that we can hear as many people as possible, I do ask when I call your names, you come up to this front pew. So we have the opportunity to hear as many people as possible. So that is the procedure when it comes to the public comments. If any speaker is speaking in Spanish and requires translation, I will add an additional 3 minutes at the end for the translation. So that is one opportunity. Should we have to require any translation for that? It is implicit and it is anticipated tonight that council members will be offering amendments. It's my understanding three council members will be offering amendments. What we will do now is I will call on each of those individual council members, if they could briefly in council members, I will say briefly talk about their amendments so that all the speakers that have the opportunity to come up and speak can speak to the bill as well as any amendment that a council member maybe bring forward afterwards. So I will first start with Councilman Clarke. It is my understanding that you have an amendment, and I would ask Councilman Clarke if you could just briefly talk about what your amendment will be. We will have a more robust conversation later on. But just so for the speakers can speak to yours or any other amendments that are coming forward. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm actually presenting amendment on behalf of Councilwoman Gilmore, who is not here tonight. So I'll read her statement from again, Councilwoman Gilmore colleagues, I'm currently out of town at an airport conference. I send you my regards and thank Councilman Clark for reading my amendment tonight on with this statement. I'm proud of the robust dialog that we have engaged in over the past months. I've come to understand that there are very complex issues around marijuana from our neighborhood schools, regulations, the industry, law enforcement, the state. The list goes on. The one issue that has become very clear to me is that there are neighborhoods in Denver that for many different reasons have an undue concentration of cultivation sites and stores. This includes my own neighborhood of Montebello. I'm sharing with you an amendment to S.B. 16 to 64 that will remove the top five neighborhoods with. Undue concentration in cultivation sites and stores from the 2017 lottery per David Broadwell and I agree that the terms saturation or oversaturation that have been used are subjective and difficult to define. The term undue concentration is used in this amendment, which makes it completely objective by having the director simply calculate the top five statistical neighborhoods where the most licenses exist for cultivation sites and stores. As of last week, the top five statistical neighborhoods for cultivation sites were Elyria, Swansea, Northeast Park, Hill, Overland, Montebello and Valverde. The top five statistical neighborhoods for stores are Overland, Elyria, Swansea, a five points Northeast Park, Hill and Valverde. The above listed statistical neighborhoods will be excluded from the 2017 lottery. I hope that you will consider this amendment to address the issue of undue concentration in our neighborhoods. She also shares that she'll be available via phone or email if you have questions and that she'll be watching council proceedings tonight. Hi, Councilwoman. And she looks forward to public comment and the discussion. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Perfect. All right. My understanding is, Councilwoman Ortega, you also have amendments to offer. So I would ask if you could briefly discuss your amendments for the for the viewing pleasure and for the speakers. Great. And I will do them in the order that I would propose to introduce them. So the first one is would basically be addressing pending licenses that have not yet been approved by May 1st for both marijuana sales as well as cultivation licenses. This amendment would prohibit approval of such such licenses in certain statistical neighborhoods. And we've got 12 of them that have been identified. And I can read through those that already have a high number of marijuana businesses. Furthermore, the pending applications for the cultivation licenses. This amendment will require denial of the applications for locations that do not meet the new requirements for setbacks. And this is clear. These are for setbacks from schools and residential zones, and that the distinction between this one and the one that you just heard is these would be for any application that's pending as of May 1st, 2016 . This does not include the testing labs or the medically infused product locations. So that's the first one? No. The second one. Essentially would cap the license by license category and over time, it would essentially ratchet down the overall cap. So if you look at the numbers of applications that we have pending as of today and the total number of applications that we have seen, we are if the pending go through, we are at over 1300 licenses. Now, Councilwoman, a contentious bill focuses on locations. But I think to have the conversation without looking at the number of licenses that we have in the city is I think it's a misstep to not look at the number of licenses at the same time that we are addressing the amount of locations, because in some cases, there may be one location that has a number of licenses. So that's what the second one would do. It would essentially ratchet down the number by license category over time. And then the third one. And these wouldn't necessarily all be introduced. For example, if the first one passed, we would not need this third one. And this one essentially would propose a similar cap on sales locations and cultivation locations looking at the same statistical neighborhood as the first one. The distinct difference is this one would apply after the pending have been approved, and then the very last one would be an amendment that would require notification of neighborhoods that are in the I.A. and I.B. Zone districts for all license types. Currently, the IEEE and I.B. are the only zone districts where the neighborhoods are not notified, and this would ensure that neighbors in those communities have an opportunity to know about the applications. So in a nutshell, that's what they do. I can go into greater detail after we get into comments. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, for your comments on those four possible amendments, I believe, Councilman Lopez, did you have amendments to offer? Yes, I do. I have two amendments. Thank you, Mr. President. And this is just on on the on the reasoning that, although are. Although we have a very robust regulation, we have a very robust environment. We are regulating the industry and we're doing it very well here in Denver. There are two amendments that I'm as we look at this bill, there are two amendments I would make. The first is in speaks to the concentration of marijuana centers in both medical and retail in our city that are concentrated in certain neighborhoods. And, you know, when we go into comments and later, we'll talk a little bit about and we all know in the room what neighborhoods those are. You've heard from them. There are a lot of them. So it would basically prevent the further issuance of any new licenses, both for medical marijuana and retail, as well as the changeover in these in these communities. It's Oberlin. Hilarious. Swansea of Five Points. Northeast Park Hill. Valverde. Baker. Sunnyside. Globeville. Montebello. Cap Hill College View Platte Park Civic Center Cole Hampden. Lincoln Park Park Lama, Rosedale, Ruby Hill and Speer. These are the the top 13 and those are going to cherry pick. At first we looked at it looking at areas where we know there was some, but we decided to go with what is legally defendable. The second speaks to cultivation, and that's the second opinion I'm bringing forward to, and it prevents the further issuance of any new licenses for marijuana cultivation in these certain named statistical neighborhoods. That's hilarious. Swansea. Oberlin. Northeast Park. Yale. Montebello. Valverde. College View. Lincoln Park. La Ma. Sunnyside Baker. Ashmore Park. Five Points. Globeville and Sun Valley. Essentially that's what those two amendments are. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, and thank you to my colleagues for briefly announcing their amendments. Let me first ask, are there any council members that had other amendments they wanted to bring forward? Seven is enough. All right. Thank you. So we're going to start to list our speakers. And just to remind people, the reasoning for these random drawings is based off support, opposition or neutrality. Based on how you noted on your cards, please come to the front pew one hour time once the first speaker begins and I apologize in advance for any names I mispronounced. So first five speakers we have up and the first one is Hard Reader, Catholic, Miki Zeppelin, Gregory Wright, Lyndsey Gillis and Brendan Moyers. So those five, please make your way up to the front pew. I wanted to delay all five of them here. If we don't have some, then we'll get to some more. So, Rita, you can begin your remarks. Dear Members of the Council, thank you for opportunity to speak. As you hear from my accent, I'm an immigrant, an immigrant from Ukraine. I came to this country 25 years ago and I started from McDonald's. Done some learning, done some studies, done some hard work, and feeling like I was succeeding in this country pretty good. Up to the last minute. So I to you know, when they start hearing those things so help me out, please. I also you know, I feel that the reason for my success that this country is based on integrity and this country based on honesty and this country based on the handshake, believe, if you go back to Russia and Ukraine, they wouldn't even believe our banking system. They wouldn't understand why people just not go and steal the money. They have the ability to do that, but they're not doing that. I had this handshake. The city of Denver in November opening OPEC in AMC. I followed all the rules. I'm an A student. If they say do something, I'm doing that. I had my card signed. ABC emcee called Signed already and I'm ready for licenses. I just found out that I cannot get the licenses because they put hearing on that. There wasn't supposed to be. They're just found out today. So that delays the process, which is already killing me. I have people working, getting everything ready. I have employees who is getting store ready to open and just spent so much money on that you can't believe. And I have a lease that binds me for for at least five years and I have to pay out of this lease. I recently had to stop my computer programing career to do this. So I just can't go back home and tell my family this is what's happening. And the implication sounds very, very innocent when you think in the application and it's pending. But no, in order to put that application, you have to sign you have to sign the lease with the landlord. And then, you know, from where you want the business, that lease is usually huge. And then you have to spend lots of money to invest for the grow. I build it, we build it all the past, those inspections. I just got my seasonal card signed and city went all the way helping me out to get things signed so quickly so we can open quickly. And I just can't go home and tell my family that this is what's happening. I have a partner. He has three kids. He has to put them to college and not to be for the rest of his life. Now, on the lease and bills on you know, this is just I understand that city may be deciding to change the rules and not to take any more applications. I wouldn't. Please, greta. Ma'am. Your 3 minutes is up. Appreciate your. Help. Thank you. And could you say your cities have resident? Do you live at your Denver resident? What city do you live in? I live in Greenwood Village in. I have properties in that property. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Mickey Zeppelin. Good evening. Members of Council. I live at 350, which is in Globeville. And the history of Globeville is one from the city standpoint of really shame. I think for the last hundred years Globeville has been really abused. The original highway came through, Globeville through when President Eisenhower did it. We've had smelters. We've had the sewer plant. Any undesirable use seems to end up in Globeville, and the benefits don't manage to get there. We have the worst air that we're schools, the worst health. And we also got marijuana and we got an abundance of it. And I think people felt really powerless in terms of protesting. I think New Hope came when we adopted the neighborhood plan. People felt somewhat empowered and there was a sense of hope. And people really gathered together. And when it appeared that there was going to even be more marijuana in there in the area which had disastrous effects , the roads are terrible. The whole environment is bad. And from my standpoint as a developer, there's really not much incentive to go along with what is in the plan to create community, to make things happen. From the community standpoint, I think they're looking at this not just as are we going to have more marijuana, but it's in essence the hope of that community of saying we're finally being listened to. The number of people here who came out who would. Never have come before to a. Hearing like this is amazing. And it's gratifying to see after 15 years that finally people have risen up and said, enough is enough, we want some benefits and not all the burdens. So I. Ask you. To provide that there be no more marijuana in the Globeville area. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Kaplan. Gregory Wright. I thank you for letting me speak. I'm a business owner. I have a manufacturers of refuse product licensing and located on 3936 West Colfax on January the 26 of 2015. A Denver zoning representative came in with a fireman to present me with a new law and to say a state that I had six days to cease and desist operations that I was no longer allowed to operate in a Nomex three zone. And I had to relocate. There was nothing I could do. Speaking to attorneys around the city and all, they said, you know, in any other business, in any other industry, we would be able to go and. Bring our case before the city as business takings. But with marijuana. Seems like no judge is going to be able to listen to any lawsuits and basically says, you know, take it outside and box it out on the grass. Gentlemen, we're not going to listen to you. So I've been hurt very badly by the city over the last year. I've had no income and I have licenses that I have paid for. As you know, these licenses are very costly. I have probably lost over $100,000 in the last 14 months supporting this business and trying to find a new location that suitable and approved by Denver zoning. I understand the plight of everybody that is is in the rears right now and waiting to get licensed. I went through the pain and still am going through it. I support Representative Canisius amendment and feel that this industry is overregulated. I've followed the rules from day one. Did everything right. Never fudged from it. We have a system called metric which tracks everything we do. My system was clean from beginning to end. Yet the city chose to come in. Knocked me off the plate and say. Try again. A lot of money lost. Thank you for listening to me. Thank you, sir. Next, we have Lindsay. Lindsay Gillis. Lindsey and Lee. Okay. Next, we have Brennan Moyers. Some of these folks may be downstairs that need to come up. Okay. We are going to I'm going to say the next five, Brant Beckman, Brooke Gehring, Holliday Aguilar, Lisa Salmon, CORERA and Brian Keegan. So if you five are in the room or in 391, I ask that you will please come up. Brant Beckman You can go