A bill for an ordinance concerning designated consumption area setback requirements. Designated consumption areas will be permitted to operate at least 1000 feet from of a school, 500 feet of a Child Care Establishment, 500 feet of a alcohol or drug treatment facility; 500 feet of a city-owned recreation center or city-owned outdoor pool. Council member Black approved direct filing this item on 4-11-19.
813 ies Huntsville 19 0187 has passed. Councilwoman Black, will you please vote council bill 349 on the floor. Yes, I move that council bill 19 dash 0349 be ordered published. It has been moved and seconded. Councilman Black, do you have a motion to amend? Yes, I move that council bill 19 dash 0349 be amended in the following particulars on page one line three Strike Committee of Reference on page one. Line four Strikes, special issues, marijuana. And the amendment has been moved. Can I get a second and seconded? All right. Questions by a members of council about the amendment before jump in here. Just clarify what it does. Councilwoman, I take it you had a you wanted a clarification on asking for the clarify. Councilman Black, did you want to take that? The purpose of the amendment is to administratively correct the committee of reference. I direct filed this bill and it did not come out of committee and an error was made when someone made a change. But to put it into context, the Special Issues Marijuana Committee discussed distance requirements for social consumption areas at six different meetings. The proposed bill is presented on March 18th. It was not proposed to move forward on March 18th due to scheduling issues. But since no additional information had emerged, I was advised that it was appropriate to file the bill directly. All right. Any other questions or comments before we vote on the amendment? All right. Seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment. Black Eye. Brooks I. Espinosa. I. When I. Gilmore, I. Herndon, I. Cashman. Hi. Can I hear Lopez? New Ortega. Hi assessment, Mr. President. Hi. I'm secretary. Please close voting in the results. 12 hours. 12 hours. Constable 19 0349 has been amended. Councilwoman Black, we now need a motion to pass as amended. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council be they'll 19 dash 030 to be ordered published as amended. It has been moved and seconded the public hearing for Council Bill 19 0349 is open. May we have the staff report comes with. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to remind everyone that tonight we're voting to publish the bill which requires seven votes. It's not necessary to deliberate tonight since it will be on final reading next week and it will require nine votes to pass next week. I scheduled the hearing for tonight to be considerate of fellow council members since we are expecting next week's meeting to be very long. In November of 2016, over 168,000 Denver voters approved the neighborhood supported social consumption pilot program. The purpose of the initiative was to provide opportunities for businesses, to work with neighborhoods, to create legal places for people, including tourists, to consume marijuana out of public view and to protect children from seeing and smelling consumption in parks, sidewalks, the 16th Street Mall and along our rivers. Other cities are also struggling with public consumption and creating laws to license places that are out of public view. Social consumption. Businesses have been legal in Colorado Springs, of all places since 2015, with no setbacks at all. The voter approved initiative included 1000 foot setbacks from schools, which is consistent with the federal drug free zone law, excise and licenses and their rulemaking process added 1000 foot back setbacks from daycares, rec centers and pools and treatment centers. The proponents of the initiative believe that this setbacks frustrate the intent of the law. In the two and a half years since it passed, there are only two businesses in operation and they are functioning without incidents. But there are many more people who we have heard from who want to open a business but cannot find a location. They report that the added distance requirements are preventing them from finding a location that has an available property, is in a desirable location and has neighborhood support. The voter approved initiative also called for the creation of a task force to examine the impacts of the social consumption program. The task force met five times in 2018 2018 and determined that the added setbacks are inhibiting prospective businesses from finding viable locations. The task force recommended that the added setbacks either be removed or that some sort of appeal process be adopted. The Council Special Issues Marijuana Committee considered the recommendations of the task force and discussed the issue at six different meetings and came to consensus on this very modest compromise, which is what this bill is. It maintains the 1000 foot setbacks from schools as was approved by voters and is consistent with the federal drug free zone law. It respects the rule making process that exercise and license engaged in by not eliminating the added setbacks, by simply reducing them to 500 feet. The 500 foot setbacks are more consistent with alcohol, but in reality are much more restrictive than alcohol. It is a very modest and reasonable compromise that might allow new businesses to open and serve the need for social consumption without resulting in a flood of applications. The proponents of the initiative are supporting it all. They, although they would prefer to completely eliminate the added setbacks, the Denver Post or the editorial board is in support of the 500 foot setbacks, as is the federal bid, the Colfax bid and others. The following protections for neighborhoods and children are already in place and will not change with this bill. They include a 1000 foot setback from schools. The fact that designated consumption areas cannot be visible to the public. There are strict advertising and signage rules. People must be 21 years or older to enter. They must have neighborhood support or non opposition to even apply. A public hearing is required. There can be no dual or poly consumption. They have to comply with the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act. They cannot be in a residential zoned district and 54% of the city is owned. Residential, not including the area, cannot be on publicly owned property. There is a requirement for monitoring of this designated consumption area and sales of cannabis is not allowed. The intent of the voter approved initiative was to protect communities and children from seeing and smelling public can. Sumption by reducing the added setbacks. With this very modest proposal, some businesses will have the opportunity to open and provide that out of public use location. Thank you. Councilwoman Black. We have 28 individuals signed up to speak this evening. So what we're going to do to try and get through everyone as efficiently as possible is I'm going to call five people at a time when I call your name. If you could come relocate up to this front bench so that you're ready to jump right up to the microphone when your name is called to speak. So the first five people to come up to the front bench right now are Sara Woodson, Jude del Herrero, Aubrey Labbe Izzo, Jenni Leslie and Chris Hines and Sarah Woodson. You are up first. Okay. Thank you all so much for your time. My name is Sarah Watson and I own cushion canvases. It is a 420 friendly smoking paint class and people love the idea of it. In 16, when the amendment went through, I was super excited. I was like, Yeah, I'm going to get my license. This is going to be a breeze. And what I quickly realized was because of the thousand foot setback, especially with daycare centers, I was just having no luck at all. I actually had three landlords that were ready to go. I thought it was a great idea and just couldn't find a place. So I've been at a total halt, pretty much. I can't open a business. I know that, you know, one of the things is protecting the children in the community. But I will say that kids in Colorado, they know what weed smells like. They see it around all the time. And that's part of the reason, because there's no private place to smoke weed is what I feel. So I feel like set. Getting the setback in place is going to help open viable businesses. Also, it would still protect children because as you already know, it's not visible. And then finally, something that's important to me is that this is really the only opportunity for minorities to really enter into the cannabis space at this point, because social consumption has a low barrier as far as how much the application cost. Excuse me. So I mean, by allowing this to pass, that's going to be a huge thing for minorities, black and brown people, to be a part of a cannabis and a social consumption ancillary way. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, judo hero. Dude. Nope. All right. Aubrey lives, though. Hmm. Good evening again, Mr. President. And council members. My name is Aubrey. Life as I am in support of the compromise proposal. Compromise. I'm a Denver resident in Council and Wayne News District ten, a former owner of a business in Councilman Paul Lopez. District three, a former llama Lincoln Park board member, the grandparent of ten year old and two year old granddaughters, and a person who for over 13 years has given hundreds of hours in developing and presenting kids programs that educate kids and instill values like empathy and compassion at the Children's Museum of Denver, at Montessori and pre-K schools throughout Denver and for the last six years at Greenlee Elementary School in District three, protecting kids is absolutely my top priority. But if we don't provide places for people to consume, we're not protecting kids. We're allowing them to be exposed to open public consumption in parks and public places. It's important to note that I represented all of Lincoln Park in testimony in support of the coffee joint, the first licensed social consumption business at there, excise and license sharing not only as a coffee joint located in Lincoln Park, but on a reader say Look, now serves on all the Lincoln Park board of directors and as importantly for the neighborhood. There have been no issues with the coffee joint. When I served on the Social Consumption Advisory Committee as a neighborhood representative, we did not see any maps. A consequence was that we impose ownership restrictions and added the setback and added setbacks, continued to push marijuana businesses into oversaturated neighborhoods. As a neighborhood representative on the A300 Task Force, we examined maps and we heard from prospective business owners and it became very clear that the setbacks were too extreme. I believe the modest compromise the task force agreed on is respectful of the excise and license process. Thanks to size and license, many protections exist outside of distant requirements like neighborhood support and public hearings, and most neighborhoods are well protected with control over whether a business locates in their neighborhood. I respectfully ask that you please vote in favor of honoring the will of the voters. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jenny Leslie. Good evening. Unfortunately, my name is spelled incorrectly. It's Hannah. Lastly. We were not even close on that. I apologize. No problem. And I just want to make sure you didn't think I was somebody else. My name is Hannah Lasley, and I'm the co-founder and one of the executive directors of Smart, Colorado. Smart Colorado is based here in Denver, Colorado. And we formed after the passage of Amendment 64 to protect the public health and safety for Colorado kids. Sir, we respectfully request that the city council vote no against the reduction of setbacks by half from daycares, city owned rec centers, outdoor pools and alcohol and drug rehab centers. Here's why. According to my Denver card data, the majority of users of outdoor pools were kids over 45% excuse me. Over 45,000 kids visited Denver rec centers in 2018. Denver Rec Centers partner with federal food programs to feed our neediest in the summer, playing a crucial role as a safeguard for our children. In 2017, 31% of the statewide admissions to drug and treatment centers for marijuana abuse were under the age of 21. Finally, this is an important decision and impacted because the state is currently considering legislation that Governor Polis has already said he will sign. This bill will be an expansive bill that will set regulations for marijuana, social consumption, clubs. While we completely understand and respect that the City Council will have local control, the bill will allow a new opportunity for the City Council to consider setbacks from collapse. The business model from the House bill will be much more favorable for the marijuana industry to allow for a profitable social consumption business model. Please join Mayor Hancock and the following organizations in opposing the distant setbacks. Children's Hospital. Colorado. The Kemp Foundation. Illuminate. Colorado. The Colorado Children's Campaign. The Denver Partnership for Youth Success, whose membership includes Denver Public Schools. Denver Public Health. Denver Afterschool Alliance Rise Above Colorado. The Boys and Girls Club of Metro Denver. The Colorado Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The Colorado chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Confluence Ministries. Thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Chris Haines, and I'm going to call the next five. If you could come up to the front bench. We have Jesse Paris, Jonathan Circus, Luke Neff for Atlas, William Changeless and Leslie to our Girl Ski. If you can, come on up. And Criss Angel. Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Chris Hynes. I'm a District ten resident, which means I'm in councilman. Whose district? I'm here to talk. I don't want to violate any rules, but I want to talk about a project that I'm working on that's due on Election Day that involves a lot of outreach to voters. We've reached out to more than 23,000. We've made more than 23,000 voter contact attempts anyway. And so we've talked a lot about issues facing specifically District ten voters. I wanted to talk about the map of 410 with me. You probably already know what it is, just in case it starts with. I want to start with Cherry Creek. That neighborhood is, you know, just in general when I talk with people about this particular setback variance. People in Cherry Creek want weed illegal. It's just, you know, and this is one way to oppose the setback because they want no cannabis in the in the state at all. Unfortunately, the voters have voted. Well, not unfortunately. Fortunately, the voters have voted many times in favor of cannabis at the state and local level. And and but there's more to District ten. If we were to go north and to say Congress part the number one issue facing people in Congress park in in my outreach is what about our kids and our grandkids in parks that are within a few feet of people consuming or smoking marijuana. We want to we want to get the marijuana away from our kids and they are over overwhelmingly receptive to a place where people could go in private and consume. You know, if we were to go west of it, in the Capitol, in the uptown neighborhood, that's capital is more than 60% millennial. They are overwhelmingly in favor of cannabis, but they are a lot of renters and and a lot of lease agreements preclude them from consuming cannabis in their homes. Well, how can they legally consume? Well, if only there were social consumption facilities. Also, they have visitors that come from out of state and the out-of-state visitors don't know where to go either. And so this solves two issues for the Capitol and an Uptown residence. So just just to share a little bit about I was a little surprised that there was a survey that went out Friday night from the District ten office, mainly because there are a lot of people knocking doors and making phone calls. So I figured I would share some of the some of the the context that I've received and content context. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris. Who's up? No. Just Chris. All right. Jonathan Circus. Sorry. Nobody can get it right. Hi, my name is Jonathan CHERKIS. I'm also a District ten resident, which is nice to see. And I voted in favor of A300 when it came out three years ago. I served as governor policies kind of as outreach coordinator on his campaign for the governorship. And one of the things that we really noticed was that marijuana is not a losing issue. I think that's one of the big things that the governor policy was able to show was that this isn't the sort of big issue. That people necessarily. Are up in arms about. Colorado has led the nation in legalization, but Denver has sort of been the center of all of that. And so I want. Social consumption venues for maybe a different reason than other people, is that I want someone to be able to go, and I don't have to drink if I don't want to and I don't have to do all of the sort of things that are more dangerous or more harmful or more just unpleasant than what I want to do. I live in District ten, a 1000 District ten is the most the dense, most densely populated neighborhood in Colorado, which probably means it's also for here years, five states a thousand feet in District ten is very different than a thousand feet in District four or District two, which are much larger in terms of just geography. I know I've seen a map provided by the city or maybe just excise licenses. I'm not sure that showed where where social use places would be allowed. And I don't remember really anything in District ten or maybe very small little slivers. I just don't think that was the intent of the voters. Was to have this. Sort of pushed aside, moved out of the places where people live, where Chris said 60% millennial in Cap Hill, where in the city would be a better place for a social consumption area than in Cap Hill? I don't know. But they're not allowed there. They are pushed out by, I don't know, 18 feet or whatever the setback was. And so I think it's just really important that we sort of look at this as the voters voted for this three years ago. And we haven't. We have two places open and we've been arguing about the same things now for I'll give it two years. And so I think it just is really important that we sort of look at what the voters voted on and make the setbacks reflect the city. It's a neighborhood thing. So if the neighborhood doesn't want it within 500 feet, the neighborhood can decide that. But it's not the city's job to decide that a neighborhood couldn't possibly support this, given the setbacks. So I just think the set back requirements are overly restrictive and you super usurp the will of the voters. And I would just like to see a social use place in my neighborhood. Thank you. Next up, Luke. I'm going to let you say your last name. You had it right on the first one before Otto's nice, long Greek name. President. Members of the council. It is so nice to speak with you this evening. Thank you for sticking around this late to hear us. I'm looking for Otto Sun, the chief of staff and senior policy advisor at Sam Smart. Approaches to Marijuana. We're based in D.C.. We're a national organization fighting against commercialization of marijuana. And on this issue, particularly because we're concerned about the public health consequences, and I look at something like this, first of all, I live here in Colorado. My father in law actually is Pastor Michael Walker. Councilman Brooks, I know you know him well. You know his church. And, you know, in fact, he sent me a picture I can show you. You got your yard sign on his on his front lawn, but his church just opened a daycare. And when I look at the rules of this, it's reducing it from 1000 feet to 500 feet for anywhere where there would be a daycare. He wanted me to pass along the message that they really don't want a social consumption site within 500 feet of their daycare. And I think we have to think about those real examples of what the impact is going to be on the ground here in the city of Denver before we we consider moves like this. And really, you look at, you know, our state as a whole and you look at the pot industry and the way that this is going. You know, you hear this word, I've heard it thrown around a few times already, desirable locations. And the reason why we need to pass this is so that they can find more desirable locations. Well, what defines a desirable location? Well, we can look at this bill and we can get an idea. It's something that's closer to kids, closer to recreation centers and close, you know, so we're, you know, define desirable for me. I'm going to look at the bill and it's saying it needs to be closer to these places. I think they can find other locations that are, you know, a thousand feet from these various places where kids are. I don't think it's the job of city council. And I mean that respectfully, because you all obviously know the job better than I do. But I don't think it's the job of any member of elected, you know, an elected government to make it easier for a drug industry to make more money, to make it easier for drugs to be used. I think what you have to think about is your public health and the safety of your communities first. Not, you know, whether somebody can open up a social pot consumption site, you know, closer to a schools. I think you all have much bigger fish to fry. So, you know, we have to look at the dynamics of our state right now. Colorado is the number one state in the country for first time youth marijuana use for the last two years in a row. I just saw a few months ago, Cookie Monster was used as an advertisement for a cookie edible here in Colorado. So clearly our youth are being targeted by this industry. We saw it with big tobacco. We see it with many other drug industries. And so the pot industry has taken this playbook. They're using it over again. And now they're asking us, please, let's start reduce. It's only been six years since we legalized this and they're asking us to start reducing these limits already. What are we going to be considering a year from now? What will we be considering ten years from now? The more that this is normalized, the more that we give, give, give, the more they will take, take, take from our kids, our communities and the places, honestly, that are most vulnerable. So I urge you to please reject this today, and I thank you for your time and considering what I have to say. Have a great night. Thank you. Next up, William Auchincloss and I'm going to go. Close enough. It's Greek. My mother remarried. Good evening. Good afternoon. Thanks for staying late, like the man said. My name is William Chen Jealous. I'm chairman of the United States Marijuana Party. I'm a resident of Colorado and I'm a resident of Denver. Paul Lopez is District three. I'm here today to tell you about what it is for had had people living in hide housing. I no longer live in HUD housing. I used to live in Halcyon House downtown. I had to go outside my house to Medicaid or lose it. I got a ticket. In in alley for medicating in the alley. I had to pay it. Luckily, I have enough legal. Expertize that I played it down to 4 hours of community service. But we need places for people to go. There isn't a place that you can't go. I ride the busses all the time. People are getting on the busses. They smell like pot. They've been smoking like pot and bus stops. So it's all over town. It's not just the 16th Street Mall in the parks. It's everywhere. And people need a place to go. Thank you very much for your time. And please vote on this. Yes. Thank you. Next up, Leslie Tore Gorski and I'm going to call the next five up Larisa Boulevard, Melanie Rose Rogers, Liz Bukowski, Tom Downey and Nick Phillips, if you want to come up to the front bench. Hi. Thank you. My name is Leslie Trois Gorski. I'm a resident of Council District eight. I'm a mom. I'm a parent of three. Protecting kids, including my own, is a top priority. But without legal places for tourists, residents and patients to consume. Kids, including mine, are exposed to marijuana in public places like parks, especially near playgrounds, which happen to have a lot of trees around them. Stoners go for those as well as the public right away. 16th Street Mall. I was a task force member as a neighborhood representative of the Federal Boulevard bid and R.A. we examined maps and heard from prospective business owners, and it became very clear that the setbacks are too extreme. We have a lot of public housing around Federal Boulevard. We have the Sun Valley neighborhood. We have the Del Norte Veterans Apartments and other facilities where people live but cannot smoke inside. As a result, we have a lot of people smoking in our public right away, including near our schools. And so while I respect the the speakers who came before me to talk about keeping the weed away from children, this is exactly what we're trying to do. My hope is that we will be able to corral the weed usage away from where it currently is on the playgrounds near our Montessori school, because right now they're smoking openly and unashamedly right in front. And to get them to an out of sight and out of smell space 500 feet away, I think would be very beneficial to all in some people need safe, discreet and legal places to consume responsibly. Please honor the will of the voters by reducing these set back requirements from Parks, Rec centers and daycares. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Larissa Boulevard. Hi. Thank you. My name is Larissa Boulevard. I'm the executive director of the Cannabis Consumers Coalition and also on the board of Colorado Normal. As everybody's been testifying, consumers have very limited options to go consume cannabis, something that we voted for with with a majority. Obviously, there's public safety issues that everybody's concerned about, whether it's children. We have our own concerns about public safety right now. We are not able to educate cannabis consumers on consuming cannabis safely. Nor are we able to monitor. Intoxication. And a major public safety issue is that children are currently being exposed to public consumption pretty much everywhere in the city. It was actually pretty disappointing to hear Smart, Colorado testify that so many organizations and the mayors support exposing children to cannabis. It seems like they're using that argument to win a position when the unknown unintended consequences are going to be more children being exposed to cannabis use. I would like to know if they have data to support their allegations that exposing children to cannabis in parks and on. Sidewalks is safer. Than having people consume in inconspicuous. Licensed facilities. Another thing that I like to point out is that having these set backs would create more opportunity for. People of color to have businesses. We have a huge disparity here. In Colorado and in Denver, where we have a lack of minority business representation. In June, I'm actually going to be speaking at The Economist about this issue, and I would hope that I can speak on behalf of the city that we have forward thinking policies. At one point, Colorado and Denver were leaders in cannabis policy, and now we're not implementing the will of voters. And I don't think that we're making sound policy by using children as a as a scapegoat. When, you know, we need. To protect consumers as well and all parties involved. I ask that you support the. Will of voters, protect public safety, protect children's safety. And consumer safety by voting yes for these setbacks. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Melanie Rose Rogers. Hi City Council. My name is Melanie Rose Rogers and I'm in District nine in five points. I'm a homeowner and also a business owner and an influencer. And within the cannabis industry. My company is called Influential Acts. And we are about. Education, advocacy. And social responsibility in the cannabis space. And including hemp. I'm also a co-founder for Safe Access, Colorado. Safe Access, Colorado, as a part of Americans for Safe Access. We have over 100,000 members and we advocate for patients rights and access to cannabis and what influential. Acts and what I'm trying to do with. Safe access Colorado is really uplift the community, help educate. And right now, to the gentleman who said more bigger fish to fry, how about this opioid epidemic? How about people hooked on pharmaceutical drugs and this plan, as you know, with states and with facts and data. That, you know, with. States that have legalized, we see that number decrease of opioid deaths. This is very real in my life. I'm in my mid-thirties and this is the number one killer. Of my time. So I've dedicated myself to help educate the patient community as well as. Consumers on this plan and to really provide a resource. I believe that in 2019, especially. Here in Denver, Colorado, if you're sick with cancer, you need to find a group that you can actually talk to about. The cannabis plant. You shouldn't have to refer online, but with these setbacks and with no places to consume and no place to create an. Uplifting community, these people have no resources and no support. And so I really ask you to all vote in favor of a bright future for Denver. By doing this, we create opportunities for minority groups. To get involved in a cannabis industry. And I also believe that even in my neighborhood in five points. That we need to address the nursing homes and the elderly and make sure that they also know about this plan and they have access to it. And so I really encourage you to vote yes on this. I encourage you to really follow the will of the voters. And coming to these meetings at this time is very difficult. I've tried even last time. I signed up and I wasn't able to speak because there was only 30 minutes for a public hearing. So having so there's much more people that we represent and they aren't here. They haven't been able to come here. People wanted to sign up today. There's people sitting here that. Can't testify. Today. So I just really want you all. To please follow the will of the voters and give I mean, we're talking about 500 feet. 500 feet. Let us have a chance. To really build a community that we can be. Proud of and that I can actually give back to. The. Communities that we serve. I'd love to volunteer and do more on five. Points with, you know, some of the revenue definitely that would be generated in putting a viable business together that educates, that creates community. So please give this a chance. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up, Lizzie Koski. My name is Lizzie Koski. I've owned and lived in my home in Capitol Hill for five years. I voted in favor of social consumption in 2016. I have been to one of. The two social consumption businesses that are open. Currently. I went to the coffee joint and I. Actually really enjoyed it. Once I got inside, the staff were very helpful. Setting made me feel comfortable. And I felt very welcome. Unfortunately, due to its location and circumstances. That are outside of the business owners control, it is not a desirable location for social consumption. The area is located in a difficult to access. Industrial part of the. City. Even when I was using Google Maps, I had trouble, not trouble navigating the dead end roads and the chain linked fences that frequent this area. There are no sidewalks. There are no bike lanes in this area. The streets are poorly lit and the sounds of traffic from I 25 assertively ushered people inside the building, inside the businesses that exist there. There are few eyes and ears on the street. For these reasons, I have not returned to the coffee joint. It doesn't feel safe for me, especially if I'm alone, especially after dark. I voted in favor of the initiative so I would have a consumption place in my neighborhood, a place I could walk to safely with my friends or alone, a place I could hang out and meet other people. I did not expect to be pushed into an industrial corner of the city. However, these are the types of places that are eligible for social consumption today based on our current setbacks, when distance restrictions from daycares, rec centers and outdoor pools and substance use treatment facilities are reduced to 500 feet. Viable properties in appropriate areas open up where those neighbors want them. Please vote to reduce the. Setbacks, to honor the will of the voters. Without legal places for us to consume legal products. Kids are going to continually see and be exposed to marijuana consumption in public split public spaces like our parks. Thank you. Next up, Tom Downey. Good evening. My name is Tom Downey. I'm a proud resident of District eight with Councilman Herndon. I am here to support the bill and appreciate Councilwoman Kendra BLOCK and all of her efforts with the task force. I have three daughters that are in Denver public schools. Two, they're in high school now. So this is very personal for me. I was also a member of the task force and I'm a former staff member at Denver's Excise and Licenses. Back in private practice, I represent licensees on both sides, not just marijuana, but all regulated industries, including medical practices on both sides, those that are applying and those that are opposed to applications of all kinds. And I am here in strong support of this. I am not a marijuana advocate. I work with legislators, AGs, governors across the country on marijuana legislation. And my purpose is to rein this in and have it effective. I do not advocate for marijuana legalization on the personal side. I've never tried the stuff myself, but I have three daughters and it's very important to me, the world that they live in and the city that they live in, and the intent of the overly restrictive restrictions on this social consumption bill have had the opposite effect of what was intended. It's in the parks. It is at the parking lots. It's in it's on the 16th Street Mall. It is prevalent. And as a as a father, I'm tired of my children being exposed to it. That is very personal. These folks need a place to go. The efforts to curb it have not worked. This effort has not truly been made. That's on the personal side. On the legal side, first and foremost, this does undermine the will of the voters. And what is most important and hasn't been said is the plain language from the ballot initiative that was passed by the voters. It says the rules and regulations created by excise and licenses shall not frustrate the intent of the ordinance. It is clear in this that it is that if a business otherwise meets the requirements of the article, they should get the license. But the extra restrictions imposed by excise and licenses have gone far and above that, and we saw the impact of that from the task force. It has undermined what the plain language of the ballot initiative said. Finally, on the legal side, we have been through this before social consumption clubs for alcohol, otherwise known as restaurants. We went through this in 2012, rulemaking that pulled back some of the distance restrictions that were on that. We worked very carefully with all the folks that were involved neighborhood associations, licensees, businesses, council members, and in the end it went through and there has been zero increase in alcohol consumption, no impacts on schools or anyone else. That is the intent to protect with that. So thank you for your time and I appreciate encourage you to vote yes on this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Nick Phillips and I'm going to call the next five, Stacey Lin, Joshua Capell, Adam Bruce, Shawn Coleman and David Wasserman. Go ahead. Hello. My name is Nick Phillips and I'm a Denver resident living in House District five in support of the reduction of the setbacks by Councilwoman Black. I'm a local activists and entrepreneur and voted yes when given the opportunity in November 2016. I spent several months at the beginning of 2017 attending the panel meetings alongside Councilwoman Sussman and Councilwoman Black. Learned a lot and had aspired to be a leader in this industry. As an example to my family of how a venue like this could be operated responsibly. They're not exactly your cannabis fans, and I have a 14 year old half brother that I want to be a good elder brother to and a role model at the best I can. So with that being said, they're not huge Denver fans anymore. They've always been Rockies fans. And Opening Day was something that they always have done, but recently with out places for folks to publicly or to socially consume their cannabis, they're forced to illegally consume in public. And, you know, your mix of drunken fools at opening day is mixed with the smell of