ahead and begin your remarks. Hello there, city council. My name is Brant Beckman. I'm a resident. In Golden, Colorado, but also a property owner at Logan Street in the Globeville area. I guess we have a MIPS license, a medical MIPS license. And I guess I want to thank you, because it looks like at this point we will be able to get our recreational license. So I appreciate the fact that it does look that way from the deeper part of my heart, though, I do feel sad about what's happening to the medical community pushing things in that direction. And I also feel that we are a little bit on the overregulated side, and I think that the system, the way it is, can regulate it as is. I do hear the hearts of the community and some of the things that have been done in the communities. I think there's great things that you guys are doing at this point to make that better for the communities. And I guess just want to say thank you for hearing us all and I'll give time to the next speaker. So thanks. Thank you, Mr. Beckman. Next, Brooke. Gary. Thank you, counsel. My name is Brooke Garing and I am a resident of District Six. I am a business owner for six and a half years in districts three, seven, eight. And I'm also a property owner in District eight. Some of my comments have already been made this evening. So I'd like Kristy Kelly, Vice Chair of the Marijuana Industry Group, to be able to speak for me tonight. Thank you, counsel, and thank you, Brooke. Christie Kelly, I reside in district one. I own multiple. Businesses. I'm sorry. I apologize. I was talking to the council secretary. You can't defer your time. So that was your time. That that is your time. You can't another person can't come up and take the remainder of your time. I apologize for that. Okay. I just didn't want to be. Okay. So apologize now. You can't have you speak for another person. We're we need to go to the next to the next speaker unless you want to continue your time. We're good. We get. All right. Thank you. Next, we have Holly Aguilar. And Madam Secretary, this will require translation. So could you do a total of 6 minutes for the speaker? Yes. Thank you. You see, when I said this and you're discussing numbers, Holliday. Aguilar, good afternoon. Good evening. Councilmembers. My name is Holliday. Aguilar. See you then. Go deal with scenario. This one's here. I come from the Swanson neighborhood. Babies are important to animals. I've lived there for 15 years. You're a member of the communities who needs the help of your Ilaria swans here. And I am a member of a community that is Sunni. That's from Globeville area in Swansea. I mean, I know some of the limit. And Imean, that gay pride, they must defend us in Bernardo Delas Villas areas stands out to us. And we are in favor in favor of the amendment that would prohibit more stores and cultivation centers in the areas that are already been that are already saturated, not good mosques acting licentious because dumping the enters in our community, we do not want you to accept the licenses that are pending in our community. Okay. But is it mutual? As you said, isn't the cornerstone, even though I'm glad of this, that they maintain important a mutual basis Pedro but is it cannot not and is Cucolo? I believe many of you know me. I have come to speak on this subject many, many times, but it seems like you might not have listened. Can I moschino's? Is Guccione in action? We want you to hear us and to take action in journalism. But these are mutual. There is a lot impact to this industry in our community that we have repeated many times what the impacts of this industry have on our community. Listen. But these are the mutual models loss impact those peripatetic you say this boom in tourism we have repeated these impacts to you, but it seems like maybe you're not interested in them. No, not anti portal status since they must represent them. And as personas can be hurting, we do not feel represented represented by you. We feel like you represent those that invest best. So I can represent an anecdote. Rose Caramels giving on ABC. Tara, whose Comunidad is Nuestra Comunidad. We asked you, we ask you to start representing us. We want you to come and visit your communities, our community. Get em all to a boil as he considers Buscaglia nosotros. But I started on the stand. We're asking you, asking for your support. Just like you ask for our support to be where you're at at this moment. Muchas gracias. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, we have Lisa Samoa's career. Good evening. I'm Lisa Simos. Korea and I live on Capitol Hill and I do have an MBA degree. And and that will explain my short statement. Anti-competitive practices. Are government. Practices. That prevent or reduce competition in the market. And since I have 3 minutes, I'm going to repeat that. Anti-competitive practices. Our government practices that prevent or reduce competition in a market. And I do mean this with all due respect. I ask each of you to be careful what you wish for by throwing up entries entry barriers. I am concerned that the ensuing protectionism will give companies insulation from competitive forces that would ultimately benefit the consumers that you are trying to protect. And I made a little note, a quote from Councilman Brooks Brooks a little earlier that he doesn't believe in overprescribing. And I hope the rest of you will consider that as well. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Brian Keegan. And as Brian. And before Brian Keegan begins his remarks, I'm gonna call the next five speakers Nicola Voulu and Elizabeth. Kristy Kelly. Martha Flores. And Flown Beth Beckman. Gareth DAVIES Good evening, President and members of Council. My name is Brian Keegan. I am here today as a marijuana industry professional. But more importantly, I'm here as a concerned citizen of District eight and the state of Colorado moratorium is coming to an end, as we all know. And we must decide how to move forward. I believe Councilwoman Kinesis proposal, is that correct? Way forward. Some of the proposed amendments, however, do go too far. And as we have chosen to speak with you today. My fear is that there are some anti-marijuana groups and influential people, some of them in this room that are using this topic and this time in history as another referendum on marijuana. The voters have spoken. As we all know. It is time for a sensible regulation like Councilwoman Kansas proposed that provides jobs and tax revenue for the city. I ask you to vote for a councilman, finish his proposal this this fine evening and urge you to vote against the proposals for one reason. I just don't believe that you guys have had enough time to hash it out, no pun intended. And and I don't think a lot of people in this room have really had time to digest those amendments as well. I think we've all had time to digest the the the bill at hand. But the amendments, they they definitely need some work. And I think we all need to sit down and go over them. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Nick Lovullo. Let me go below. Although I'm a resident of five points, just a neighbor. We wouldn't be here today if you all did what you should have done and just let the moratorium fizzle out. Should it just that have been it at two years booming industry marijuana crime down to next to nothing 0.03% of all crime in Denver . Millions of dollars in tax revenue. Well regulated. We win. The reward is that we get a ban on businesses. Weight of the 11th hour to reinstate the moratorium. Deliberate for five months on an issue that's several standard deviations away from what people care about. Now, you know, the priorities are just backwards. No new medical dispensaries. Zero. This is the first piece of legislation that I've ever read, ever in Denver, Colorado, that prioritizes casual consumerism over people who use marijuana as medicine. Zero. His Campaign for Patients Rights First. Until now. You guys have got to put your names all over this, Bill. Fewer people are getting red cards. So are you going to shut off the valve? There's zero forever. There's no sunset on this bill. There's no sunset. We don't get to talk about this again in two years and have the same conversation all over again. There's some gold medal, mental gymnastics going on that would lead you to believe that that's something that Coloradans would support. I don't know. You said something that this is does not capture test licenses. I wasn't sure. But, yeah, like banning, you know, restricting all these licenses. It's really reefer madness. It's a leap from common sense ability. Some of your council reps want to eliminate the pending applications in certain neighborhoods, my old councilman included. I understand that there is an undue concentration which is just as subjective as saturation. That word undue. Anyway, another 11th hour decision to pull people's licenses away from them. You know, even though the city processed all those applications, now, you know, where were you when those came in? Where were you when those licenses came in? Did you ever go to an excise and licenses, hearing, protest, something with your community? I don't think you did. That's the process that was supposed to go through, not tear the rug out from everybody and open the city up to potentially millions of dollars in civil liability claims. That's reckless. That's reckless. You're lucky you have elected office because you work anywhere else. You open that company, your organization, up to that level of liability. You're gone yesterday. So don't punish our entrepreneurs who follow the process because you failed to organize your communities earlier on, many months ago at a license hearing. Don't let businesses you know, businesses, investors have no recourse but to sue the city for their losses. You'll be the ones stamping those settlement checks and we'll be the ones paying for them. So you spent five months on this proposal. Sad to say, it's terrible. It's antithetical to Denver's normal dealing with local businesses, especially if you take away the licenses. It's anti-coal. Colorado's priority of treatment of the boulder. This is a little loose. Your 3 minutes are up, sir. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. Next we have. Next we have an Elizabeth and that is and you are certainly have a right to clap. But all that does is possibly prevent future people from speaking. So I would ask if we could keep the clapping down so we can get through all the speakers. Miss Elizabeth, you're up. Thank you. And Elizabeth Global resident and I have a little studio there now. Thank you to the repurposing of a building. I'm here to support this bill, if amended by the combined amendments proposed by council members Ortega, Lopez. And Gilmore such. That no new marijuana business licenses of any type will be granted in the areas determined to be neighborhoods of undue concentration by the council and consensus, and that that the threshold be the top ten neighborhoods. We have 78 statistical neighborhoods in Denver that the marijuana licenses that as marijuana licenses may. Leave Globeville Leery. And Swansea in particular through attrition over time that reduced concentrations be enforced through licensing application freezes in these neighborhoods until Globeville, Larry, Swansea in particular move out of the top 18 concentration ranking that the total investment to the marijuana license applications pending firms be assessed in the global Elyria Swansea neighborhoods, and that the city offer recovery and incentives for the relocation of these pending applications from global area Swansea to other neighborhoods in Denver with new sites and that that no more that I'm going to derivate from my notes to respond. A couple of things here real quick. Number one, I'm a strong supporter of medical marijuana. I voted against Proposition 64 because I didn't think Denver was ready to administer this based on its experiences with excise, licensing and other matters matters. I did participate fully in the beginning from within the neighborhoods, in attending licensing hearings, in the facilities coming into the neighborhoods, trying to help the commercial firms recognize the impacts on the neighborhoods that were happening. I think that even though many marijuana business and I'm very glad that in the state legislature, the conversation around administering, giving parents the right to bring medical marijuana treatment to the school is available, still being. Considered possibly available. For children. I'm I support that strongly. But the hedonistic recreational use of marijuana, even though it is being used, even though the firms do. Often do. Adhere to the to the letter of the law and follow regulations. I don't think that courtesies have been in place throughout this. Are people such as myself that have wanted regulation. This is a different type. Of of of change socially and environmentally. And these it's not anecdotal or subjective. When you walk down the street and you smell the marijuana and you experience it in the daily lives, it's a it's a critical thing. We need the right regulation. If we have a lottery, I want the the concentrated areas to be removed. It is not unfriendly to business to ask for these these. Neighborhoods like Loveland, Larry Swanson, that want to support a diversification of business, a vital economy in emergence into a whole new. Culture along the corridor of opportunity. Be relieved of the pressure of this flood. Talk about storm water. We need to work with this this. Elizabeth. And we need. To this Elizabeth, maybe 3 minutes is very much. Thank you. Next we have Christie Kelly. Good evening again. Thank you. Council, President and Council. I'm Christy Kelly. I reside in District one and I own multiple businesses in District three. I am also vice chair of Marijuana Industry Group. I am co-founder of Accountability, which is a nonprofit for families dealing with very sick children who require cannabis medicine to help with their serious conditions . I am founding board member of the Fourth Corner Credit Union and co-owner of a business that employs over 50 Denver residents and has been in operation since oh nine and I believe in the efficacy of medical cannabis. Last week I heard hear from residents that they're upset about cannabis businesses in their communities. And this was shocking to me because conversely, my own experience has been different. 40 to 50 of my own neighborhood neighbors and District three thanked us for moving in, installing security and essentially eradicating the illicit drug dealing in the shared alley behind our cultivation facility. Which was in Councilman Lopez's district. My business has a directive to prioritize diversity economic, racial, sexual, religious and academic. Every one of my employees loves the city of Denver and believe that responsible businesses should thrive and coexist within the communities that we operate. And that's why it's really critical to allow pending applicants for business, for businesses that have gone through or are going through the rigorous application process right now. You have to acquire a zone, construct permit and then install security into these facilities. Often vacant buildings. This is an investment that requires millions of dollars. Then in the last couple of years, the evolving landscape added on to that rigor by with with an evolving fire, public safety, environmental, health regulation and regulatory framework. And that just adds to the investment pool. My sense is, wouldn't this be exactly the kinds of businesses that you would want to co-exist inside of your communities? The ones who are happily, willingly finding additional resources to happily comply with the evolving regulatory landscape. Don't you want well-resourced businesses who feel a sense of responsibility to the cities that they live in and the regulatory environments that we're putting forth? This should be exactly what we want in our communities, people who are willing to do whatever it takes to be compliant. Why punish them for following the rules on the 1000 square foot residential buffer issue? It's my understanding that the goal is to avoid saturation inside of communities and support the diversification of businesses. The challenge in this is that in the event of eminent domain and. Misskelley, I apologize to you, 3 minutes are. Up. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much, counsel. Next, we have Martha Flores. Excuse me. And this will require translation. So, Madam Secretary, we could do 6 minutes and before my floor. As you start, I'm going to call the next five names from that Beckman, Mike Wolfe, Carl Cheney, Little John, Jennifer Schuman and John Menzies. So if you five can make your way up my floors, you mean you can even begin your remarks. When I start? This may number as much as he possessed. Okay, come on. My already familiar Berlusconi, that is. Good evening. My name is Marta Flores, and I am here as a mother supporting our communities as farmers. Support and the estamos. I have all I mean. The private amnesty industry in bear Madero Salazar described as counsel to riders. We are in favor of the amendment that prohibits more stores in more cultivation centers in the already saturated areas. No caramels as a concept and a license. Yes. Because stamping the interest in a company that is we do not want you to accept the licenses that are pending in our communities. So my story preoccupied Upper Mexico's Justo. Lucha, the Nelson Plateau, Salvador Comida and in La mesa. I am a mother. And right now my concern is to make sure that my children have healthy food at the table, in my own pocket at recess. And they will come on as a community that says that in London, the contents of the marijuana eat and the smaller salad is a planter's. And I'm saddened to see the way our community is saturated by these marijuana stores in these cultivation areas. Your main work at this at this if you had an appropriate and familiar for measure that comes to me high school and then marijuana this to say better less quail and also odors. And I'm here speaking on a personally speaking because my son was involved in marijuana and he wasn't able to attend school reporting for medical marijuana and allowed us to prevail. He was. And because of marijuana and unfamiliar person for a person because of marijuana, he does not have his freedom. And I would hate for other families to go through what I go through. When it's done. Yes, that is it. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Flores. Next, we have fun with Beckman. Good evening. My name's Flaubert Beckmann. My address is 5060 Logan. Zip 81 six Globeville Neighborhood. Thank you for listening. The voice of the community. We all know this important. We know we all know that that is what form society. And we all like to be part of society. And thank you again for listening in the concert. So the cannabis business owners and your web page from the Office of the Economic and Development say you start your business, say let's stock this, come from your website about businesses. So that's what we're doing. We're talking and we're really appreciate that as a community that you're listening or concerns that you're questioning, that you're questioning signs that you're questioning the public services, but that then we has a obligation to educate your community, to educate your families. And I am asking for your help because as a community in the cannabis businesses, I think everybody we want people to be really well educated. We don't want children. We don't want families to be destroyed. So let's back. And because you are here making history by changing the lesson, Colorado, I want to thank you for the opportunity or for the privilege to hopefully acquire a recreational license for my medical infuse business. And as a company, we continuously aim to be part of a community where can all lead sustainable. Let's talk about that. Let's talk about how Denver can provide to businesses like the cannabis businesses and sustainable farm, a sustainable base that we can thrive. We can be all party and we can all be happy. So again, thank you. And let's talk about that, the sustainability of businesses. What is the carbon carbon footprint of each business? You know, they talk about some businesses. They has five licenses in that business. Let's talk about sustainability. Do you rather has five different buildings or you rather has businesses? They are small businesses in one location. So let's talk about that. And again, thank you for everything. And I just want a better Denver. It was something that I didn't ask to be, but all the businesses, somehow we ended up being in Denver and now we need to deal with. So let's be smart. Let's try to take good choices. Thank you again. Thank you, Miss Beckman. Next, we have Mike Wolfe and we are just over 30 minutes. All right. Good evening, members of the council. My name is Mike Wolfe. I work at ten, five, five five East 45th Avenue, Denver 8239. I'm testifying in support of councilwoman clinches marijuana bill and against any of the amendments. I'm 30 years older. I graduated with honors from Illinois State University with a degree in horticulture shortly after I moved to Colorado in 2010. I recently left my job as a production grower at one of the largest wholesale bedding plant growers in Colorado. At this greenhouse, I was exposed to extremely harmful chemicals on a daily basis. As of this past year, I was required to spray organophosphates. For those of you who are not aware, gain of phosphates accumulate in your body over time, they never leave. So if you are exposed to these at all, there is a good chance that you will have complications later in life. Organophosphate poisoning can greatly affect the nervous system. I also had very little excuse me, practically no room for advancement in my previous position. I was incredibly excited to accept a position as a lead grower with an extremely well-known cannabis company with a pending application. This company is about a month away from receiving its certificate of occupancy for a beautiful state of the art facility. The facility is located more than 1000 feet away from any residential area or school. I am I am so excited to work in cannabis because it allows me to use my degree and do the work that I love without putting my body and health at risk from harmful chemicals. This is also a much better paying job for me, which is great because I have student loans and I have a mortgage that I need to pay. Started training a few weeks ago. I was of initially I was a little hesitant to jump into the cannabis industry. But after careful consideration and research, I know that this is a company that is committed to doing things the right way and they are already training me in compliance. If the pending applications are denied, I will definitely lose my job. I honestly do not know what I will do. My bills are pretty high. I cannot afford to go without work. Please do the right thing and allow the pending applications to proceed. It is not just the owners who will be devastated. If these are denied, I'll lose the best job I've ever had. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. Next we. Have Caro Cheney little John. And I would just remind our speakers if you could say your name and cities of residence and your home address if you are comfortable. Thank you. Carl Cheney, Little John and I am here representing the community of Mandela. I truly believe that on behalf of the children and my community of 24 years, that business owners understand. Can you lift your microphone up just a little bit? Feelings and of our community, the investments and the business plans that they have for my fellow, you know, everybody took a risk doing that. The. There could have been a consideration to these owners that you could look within a 30 mile radius of Denver to invest, and it would have been cheaper with the ordinances as far as Denver is concerned. After attending the. Agendas that you had here for city council. The assistant attorney advised the counsel of their right to support the marijuana industry. Council took into consideration children in the children and the communities. But they did not take the advice. The best advice of the assistant attorney, which was to. Stop. Let the business owners know that a stake has occurred. The city chooses to put forth a frivolous mask on pending applications to sacrifice our children and our communities to pass this ordinance. Is truly not fair to the communities and to the children. Coming to a meeting. I listened to Commish say that she has a six year old daughter. Our six year old. Something. But. In our community. I've been there for 24 years and I've been coaching. I volunteer for the community in everything. I have no I have no qualms with. The businesses that are there. But we have five schools within. A thousand foot of saturated community already, which you're going to install more. Businesses and it's not fair to our community. A lot of people aren't here to protect their sales, but I just want counsel to know that there will be consequences to pay for this. Thank you. Thanks a little, John. Next, we have Jennifer Schumann. Hi. I'm Jennifer SHUKMAN. I live in District one. Councilman Espinosa is my representative. I'm a stay at home mom to two small boys. They're six and. Seven. And I don't personally use marijuana, alcohol, tobacco, what have you. But I see the value that these businesses bring to our city right in tax dollars. In renovating buildings and in employment. So bear with me here. I have close friends who own three restaurants in Denver. And I can't imagine that they would. Work in good faith to build out their restaurant and hire people, only to be told at the last minute that we just have too many places to eat right. Now and that location doesn't work anymore. And so maybe you're just not going to be. Allowed to open. At all through really no fault of. Their own. This is their money that they have invested. These are people who. Are citizens of this county, who have families who are following the rules. So that really wouldn't be acting in good faith to pull these pending licenses and to not allow them to progress. I assume it would open up the city to legal action. I wouldn't be. Dying to pay for it, given that I do. Have small children in school here. So these. Are people who have invested. Heavily and followed the rules. I respectfully ask that you act in good faith toward these people who are. Holding up their end of the. Deal. And I was a little bit unaware that there was an attempt to maybe legislate some morality on this issue or treat these businesses different than any other. I hope that's not the direction the city and council, the city and county of Denver is headed in. And I also strongly agree. With the woman who said earlier something along the lines of it is not the role of government to kill. Competition. So thank you for your time. I appreciate you being here. Thank you, Michigan. Next. Next, we have John Mincy. And as Mr. Menzies come forward, I'll call the next five names Tyler Henson, Scott Peck, Michael Liebowitz and Nadav Asner and Nathan Mendell. So Mr. Menzies, you can begin remarks. First off, my name is John Mekas and I'm a 30 for 54. Laughs and I'd like to thank the Council for the opportunity to. Speak to them. First off, I want. To let you guys know I'm the owner of a small mom and pop shop. I don't own a chain of retail stores, I don't own multiple stores. I own a 1000 square foot store. That is fortunate enough to see the demand outpaces supply, which is the reason why I went to the city months ago. I filled out my city. Application, paid my money, and in good faith began the very expensive and detailed long process of building out this facility. The warehouse that I took over at that time. Was completely gutted. There was a stop. Work order on it and it had been abandoned for the last three years. There was no electricity, no water, no walls. We completely went in there, fixed up the whole place. Were a few weeks. Away from getting our lights are getting our application code and it just seems really unfair at this point. Well, first off, I want to start by saying that I'm in support of Councilwoman Nash's bill, and it just seems really unfair to me to pull the pull the carpet out from under legitimate businesses who have been spending so much money and time trying to better themselves. Obviously, I'm the. Ultimate loser in this situation, but I'm not the only one. I have electrical contractors who are going to lose money. I have a lot of contractors who are going to lose money. Security people are going to lose money. We've already hired employees to work both the shop and the warehouse. As you know, this is one of the most regulated environments you could possibly imagine. You don't just hire employees and put them in a work environment overnight. That takes months of planning and anticipation. On a personal note, I mean, truthfully, I don't know if I will still be in business if you guys don't allow pending applications to move forward. I have sunk my wife and my full savings into this new business, and my wife is getting ready to have our first baby here in the next couple of weeks, and I really hope that doesn't coincide with the death of my business. So I appreciate your time. Tyler Henson. Thank you very much. My name is Tyler Henson. I am the president of the Colorado Cannabis Chamber of Commerce. We are located at 225 16th Avenue here in Denver, Colorado. A mirror testifies for that Colorado Cannabis Chamber of Commerce does not support this legislation or the amendments provided. One thing I'd like to state is this current bill that's being proposed. I look at this as a view of regulatory capture, which is a regulatory scheme that is to transform into a competition stifling tool that encourages rent seeking behavior. Which aims to use government regulations to impose regulations on competitors. In order to increase market share. I view these caps as an assault on businesses here in the state of Colorado, as well as the city and. County of Denver. Having a cap on licenses. Artificially increases the costs of licenses. In the state. They impede individuals from entering this market. And Denver should be embracing this new economy instead of prohibiting it. I will ask you to take a vote of no. On this bill. And I'm going to see the rest of my time. So individuals within this community who have licenses in this businesses or a pending licenses can. You can hear their voice so you can hear directly how this issue affects their businesses, their families and the communities they serve. And again, I asked you to. Not support this. Legislation or any of the. Amendments. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Scott Pack. Scott Peck. Thank you very much. I'll keep this brief. I don't want to repeat a lot of the great things that have been said here tonight. One thing I want to point out is. We're on a threshold. Denver is actually cool again. Like it is a big phenomenon that is. Happening in Denver. Why is that important? It's important because companies from the best school, you know, from the best cities, some of their schools are moving to Denver. It has been some some of the most amazing things are happening in the city. What we're all afraid of is it's a very difficult process to manage growth of a new industry that nobody knows anything about. Everybody wants a crystal ball, right. I applaud the tough decisions that you guys are making. Really. It's really it's it's admirable. However, like. What you guys fear seemingly is going to naturally correct itself. It happens in every industry to the woman's point. You open up too many restaurants and you don't do a good job. You go out of business. Those licenses will be surrendered by business owners that don't do good in business. They don't have good products. They don't grow well. They don't produce safe safety and efficacy. The two drivers of Big Pharma, right? Safety and efficacy, that's all we care about. We're not increasing the number of drugs in our streets. We're not making it easier for kids to get drugs. I've kids I've it's it creates more of a safer community environment for everybody. So. I'm Scott Park. I represent. Ten licenses in two facilities in two impacted zip codes and over $15 million of investment that have. I've been under the care of now. Based in. Relying. Upon the laws that have been in place. It would be a catastrophic failure. If these bills were to pass and the amendments. Everybody's moving to this city. Second fastest growing city. It's amazing. Applaud you guys all. Don't put roadblocks. The best and the brightest of this country are coming here because it's affordable, more affordable housing and still a very, very high standard of living. The market will correct itself. So thank you. Next we have Michael. Michael Liebowitz. Thank you. My name is Mike Liebowitz. I live at a 3267 Newton Street. I have lived in Denver about 11 years before that. I lived in Boulder. Originally from the East Coast. I got in the marijuana industry back. When it started. Before this was ever imaginable. We met in meetings, in houses, in Longmont and debated, is this really going to happen? Is this really an industry that's really happened? But long story short, I have worked very hard personally to climb up in the industry, and I. I'm sorry. I'm kind of forgetting what I was gonna say. I'm a little emotional. I'm a little angry. I went through anger, I went through sadness. And now I'm here to prevent it from happening again. Basically, I went into the city of Denver in July knowing that a property I owned on 38th was eligible because 30th Avenue on West 38th, a little west of federal, was was. Eligible for a dispensary because another dispensary moved. We all know the rigorous application and process of becoming a dispensary. I filled out all the necessary paperwork. The woman at. The desk hit the button and lo and behold, they would take my $5,000 for an application. And I was elated. I was qualified in this impossible world of qualifying to become a dispensary. I went ahead. And remodel, kicked my tenants out of a great. Rental property, remodeled a house. And. Went ahead and even. Purchased a convertible recreational license. So I could have both businesses at my my property. Finally got all my signatures completed and last Friday walked. An exercise in license as I thought a formality to get my business license. And I was told that that wasn't going to happen anymore, that I was. Under review basically. For a change of measurement. That wasn't made clear to me when I applied. Back in in October. So I'm obviously going to go through a hearing and. Debate my own issue. But just to speak on why we're all here tonight, it's incredibly. Unfair to take a. Taxpayer. I've been used to an apartment. Buildings and I got really crushed and. You know, 28 and 29, like a lot of people and built myself back up through the apartment, through the marijuana industry. It's just you guys aren't here to ruin people's lives. You're here to, you know, set regulations. But, you know, to allow. Somebody like myself to go to go forward and put all of his money into into a project and then for rules to change, you know, at the last minute and be. Denied that. It's just is just not fair. So I, I just want to say. That I support any measure that allows people that have already invested their money because they've been given approval to do something. You guys can't take that away. It's just not fair. Thank you. Thank you both. Next, we have Nadav Aster. My name is Nadav Asher. I live in Denver. I'm an attorney here in Denver. And my firm represents a number of marijuana businesses, lenders, investors, landlords. You name it. I can't speak on behalf of all my clients today, but I speak on my own behalf when I say that I support a proposal, but I don't support this proposal. I'm going to talk a little bit about. The specific language, but I do want to say that I hope that if this proposal does pass, there's an opportunity to comment on the seven amendments because they are vastly different than the language of the proposal itself. And I'd like everyone here to be not to be disenfranchized and have their voice heard. I want to respond. There have been a lot of comments about the impact on the community in certain neighborhoods, in certain oversaturated areas. Certainly that's the case. There are oversaturated, saturated areas. You can drive around town. You know exactly where they are. The problem is that the people who are in those areas, the. Businesses in those areas, didn't necessarily choose to be in those areas. That's a product of Denver, Denver's zoning regulations, Denver's code, municipal code that has pushed people into these neighborhoods. And I do. Want to say that there are significant efforts by my clients, by many industry actors to to do farmer's markets, to do. Community outreach initiatives, to help better the community and to essentially to deny. Pending applications or to to tell the world that this industry is as bad because certain neighborhoods have more marijuana than others. It's a little bit unfair. Specifically, the language. Of the ordinance that I want to discuss relates around the lottery. There's been a lot of discussion about this oversaturation. I know that's a huge concern from speaking to many of you. This bill is going to. Encourage a secondary market. And again, I know that many of you do not like the idea of a secondary market where licenses, pieces of papers are selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars. This bill to keep a lottery in place to prevent new actors from coming in online is going to have businesses sell their licenses on the open market. It's going to do. The unintended consequences of this bill are staggering. And I really hope that you guys take some time to reconsider what the language of this ordinance says before you. Before you take your vote. Excuse me. Freezing dispensaries. In saturated neighborhoods by not allowing them. To locate dislocate from their. Growth is is a huge problem for for me and for many of my clients. The language of the bill talks about changing a location. If you're going to move a store, you have to move the licenses, associate with the store. So if you have a facility with a grow a store and a meat facility, for example, you would have to if you want to move the store, you have to move the others. What you're doing. Is essentially encouraging people to take businesses maybe from a beneficial neighborhood. A good neighborhood, and move it to one of these saturated neighborhoods, you know, as you're calling them, sort of bad neighborhoods. But but they're not. There's a lot of room for improvement on this language. There's a lot of room to make a an effective proposal that will satisfy your desires and. Will help the community and the industry to. Grow. And currently, we're just not there yet. So I think it remains. Nathan Mindel And as Mr. Mindel comes up, I'll call the next five names Truman, Bradley, Paul Andrews, Patrick O'Malley, Mike Elliott. And it's just one name, Angelina. So, Mr. Mindel, you can begin your remarks. My name is Nathan Mendel. I live at 7362 East Mansfield Avenue in your district, Councilwoman Black. I own two companies. I own Mendel in company construction. We are a commercial general contractor and have been for 19 years. Five years ago I started a second company called Your Green Contractor specifically so that we could build marijuana projects in and around the Denver area. We have doubled in size since we started building marijuana projects. We have 32 employees now. What I wanted to talk about specifically in an overall picture, I'm a free market capitalist. I don't think there should be any caps on any business. It was mentioned earlier the number of restaurants, the number of contractors, the number of marijuana businesses should be determined by the market. But what I wanted to talk about specifically was the pending applications and the fact of changing the rules at the 11th hour for companies that have spent and invested millions and millions of dollars under a set of rules that they were told to work by. And now those are potentially changing as they're in the process. The process takes months and months and months, in addition to the either hundreds of thousands or literally millions of dollars that are invested to get to the point that they're at. I understand if you're going to put a cap on the number of licenses, if that's the decision that you make, I understand that. But you need to give people fair notice that this is going to happen on a certain date so that they can understand that the rules are going to change. And they know that if they're not in the queue by that time, that they're not going to be a part of the system. But to go back retroactively and say we are now going to go and take this away for you that have spent this dollars doesn't work at all. And is is not what the people of the city and county of Denver, I believe, want in this case. Thank you. Thank you, Truman. Bradlee. We are just that. 10 minutes left. Good evening. Members of council. My name is Truman Bradley. I don't live in the city of Denver. I do own. Ah. I do want a business located here. I'm standing here before you. Holding job descriptions right now for 20 jobs. These are not lousy minimum wage positions. These are middle skills, as well as high paying jobs, all with benefits. Mr. Herndon. These great jobs are in your district. Council members. If you amend the bill before you to deny the spendings, you will destroy these and hundreds of other jobs. Denying pending applications after people have invested their life savings would be truly devastating. Hundreds of locally owned small businesses would be wiped out. You've heard from many of them. I would be one of them. This won't just impact cannabis companies. It will likely wipe out construction companies such as Mr. Mendez, as well as others. It will wipe out vendors, landlords and employees. Denver licenses over 200 different industries. Denying pending applications that are otherwise in good standing sends a clear message that Denver is too dangerous a city in which to invest. This applies to restaurants, hotels, breweries, hospitals, you name it. Denver has always honored its commitments with the business community. As Councilwoman Kennedy said in the committee meeting. There is no precedent for going back and denying these pending. What you guys are doing is simply cruel. Please don't set this terrible precedent. Please instead send a message to all industries that businesses can trust what Denver says. I'm sure you will hear testimony tonight about so-called concentration issues. Most of these state concerns about either crime or odor. As Councilwoman Kennish pointed out in the last committee meeting. Crime data shows that cannabis companies actually have an extremely low incidence of crime, in fact, due to the high number of cameras at the facilities. Many neighborhoods are, in fact, safer. Camera footage from my own company has helped solve three crimes that had nothing to do with cannabis. A domestic dispute, a traffic issue, and a break in a few doors down. As for odor, this council is hard at work on a comprehensive odor ordinance. This will take care of the odor issues. Councilwoman, nature's bill is tough on the cannabis cannabis industry. You've heard mixed reviews here. That's a pretty good indication that it's fair. It protects the communities while keeping faith with the business community. Please pass this bill out as it is written with only Councilwoman Gilmore's amendment. Thank you. Paul. Paul Anders. Paul Andrews. Thank you, members of council. I'm Paul Andrews, the president and CEO of the National Western Stock Show and Complex, located at 4655 Humboldt Street. Has leadership of the Nation Western Stock Show. We're writing to express our support for capping new cultivation and retail licenses going forward and limiting pending licenses in the Globeville area and Swansea and neighborhoods . Which we will call geese from. This point forward, either by enforcing the 1000 foot rule or by another standard baits based on saturation. In the area. Over the last three and a half years, the National Western Stock Show, our neighbors in the city of Denver have worked together to develop the nation a Western Center master plan. That plan was Adobe adopted by the city last November, and the people of Denver approve the ballot measure to see to fund the development of the National Western Center. The Nation Western Stock Show and CSU are equity partners with the city and are committed to the success of the National Western Center. We're starting now to build a world class facility where businesses and neighbors will work together to welcome visitors from around the United States and in fact, the world. We are building a neighborhood that is thriving, welcoming and safe, both for residents and visitors. We understand that marijuana businesses are part of our community, but we have to ask how much one community can handle. We need to foster a diverse business space that meets the needs of the community. The overabundance of marijuana cultivation and retail facilities in the neighborhoods surrounding our complex has created challenges for our community. As leaders of an organization that's been part of Denver for 110 years, we want to ensure the exhibitors and attendees feel safe and welcome at our show. Driving through the neighborhood and smelling marijuana or witnessing a police presence at a local store is not particularly inviting. While not all facilities have issues that warrant a police presence or create unwanted odors, those that do create an unwelcoming environment for current and future guests to the National Western Center as well as a global hilarious wants your residents and businesspeople allowing additional facilities to be licensed and located. And yes, will continue to compound these problems. And we hope council members will consider this as they move forward with the legislation and amendments today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Andrews. Next, Patrick O'Malley. Thank you. Patrick O'Malley live in Longmont. I have a medical nips in Montebello neighborhood. I only wish to speak tonight against any current or future proposed amendments that might apply to MIPS. I did have the pleasure of having a couple of council members through my MEPs over the last couple of months and while there the main point was to demonstrate that MIPS are really part of any solution for. Well, not all problems, but certainly some of the problems. That you're wrestling with here today. MIPS are part of the solution because they both create jobs and more importantly because they help reduce the risk of diversion out of state of product that might not otherwise be able to be sold. And I do yield the rest of my time. And you. Next, we have Mike Elliott and we are approaching one hour. I'll allow six more minutes for the two times we have translations. Mr. Elliott, feel free to begin your remarks. Thank you. Council members. My name is Mike Elliott, executive director of the Marijuana Industry Group. With regards to the pending applications, we are encouraging you to please support these and let these go through. With regards to them, we are trying to find this right balance with the community.