cannabis in the air. And it's not the best place for kids exactly anymore. So with that all being said, I hope that by reducing the setback that the city of Denver will see an increase in venues where folks can responsibly consume their cannabis and allow this program to find its full potential. So we may so that we may set a standard for the rest of the state. And. The nation as this flower continues to be less prohibited and different states. So yeah, thank you all for your time and for being here and for considering this. And I hope that you will reduce the setback. Thanks again. Thank you. Next up is Stacy Lynn. Hi. My name is Stacey Lynn. I'm the executive director of Cannabis City Foundation. We are a foundation that gives helps parents who have medically fragile or disabled children get safe access to medical cannabis treatment for their children. I am the mother of Jack Split, for whom I created the law, created Jack's law to allow children to have their medical cannabis at school. I started Accountability Foundation because I wanted children to have access to this very important medicine. But. The second half of that is that I am equally as passionate about making sure that children who are not medical patients do not have access to cannabis. So as such, I am kind of appalled that we didn't do this set reduction setback specifically for the children because as has been documented, thousands and thousands of children hang out at pools, they go to rec centers, they go to parks. Well, here's the deal. Cannabis consumers do not have setbacks. They can stand by the fence at the pool while the smoke wafts into the pool. They can cruise through the park. They can walk down the 16th Street mall smoking while my 14 year old son inhales it. However, we can create reasonable setbacks for businesses, and as such, I think that is the only way to protect children. It is the only thing that makes sense. We have legal consumption in this state and we have legal consumers. And if they have nowhere to consume, they will do it in front of our children. And I'm tired of it. I am a cannabis consumer. I would never do it in front of my child and I don't want anyone else doing it in front of my child and without. Perhaps we need a consumption center on the 6/16 Street Mall, not in an industrial park where no one is. No one's going to go to the unsafe industrial park to consume. They'll just stay on the 16th Street Mall. But what if they could walk four blocks away and consume out of everyone's face? I think we have to do this. There is no other solution we've been talking about in talking about it, and there just isn't. We all want cannabis off the street. How do you get it off the street? You put it in a closed, secure building that is highly regulated and monitored and out of sight of children. Not having a bunch of cannabis consumers hanging out at the park and at the pool, by the way, where that child can jump right out of the pool and go smoke with that consumer. They cannot do that at a concert, a consumption establishment. So I encourage you to please pass these reduce setbacks. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Joshua Bell. Thank you, President. Thank you, Counsel. My name is Josh Kaplan, one of the partners at the Sun, Cedarburg. You know, we've been working with counsel for about ten years now on cannabis regulation. And, you know, I think overall, I think he has had to give yourselves a pat on the back for for really taking this issue on and really putting in the thought to be a leader in the country when it comes to how do you responsibly regulate cannabis. Then after we drafted Amendment 64, you know, we were listening. How is this going to work? How is cannabis legalization going to work? What we kept hearing was there's a problem with people consuming cannabis in our streets on the 16th Street Mall, in our parks. And we we we asked, well, how do we fix this? You know, and what we did is we put together a draft initiative, 300, and we worked with a lot of different stakeholders in putting it together. And we put together a measure that we knew was very progressive because it hasn't been done before, but we did it in a very, very conservative way, and we gave the city an immense amount of power to create responsible regulations because we trusted we've worked with the city for a while. Looking back on that today, you know, and I have to applaud the city for putting so much thought into regulating where can where cannabis consumption can happen. But looking back on that today, it's clear that that we overregulated it that we did not fix the problem we went out to fix, which is providing places for people to use cannabis. You know, there's still hundreds of people ticketed each year in Denver for using cannabis in public. There's still reports of cannabis consumption all over our streets, in our parks. And so, you know, we're in favor of this bill to reduce the setback requirements and most in part because, you know, that's trying to ease the regulatory burden a little bit to actually allow a few businesses to open here. You know, today we have two businesses that are open. They're in inconvenient locations. And there's an overall we haven't figured out how do we fix this policy issue that we have, which is where do people consume cannabis. So, again, thank you for your time. Thank you for the thoughtfulness that you've put into this issue. And and I'd urge you to support this. And I will say, you know, as one of my final days, as one of the drafters of Initiative 300, you know, I do believe that these regulations frustrate the intent of the measure. And it's most evident because there's no place are very, very few places today where people can consume cannabis. So thank you. Thank you. Next up, Adam Rouse. Thank you, President. Thank you, Counsel. I appreciate you guys being here this evening. My name is Adam Bruce and I'm a resident in District four. Councilwoman Black, thank you so much for all your work on the special committee. I am the founder of Ganja Guru Yoga. It's a cannabis and yoga service, if you would, if you couldn't put that together in 2016, we did vote for initiative 300 to pass. The Denver voters had that as their will and their intention. And unfortunately, because of the restrictions, it's been nearly impossible to find a place to start a business and to be able to have a location to consume. I've worked with a few different real estate agents. I've worked with several different law firms to try to find a desirable location, as we might call it, or really any location to be able to host a cannabis and yoga class under, you know, this initiative. And it's been it's been really difficult. I mean, I think that the will of the voters is to obviously protect our children. It's to obviously protect our public who do not want to have cannabis in their faces. So I think that it's the responsibility of the council. It's the responsibility of the city, and it's the responsibility of the pioneers who are all sitting here in the industry to be responsible stewards of that. And I think that we have the ability to do it. I've worked in the yoga business for several years now. I understand the business model. It is certainly viable. We can look at the books of many different public yoga establishments and find that. So I think that there are certain concerns that the public does have and that the council probably has about, you know, reducing these setbacks. But in doing so, I think it would only give us these business owners and the citizens who voted this initiative in the opportunity to be responsible stewards. So I do think that, unfortunately, these restrictions did disturb the will of the voters. And I would ask you, as councilmen and women, to please vote in favor of this reduction of the setbacks. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up, Sean Coleman. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of Council Sean Coleman, 36 Solutions Public Affairs Consulting. I'm one of you a first time think your staff for the social equity workgroup they've convened this issue of making sure the communities who have been the most negatively impacted by the war on cannabis do not remain disenfranchized from the profits of the peace . It is a complex issue that has got systemic problems. It's got statutory problems, it's got capital access problems. This set back issue is one way to meaningfully trust that. And I want to talk about that because what you have in this question both and Josh Karp, one of the judges spoke to this briefly, is you have an opportunity to have about business viability that you can take this license and attach to an already viable business. And that's incredibly important, particularly in communities of color, lower income communities where the hospitality facilities and those communities are the extension of people's living rooms. It is the community meeting place. And it's important that these people have an opportunity together, because what we see in Colorado is and in Denver and frankly, unfortunately, in every state that legalize cannabis is a continued arrest disparity for people of color and people of lower economic economic status. So when we talk about public safety, that is another public safety risk, because when you dove into the numbers, particularly here in Colorado, what you see is something even more troubling is that even though you have a direst disparity, you don't have as sympathetic charging disparity, which means that people are being arrested and taken to taken downtown and then subsequently not charged. That means these are low level offenses, probably outdoor consumption. So what changing the set setback does is it gives the opportunity for businesses that are already viable, that already exist in people's neighborhoods, and have those businesses provide this service so that those customers, those consumers, those people who are otherwise simply being exercising their constitutionally, constitutionally protected right, but then being arrested for it and then subsequently not being charged, it removes that whole process by giving them a safe, legal place to engage in that activity. And it's also saying, as other speakers have mentioned, there is a state bill that is moving through a process that would address some of the issues that have been raised by your own staff in terms of the business viability. However, again, I want to encourage you to move forward with this proposal this evening, because it is this sit back issue that is really the barrier for existing business owners. And those are the people who have been left out of this, who have been disenfranchisement, profits of the piece and the communities who have been most negatively impacted. And it's about time that we gave those people an opportunity to participate in this industry. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, David Wasserman and then I'll call the next five, Frank Turk, Turk, Jawn Valdez, Michelle Walker, Amber Leong, Archer and Brian Ortega. If you want to come up to the front, go ahead. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I appreciate you guys time and staying here late on a monday. I'm in favor of reducing the setback. My name is David Wasserman. I'm the legislative liaison for the Southern Colorado Cannabis Council. My organization has been representing cannabis clubs since legalization. The Springs has licensed clubs right now. Denver doesn't. The Springs has licensed clubs, one of which was next to a daycare for quite some time. They do comedy there. They host poets, they have poker tournaments. They hold space for yoga in Colorado Springs of all places. They have more social consumption venues than Denver does. Right now, directly across the street from us, people are smoking cannabis in Lincoln Park and in Civic Center Park. I walked past that on my way here. I don't regularly see people drinking at City Park even though it's allowable. I'm assuming that they can go to any one of the hundreds of bars within walking distance, and that's why they aren't at the park. The same thing cannot be said for cannabis. There's no safe place to consume cannabis at the moment. Our tourism economy is booming, with 31.7 million people visiting the Mile High City in 2017. Many of those individuals are looking to consume cannabis during their stay here. They cannot legally smoke in their hotels, and they're forced to illicitly consume the cannabis in public and break the law or illicitly consume in their hotel rooms. I've heard this statement that there are more recreational dispensaries than Starbucks or McDonald's in Denver. There are many similarities between McDonald's, Starbucks and our current recreational dispensaries. And all three, you can purchase something. But while Starbucks and McDonald's allow you an environment where you can safely consume the product that you just purchased, Dispensary Center is out the door with no options. Many end up at the parks I was just speaking about. They cannot smoke in their hotels and they're forced to illicitly consume their cannabis in public or break the law. With that, I would just like to say that I'm in favor of lowering the limit. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Frank Turk. Hi. My name is Frank Turk. I live in the Five Points area. I work as a cannabis tour guide concierge. I think a lot of people on tours around town there. They have a great time with us, but they're always looking for an establishment to go to. There's not that many to go to. I refer them to a couple of places and they go to those places. But I think Denver's definitely missing out on a tourist dollar in an opportunity in history where they could be establishing these places. These places could be getting established. As we've been here, we've been doing it. This is the opportunity time for you guys. It's going to happen anywhere anyway, across the nation. Cannabis is totally healthy, it's nontoxic. It's awesome. It's better than alcohol. Alcohol is toxic. It causes problems, causes litter, causes smells. It causes all the all kinds of so we know we can compare. We can go online to Google, we can compare this stuff pretty easily. So this summer. Full alcohol is allowed at the parks this summer of me as I'm 48 years old. I don't really appreciate that. I grew up in an alcoholic home. My father was a heavy drinker, had a full bar downstairs. I started drinking a young age. Cannabis saved me at a young age as well when I found cannabis, thank goodness, because who knows what I'd be like right now if I'd be energetic and exercising the way I do now, looking at life positively the way I do now, and going about it the way I do now, especially with all the obstacles and things that have come at me in my journey to get to this point in my life where I'm at. I've been living here, like I said, for six years. I live on the East Coast where it's definitely is the East Coast. It's not legal yet there. It's definitely more stringent. So like I said, though, I think Denver is definitely missing out on the key opportunity in history to help these places create a commerce, create a place for people to come. We do now, like we said, cannabis is totally nontoxic, healthy, beautiful plant and needs to be free. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, John Valdez. Hello. My name's John Valdez. I'm the owner of High Yields, Cannabis Consulting, Valdez Investments and a licensed commercial real estate broker with great ray real estate. With the thousand foot setback, it makes it extremely difficult for my clients and myself to find any viable properties. I've had several clients that have left the industry or went to different states to to open up other businesses. I realize that there is 9000 eligible properties, but that is not there is not 9000 available properties. The properties that are available are in this area. Excuse me, I'm not a public speaker, so the large amount of them are not for lease, their existing businesses are not for sale. There are an open space country clubs, cemeteries, railroads and are not available to the cannabis industry. The current allowable locations are in industrial areas, undesirable and hard to access locations. A successful, thriving cannabis consumption club needs to be in an area where we have tourists. We have people like Rhino Low Union Station music venues like Bluebird, Ogden and Fillmore. If I cannot identify a location for my clients, this cannot go to licensing and it will be dead at that point. What you need for this to work is you need real estate, capital and labor force. We have the capital. We have the labor force. We do not have the real estate state. That's not a viable location. As an investor and a business owner, I would not invest in any of these locations. It will not work with the lack of tourism that you're going to have, the lack of foot traffic. There was a map. How can I grab an applicant? What we're looking at. You have talking to Mike from sorry. With the locations that we have on the map in the Green Zone, we're looking at in a very industrial areas off I-70 and then going down the 25 corridor towards Six Avenue. The areas that people are at are in the downtown area. This is the locations that will have a thriving cannabis consumption club for this to work. And these location retail events, short term or long term rental, cool workspace, food service, business partners, services like massage, acupuncture, yoga art classes and cooking classes and many others. I need to build to provide a atmosphere for 21 years older and over a professional networking opportunity, education classes in the industry and offer a safe place for consumption. I also am a parent. I look at this on a parent's side also. I take my daughters downtown to go shooting photography all the time. We have to skip Ali after Ali because people are smoking marijuana in the alleys, in the streets. So we skip the incredible art that my kids will not be able to see because of this. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. I appreciate it. And I'm a favorite. Please vote of all the people. Thank you. Next up, Michelle Walker. Michelle Walker. All right, Amber, let you say that. Thank you. My name is Amber Flanagan. I live at 1237 Jackson Street, District ten. Thank you all for your time, Councilman Black. Mr. President, for everything that you've done. I'm originally from Florida. The government there is moving at a snail's pace with medical marijuana. So I really appreciate everything you guys do and all the consideration and thought that you put into all of these rules and regulations. I support the new bill with the with the reduction of 500 feet in setbacks. This is a very important issue to me and a lot of my friends. The need for social consumption is apparent across the US. Public consumption is happening here, is happening everywhere. Jurisdictions all over the country and all over the world are starting to contemplate this issue. Where can people go to legally consume, especially tourists? I appeared before the task force a couple of times and gave a couple of public comments that I wanted to share with you all. The first was when I first came here with my little brother. We traveled across the country, got here, stayed in a motel six out by the airport. I am a consumer and my little brother is not. And while we were in our hotel that first night here in Denver, there was marijuana smoke wafting in to our room through the vents from the other rooms in the hotel. I asked the hotel management what they could do about this issue, and they said there really wasn't anything they could do, that it was out of their control at this point. So while I didn't care, I was bothered for it by it for my little brother on his behalf. Secondly, I have been to the coffee joint several times and big fan. I went there for a date not too long ago as I really don't consume a lot of alcohol. Neither did the gentleman who I met online. So we went to a coffee joint to meet up in a safe place in public. I do echoed the sentiments of the previous speakers that it is in an area that is difficult to go to at night and especially in an industrial area. It doesn't feel super safe to go there. But I went. I had a blast and was really grateful for the opportunity to go somewhere and consume cannabis just like you would alcohol in a bar. So I think that kind of puts a face on the cannabis consumer in ways that perhaps you guys hadn't thought of before. But also just wanted to raise one final point when asking you guys to approve this bill. We've heard a lot about affordable housing today. And recently you guys approved a retail marijuana tax hike and a lot of those funds from that tax to go to affordable housing here in Denver. So I think it's important that we consider that those people who are trying to help in those circumstances, a lot of them medical marijuana patients, may not be able to consume in their homes. So thank you all so much for your time. I would appreciate a vote in support of this bill. And thank you again. Thank you. Next up, Brian Ortega and I call the last three. If you could come up to the front, ask Marcus, Alissa, you four, and Alexis Armstrong. Good evening, members of the Council. Thank you for staying late. Allow me to testify. First off, I am a father. My name is Brian Ortega. I am on the board of Directors of Veterans for Natural Rights, a veteran founded organization with over 100 members, ambassadors and affiliates in the Denver area advocating for natural rights. I am also set to relocate to District five before May 7th. I've been a Colorado Colorado resident for over three years now. Cannabis has granted me many abilities I lost due to my military service. The setback is there's nowhere to consume legally. I'm a medical refugee and I live in a multi dwelling facility. I cannot legally medicate, nor can a lot of my brothers and sisters who reside in federal housing. Medicate legally. Most residents and tourists are forced outside of parks, streets and a multiple multitude of public spaces sure to have children looking to enjoy the outdoors, not cannabis smoke. This bill will create a safe place to consume for everyone. Cannabis has increased my mobility and allowed me to do things like leave my house, which led to things like physical therapy and the end of a ten year opioid dependency. In August 2017, I was accepted to the University of Colorado Boulder Math and Science Program. I would like to see social consumption allowed because I've come this far in my healing. With the current consumption laws, I can only imagine how much further I can go along with so many others if this passes. Let's exercise our natural right to consume in the public domain where excuse me, let us exercise our natural right to consume in the public domain where cannabis is already consumed illegally, and on responsibility on responsibly due to the current regulations. The cannabis community wants to do this responsibly and respectfully. The emphasis is protecting the children. There are not many places for people like me, a patient and a resident to legally consume, as well as for the tourists who visit our great city. Please vote to honor the will of the voters. Let's reduce the setbacks some more social consumption businesses can open, aiding in the responsible reintegration of cannabis. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, ask Marcus. Good evening, Mr. President, distinguished members of the Council. I'd like to thank you again for staying late. And thank you for allowing us to be the voices so that you can hear them from us. My name again is Eric Marcus. I'm the chief operating officer of the Grove Spaces. We are a cannabis, hospitality, entrepreneurship, and we are looking for venues that are compliant where we can provide our hospitality services to guests of the city of Denver as well as residents. You've heard from multiple people here, and hopefully you can see by the turnout that there are many people who would love to get into this industry and our businesses that want to support not only what the public is looking for and what people voted on in November of 2016. And ultimately, these are services that people desire for an entrepreneur like me and for the people in my firm. The current setbacks have really disallowed us finding viable locations that are in areas that are appealing. If I can't bring my own family members or my wife with me to enjoy some cannabis out in a well-regulated space, then we're basically forced out to the car, to the alley, behind the bar. And ultimately we're looking for safe spaces for everybody to be able to consume cannabis. I don't think anybody thinks or should think that exposing our children to cannabis is of any benefit. I would remind everybody that written into the legislation is a community approval requirement that if we are anywhere in a neighborhood where we can meet the other conditions to be able to be licensed, if the community says we can't be there. We're out. So we are looking for other locations as it is. So I am here in favor of the setback reduction. I would ask you all to please take it into consideration and let's. Realize the will of the voters here. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next up, Alissa, you've heard. Hi. Thank you, Mr. President. And Council. My name is Lisa Offer and I am the owner of Kayak Event Designs. We are a private event company that plans private invitation only and cannabis consumption friendly events. It is extremely difficult for us to do these events. We follow the same distance requirements as I A300 and operate under the same type of model only completely privately. We have a lot of venues that are private event venues that still cannot host cannabis events because they are just within that thousand foot requirement. Marijuana consumers need somewhere to go and socially consumed together. People need that community and be able to come together. And by allowing marijuana sales in the state and then nowhere for any tourists to go can consume is just forcing people to be criminals. I went to school for tourism and event management and Denver has been the example of tourism for the entire nation in our schools across the country. And as a when it comes to cannabis events, we are falling very far behind the rest of the country. So I ask you, please vote in favor of changing the set back restrictions. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Alexis Armstrong. Council members. President, thank you for your time this evening. My name is Alexis Armstrong. I'm a current resident in District ten, Denver's Uptown Neighborhood Representative News District. I've lived here for about four years now and voted in favor of Initiative 300 in 2016. And I'm just here to support the rest of the voters and ask you to please go along with what the voters requested in 2016 and change the requirement to 500 feet. This way we can keep our legal cannabis use away from children and we can have cannabis friendly establishments for tourists and visitors to consume. I myself have previously worked at a dispensary. I would say about 85% of the customers that. Come in are. Tourists. They're looking for somewhere to consume responsibly. And as the retail workers, we have to tell them we're sorry. You know, you just have to try to sneak it in your hotel room. Or take it to the. Park or, you know, wherever you think is the safest place to consume. Because currently there are not very many options. And when I was working. In the retail industry. There were none at all at that time. And I see it every day. And Cheesman Park in Congress. Park in Walsh Park, I walk my dog and there's people consuming all over the park. So we're just looking for somewhere. Safe to consume and we're asking you to please vote in favor. Of honoring the voters. To allow more possible locations to open. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, Amanda Phillips. Good evening, everyone. My name is Amanda. I am the state director for minorities of Medical Marijuana. Thank you very much for your time. I do not live in Denver. I live in Aurora, so I do not have a someone to vote for here. But thank you very much for being here and representing Denver. So currently right now I am the president of minority medical marijuana. I'm currently on the board for Colorado Black Women of Political Action. I'm also on the board of Denver Normal. I represent people of color, women, disability people. Excuse me, I'm sorry, disability people as well as veterans and felons. And they would love to get involved in this industry. However, owning a dispensary has a high cost social equity, as well as owning a consumption space would be something where we can afford to get involved and we can afford to to have a business in this industry. Also to educate older the older community on hemp CBD as well as marijuana usage. They also would like to have some way to consume. They cannot do it in their retirement home. So they would like to have somewhere safe, somewhere, somewhere where someone can invite them so they can use it to help them as an alternative of off of opioid medication. I also look at this as something that minorities are this this operationally arrested and charged for our even fined for for using this is somewhere safe that it can be said they can somewhere safe they can use this so they don't be they won't be ticketed or citation for people of color and also lower income disenfranchized people also to being that this would if we do have social consumption if we can have it somewhere or allow public transportation. I have been to the coffee joint. I love them. They are a wonderful establishment. However, it is very hard via public transportation to access that, to engage and consume and medicate in a safe environment. So I'm just asking you on the behalf of people of color and your districts that would love to get into this industry, that is able to afford it and provide a safe place to consume for your constituents. So thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions for members of council? Councilman Espinosa? Yeah, I don't. Did anyone say they were from a marijuana policy group, by any chance? Ashley, are you familiar with the employees? What study is it? Sorry. The Marijuana Demand and market study are from August of 2018. I. Okay. You could come up to the microphone to answer and introduce yourself for everybody watching on TV. Hi, I'm Ashley Kilroy, the director of Excise and Licenses. Yeah, so you're not familiar with that. And it was Marijuana Policy Project study. It is market size and demand for marijuana in Colorado. 2017 Market Update Prepared for the Colorado Department of Revenue by Marijuana Policy Group and the Lead School of Business at CU Boulder. Yeah, we might be that might be the one that. Adam Orenstein. Yes. Yeah. The reason I'm asking is. You know, I have something that was prepared for council. You know, it is a fake, you. Q And there was a lot of things here discussed tonight in the public comment that were are not touched in this f a q but are sort of reflected in this, in this, in this in this market study. And one of the things that I want to sort of confirm, do you have any sense about the size, the number of marijuana users, social users in in the city? There are non visitors, just actual residents. No, I don't know that off the top of my head unless Molly does. Okay. I mean, we were familiar with it when it came out, but I haven't looked at it lately. Because this is this is a statewide thing. But in their 189 metric tons are consumed by of marijuana, they're consumed by residents as opposed to 19 metric tons by visitors. But there are only are less than a million sort of marijuana users that are residents, while there are seven, six and a half million that are visitors. So there's you know, we have six times the amount of marijuana users that are actual visitors, but they're only consuming a 10th of the total marijuana that is being produced. So I'm trying to understand, should this policy address resident users of marijuana, you know, create acts, you know, improve access for resident users of marijuana? Or should the policy address the visiting use consumer of marijuana? Because what I hear is sort of two different things, right, which is we need to solve the problems in the neighborhood and that seems to cater to the resident. But the you know, where I think the market is, is catering to those people that don't have housing, even though it was very clear that people in subsidized housing, federally subsidized housing have no place to consume. But then again, if you're in a federally subsidized unit, do you have a lot of disposable income to now go to a high end facility that is there to cater to visitors? So, you know, is there where I'm going with this? Because I think there's mechanisms that we could use to address what I think is being asked for here in a way that could address both the rise, the low income resident user, and medicate her and and cultivate the market that is probably there with the visitor, but it's probably not with a sort of blanket. Let's just reduce the setback and let the market decide because the market will only cater to one and not the other. Or is there have you heard anything in your in your deliberations that says, oh, I'm a property owner and I very much would like to cater to the to the low the the the low income user because we heard a lot about alley use and other things. Yeah, great question. And I think we heard when we when we had our task force a little bit from everyone, I mean, including people who say they just want a place to go consume marijuana with like minded people. So more of just the social piece, but we didn't drill down far enough and to how could we meet the specific needs of those individuals? Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, you. Had one other question that might touch on that same thing. There were two gentleman, one by the name of John Valdez and the other one by Eric Marcus. One John says that he is on the acquisition side of, you know, properties. And our Eric says that he operates businesses. Do you have any sense about what it cost to transition an existing business over to what potentially something that would satisfy this are requirements if the property was viable? It's property to property. If you're going into a blank canvas, it's obviously going to be more expensive than going to something that's already established for like a nightclub or a restaurant or a bar or something. But is it a few hundred dollars? Is it tens of thousands of dollars? That a game that tells me a lot, right? Yeah. If you're asking the per square foot. Per square foot is what you're looking at. Yeah. You're between 25 and $50 per square foot on an average will cost more for certain types of businesses. It's hard to say if it's going to be a $500,000 build or if it's going to be hundred thousand dollars bill. It's per unit or per asset. Eric, do you have sense about what it would cost for you to go ground? I mean, you know, go into an existing space and make it viable for your operation? Well. Again, Councilman, it really does depend on the type of space, number one, and the square footage you're looking at and what the previous use was. My background is in traditional hospitality. I've been a chef for 28 years and counting, and if I were to go into an existing restaurant, I would have to buy out all the assets in place. I would be buying the license or going through a use review for a transfer of license, and there are any number of prohibitive hurdles to get past for our current model, because you cannot. Make and. Serve food that is produced in-house under the current regulations. Basically, we don't need a commercial kitchen anymore, but. We're looking at more core and shell spaces that we need to build out from the ground up, depending on the occupancy rates. And where we want to be is to be able to host groups or host to the public more than 100 people ideally, so that we can properly monetize the revenue stream and make it all worthwhile. It requires. Fire suppression. That in and of itself, if you're a landlord, can cost you upwards of $100,000, $150,000. So now we've. Created another hurdle for an entrepreneur to get past just to find a. Space where we can actually operate. Yeah. Thank you. For for for for being candid about that, because there was a lot of stories about how, you know, businesses could just convert and be this for my neighborhood. But that's a serious investment to sort of make that launch. And what worries me is if you're in a community that doesn't that caters to a whole bunch of clientele, this industry can only exist in a 21 and older. So you're basically then saying, I'm going to only serve a very narrow market, not all people in a neighborhood. And so I want I wanted that and I wanted that clear answer because I need to make it very clear that, again, there was a lot of convert comments that seemed well intentioned but don't necessarily speak to actually how much how much investment has to go in to make a successful operation, consumption operation, because you've got to have your own product to sell because you're not selling the marijuana in the process, correct? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. Hey, John or Eric, I appreciate Councilman Espinosa for calling you up. I can either one of you, because you both are speaking along similar lines and you're looking for investments. And John, since you're standing there, I was trying to write down everything you're saying. You're as we're talking about these locations, you're saying they're industrial areas, not accessible. You said for these to be successful, you need areas with a lot of traffic, tourist areas, location. Location is good for for consumption. And I say this in jest. Are you familiar with Colfax? I'm very familiar with Colfax, which in your district that we spoke earlier would be a great location for it. But the key is having available properties. There is 9000 properties, commercial properties in the Green Zone are in the working area, but that doesn't mean they're all available. You may have something that is leased. You have a landlord or an owner of a building that has a federally regulated loan. He cannot put a cannabis consumption product in there. You may have something that is not for sale or it's an existing business. So, so. So for those not familiar with District eight, I've got Yosemite, which is the border all the way to Colorado. And I'm looking at my map right now and I can say conservatively, because I'll go on the conservative side, 70% of Colfax is green. As I as I look at this right now, 70%. And you can sit down. You're that the question is is accessible right now and unless so when I hear that there aren't properties available, I would love for somebody to walk me Colfax, because I, I support this model. And my apologies, Mr. President, because I'm bleeding over into the comments that if if someone can explain to me how I hear that they're not accessible, but I look at this map, I see tremendous opportunities along the Colfax corridor with the 15 is the most RTD busiest traffic route. That's a great location. Thank, Mr. President. Can I say something on that? I'm good enough. Okay. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you. Just returned. And Councilman Flynn. That's famous person. I was expecting your question in an answer. So let me ask, is honey lastly still here? And I don't know if anyone else in the audience or perhaps Councilwoman Black, who is our legislative liaison, can talk a little bit more about House Bill 1230 and how that might change the business model. Honey, what is your understanding of what changes the legislature may hand to us that might change the game here? Thank you, Councilman Flynn. My understanding is that 1230 will allow for both a bring your own model similar to what initiated ordinance 300, but also a sale model of product on site. It will also. That's the biggest thing is it will allow for also mobile marijuana businesses to operate. Mobile, you mean like tour busses or. Mobile things. Like that. The language in the bill says mobile. I'm assuming it means it's on wheels. I was having a lot of nods of. Yes. Ah, yeah. Thank you. And again, Denver will have local control on on on how far they care to take what the state will do. I never would want to underestimate the ability of this council to make the right decisions for Denver. But those are those are the the biggest differences is that it will lead to greater expansion. And and our point at Smart, again, is that there will be a whole another time to really look at thoughtful analysis around setbacks and that perhaps waiting until 1230, which all indications are will pass. Governor Polis has come out and said he will sign it, that there is another opportunity to have this discussion with really even more of a bigger ramifications. Thank you. Is there any anyone else who testified who's familiar with 1239 can add to that perspective? Thank you. Mr. President. Councilman. Thank you. I think Henney covered most of the logistics of the bill fairly clearly. I just want to just really hone in on this concept, right. Because the concept of all of the state bill is that all commercial cannabis activity should be clearly licensed. Right. So in other words, in this, in a separate bill from 1230, the sunset bill, the Department of Regulates, the Media Marijuana Enforcement Division is also going to be getting injunctive relief ability. So in other words, so what we have now, of course, is because and I think, frankly, in some ways because of the sit back issue , you have unlicensed, unpermitted cannabis activity going on across the city. It is in many instances, clearly commercial. And the remedy for the people in the neighborhood is to call the police and then the police chase that person from one house to the next one garage to the next. And and then that just goes on like Whac-A-Mole forever. What you have when you have state licensure and again, the Denver City Council will have to go through process to opt into that state program. But once opted into that state program, whether there was a change between sales or not, what certainly would be the case is that now when someone notices some unlawful, unlicensed, unpermitted activity going on in their neighborhood of the community, they can call the marijuana force and division. Who could then call the court. Right. And courts have a much better way of keeping track of people, making sure they're not doing that again. Then police officers running around, they have better things to do than go chasing. Let me ask you this and I'm sorry, your name is again. My name is Shawn Coleman, 36 Solutions. Thank you. And I have heard and maybe you can verify some of the other folks here that in within the marijuana industry sector that there is some contention over this, there's some support, but there's some opposition. Is that in fact, the case? I'm seeing people shake their heads now. Okay. So, yeah. So I mean, I think, Mr. President, what I mean, I remember as a council member, I think maybe what you're thinking about and considering is that this license program at the state level, very similar to Denver, is question. Denver's DCA model is not an industry bill. It is a creates a license that is generally available. So obviously some folks would say, well, I've you know, I've been in this country for a long time. Why do now more people get an opportunity to be in the space? And I think the answer to that is because more people should be able. To ask you this and let me maybe a show of hands. Generally speaking, does the marijuana industry support 1230? Thank you. Thank you. Joshua Kappel. Cabal. And you said you were part of writing the initiative. Thank you. Growth? Correct. Okay. You made a statement that everything that I've looked at and I'm on the marijuana committee and everything I've looked at has persuaded me that the distance requirement that was added by Excel is not really the obstacle here, but it's the business model that is fairly flawed. And so when you said I think you made the statement that it's obvious that we are frustrating the intent of the ordinance because only two businesses have opened, but two businesses have opened in the 20 square miles of the city that still are eligible, according to our G.I.s, people with even with the 1000 foot restrictions on the other properties. And I'm being told that up to 30 entrepreneurs are just chomping at the bit to find locations in the additional 2.2 square miles that this pullback would add to the eligible area. And I find that to be somewhat incredible. So could you explain how you arrived at your conclusion that the distancing requirements he accelerated are what's frustrating this and not a business model that frankly, is is impractical in my view? Yes, that definitely when we drafted the measure, we we put in a thousand foot setback requirement and we gave the city council the ability to add whatever regulations they wanted. And we gave excise licensing, the ability to implement regulations that were necessary to enforce it. And so the additional setback requirements weren't necessary to enforce that. And thus what they did is they actually made it. So there's locations that are otherwise would be approved that the neighborhood supports, that the neighborhood wants them to be there and they can't get a license permit to operate because of the distance requirements. So that's one reason how it frustrates it. But what's so fascinating, what people don't understand is we actually this business model isn't as as financially lucrative as selling cannabis. Right. And so what we did is we made the distance requirements the same as selling cannabis. So out of all the places that you can operate, they've actually been already picked over by people who can sell cannabis. And so there's no additional spaces. You can have one of these businesses where you can also get a cannabis dispensary license. And so it is it's a misnomer to say that, you know, there's all this square footage. It's actually there's not that much square footage because all of that square footage has already been sort of gone through by people with a more viable financial model, which is selling cannabis. Right. All right. Thank you. I have one more. I actually. Kilroy And could you come up. And maybe explain to everybody and the viewing audience, why did you add these? Why, when the ordinance said a thousand feet from schools and said a thousand feet from schools only under what authority in the ordinance and I don't know if you need to call up the attorney who's not still just not here anymore. Oh. But until. You have a new. Attorney. So why you why you chose to add pools, rec centers and whatever else? So when we looked at the ordinance and it gave us rulemaking authority with regard to area restrictions, we looked at the intent of the ordinance. We had a lot. There were a lot of issues related to what we did. The area restrictions were just one small part of it. So when we got to the area restrictions, we looked at the intent of the ordinance and we saw what we believe. One of the attempts was to keep these facilities away from kids because they were 1000 feet from schools. We also looked at it. Another part of the ordinance said something about making sure that these businesses weren't viewable from a place where children congregate. Right. So but is that actually in the ordinance? It is in the ordinance. Okay. But the thousand feet from schools. That was an inference you made. Not a specific direction. Correct. Because schools are where children congregate. You inferred from that that other places where children congregate might also be banned under consideration as. Okay. Prohibited. Okay. Yeah. And so with that group we went through, not just that, not just on area restrictions, but we sort of looked at, oh, well, what are they doing in Oregon on other things? And what about bringing butane in these businesses, and what are we going to do about disposal? And we took stuff from what you guys had in your ordinances about disposal and kind of came up with a bunch of stuff. We had tons of options out on the table. We had a varied work group. We had CDP, Colorado Department of Public Health. The Deputy Director of Public Health, Karen McGowan, was on it. We had DPS on it. We had a couple of other youth organizations and community organizations. And that group speaking as a whole, you know, with some people disagreeing, believed that we should add additional area restrictions that would protect children. Okay. We also had some other people arguing for even more like area restrictions from schools and a couple of different ones. But in the end, the compromise was. And some argued for less as well. And some argued for less. You wrote us an email a couple of weeks ago indicating that the mayor is is supportive of keeping the thousand foot restrictions that excel at it, correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Ms.. President. I believe that's all I have. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Brooks. Yeah, thank you. Mr. President. Is the gentleman who made the reference of church in the city? 1600 Gaylord. Here. No. Okay. Well, I just. I have the map. You're not in the zone. So this is for your edification. That's it. That's it, right? Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Let's see. I want to start with Ashley, if you wouldn't mind coming forward. Molly. You can come forward as well. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. So. I'm looking at this issue, trying to understand where the rules come in as it pertains to who's going to monitor the consumption. That would ensure that an operator doesn't become liable, very similar to, you know, our bars, where they're responsible for monitoring the consumption and not assuming that liability responsibility, if they allow someone to walk out the door stumbling and then get in a car and, you know, run somebody down or whatever the case may be. So help me understand how the rules address that particular issue with social consumption. Right. So what Josh and some of the other authors put in there that they should have some type of safe operations plan. And so then in our committee, we talked about what would that safe operations plan look like? And one of them was that we said in your safe operations plan, you have to provide some type of information that would tell us how you would monitor for overconsumption. We also talked about having universal carding, you know, and they would submit that that that that that operations plan telling us what they would do that goes through our process. And we would review that and say yes or no this is or is not a good plan for monitoring for overconsumption. But you're right, like the DRAM shop laws that apply to liquor don't apply in this case. But isn't this reliant on also the type of enforcement that we will have in place to ensure that that operation plan is going to be consistently applied? Yes. Okay. So I want to move on to concerns about the fact that people still can grow marijuana in their homes and how this potentially plays into the state law that's moving through the state legislature and what that might mean to either mobile consumption facilities or sales on premise. Can that sale? Come from marijuana grown anywhere or does it have to come from an existing facility that has had to follow all the rules and regulations? Can you speak to what your knowledge is of that and how how that sort of would apply here? Yeah, that is how you sort of interpreted it at the end is correct. Marijuana that you grow at home is for adult personal use. You can't sell it, you can't distribute it, you can't give it to someone for anything of value, but you can share it with your friends. So that type of marijuana would not get into the license system. What we were talking about, the hospitality bills that are at the state right now where smaller businesses like coffee shops or vape and play could start selling marijuana under one of these hospitality licenses. But they have to get the marijuana through a licensed business. And who monitors that? Pardon me? Who monitors where it's coming from? So just like what we do with everything that would be both the state and and our department, the media and our department, when we do inspections, if we see something along those lines, you know, that would be somewhere where we take action or if we get a tip that there's something going on illegally. Okay. And then just the issue of the concern that there are limited locations across the city. Is this something that you all have looked at very carefully? I know we've seen different maps sort of coming around. And I did look to see if any of the maps were on our largest star system and they're not. I know we had several of them, you know, in committee for discussion. I'm just curious, from the perspective of exercise in license about the availability of locations across the city that. Do not continue to saturate the same neighborhoods over and over. And Molly, can you speak to that a little bit more? Molly is much more familiar with the maps than I am. Okay. So, Molly, we do get you up here. Okay. So sorry. So can you just clarify the question? Yeah, I'm just trying to understand from your perspective the availability of locations across the city that would allow social consumption currently. I mean, what we're talking about is incorporating a place where people can go and really kind of folding it into existing businesses. I mean, that was my understanding of of what was originally proposed. But it doesn't mean that somebody couldn't like create their own type of business and then incorporate that into a new business. So it's not necessarily all existing types of right. And so and that is what we've seen the two businesses that are open are new businesses that were not in existence before. But we did do an analysis of existing businesses. And and we also looked at the type of businesses that were in the initiative. So places like yoga studios, coffee shops, salons, those types of things. And we found over 300 locations that are eligible of all businesses in the city. It was well in the over 10,000 businesses, but some of those, you know, might not be the type of business that would want this type of addition to their business. But in the type of business that would that was an initiative that was, you know, kind of advertised in the initiative. It was over 300 eligible locations. And it was up to those businesses to choose to incorporate. This. Marijuana model into their existing business. Right. So that they were eligible to come in and apply. Okay. So none of them have done that. We've only had two new applications that have created a business model that will allow people to come in. That's correct. Okay. I think that is the end of my questions. Thank you, Councilwoman or Ortega? Councilman Espinosa, I'm going to go to councilman in first because when you. Actually go, go. We had a lot of discussion about what's happening to our kids in our parks now, about the consumption of marijuana in our parks and wherever else in the public where people are having to go to smoke now rather than having a consumption cloth, you know, or location. When you had your committee, did you address this issue or was this an issue about public health and the effect on children. About and in our parks, in our you, our. Areas or near the rec centers and near the locations that we've been talking about? Yes, it was. And I think I wasn't at the meeting. I think at the meeting in November, Commander Henning said that public consumption, outdoor public consumption is down, it's decreasing. They've been doing a lot of education with the kids, and we've been doing all of our all of our youth prevention staff. So at least that's what DPD has said, that they're seeing public consumption decreasing in the parks. And how are they enforcing that? How are and how do they determine that? Oh, well, when they're out there, they're look, you know, they're out there doing patrol. And if they see people consuming, they will ticket. It's a non civil it's a non criminal violation. But and oftentimes they'll do warnings. But I think the first couple of years when we first legalized, we were really focused on warnings, warning warnings, education , handing the kids and adults a know the law cards and then after a couple of years, they transitioned more into ticketing. But I think, Molly, you were there at Henning's last presentation. I think he said public consumption tickets have dropped significantly. Okay. So the police are enforcing it. It's not park rangers or anyone like that. Yeah, I think park rangers have authority to enforce, but I haven't seen their numbers lately. And if we if we pass the 500 foot business, you know, will the smoking in our parks and rec centers, will that be discontinued? Will everybody go to these. Locations to smoke? Are we are we we still have some degree of a problem, in effect, on kids? Well, I think that those are some of the questions we're all struggling with. We don't know what we don't know. We don't know. You know, first kind of in the world, starting with this, we don't really know if that will change behavior by opening more marijuana consumption shops. I know Bob McDonald, the director of did he sent Councilman Flynn his analysis, the public health analysis on it. And he's probably the better person than I am to speak to public health and impacts on kids and and behavioral change. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Councilman to Councilman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. Henny, could you come up again? I have a question for you. Thanks. You mentioned that the state deliberations down their law might give us a more options for social consumption. Is your group supporting the state legislation or opposed to it? Mark Colorado is opposed to the bill and if it passes and it came up and then it was up to Denver, whether we would implement it or not. Would your group support it or not? At at that point, I'm not sure really that the support or opposition is really relevant. The reason why Smart Colorado has always opposed is if I could step back just a moment now. The reason why we've always been opposed to these types of organizations or operations is because our interpretation of Amendment 64 was that the voters voted for personal consumption and it wasn't ever meant to be. And this is why the state has wrestled with this for six years, is there has not yet been a clear definition of what open and public consumption means. So that is why we have that's why we have maintained opposition to that bill. You had suggested that we perhaps delay until the seated whether the state legislature thing passes because it might give us more opportunities to have social consumption places. But you're saying that your group would oppose it no matter what, so that you would hope that there were wouldn't be no more social consumption places? Again, I don't know at this point without consulting with with our leadership team, if we would take an active role in lobbying you or asking you to to not do that. So I'm really not I'm really not able to to projections. Does it seem likely to you? Again, I think it depends on what the state model ends up looking like. Again, Denver has been the leader and we're just saying maybe this isn't the time to reconsider a setback. And as if the if the bill comes forward, then you'll have another opportunity as as a as the city to to make a good decision. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. A quick. Question, sir. Marijuana guru. Ashley. There you are. I didn't see you. I was like, Where did she go? I was, ah. Oh, yeah. Looks like there's quite a few marijuana girls and I'm risking asking that question in here. Ashley So I wanted to ask about the process with. Needs and desires are their needs and desires. Hearings and processes here and in place. And I know it's very similar as similar to dispensaries and things like that. Can you kind of walk us through that? Yes. Yes. Well, kind of on on social consumption first. Josh and his team put in something called that. They need evidence of community support before they even really file their application. So they have to talk to one neighborhood organization. It doesn't have to be unanimous, but just that there's someone out there that would agree to them, even just submitting their application. And then after they submit their application, we based. Did you know exactly on like what we do on liquor? Here's where the location is going to be. And we do just like with liquor, we go through and we vet and we make sure it meets all the distance restrictions and then if it does, well, set the neighborhood needs and desires hearing. I think we did it about the same. We sort of count blocks and do different things, but we might expand that here in there, we expanded one for Councilman Gilmore one time and then give the neighborhood notice and they come down and we have a hearing. City attorneys sort of represent the process and people like you will come and sort of represent the neighborhood and testify. Yeah. What about, like, what if council member doesn't show up? What if it's just community? Do they. Are they still parties of interest? Pardon me? Would they still be considered parties of interest? So the detailed rules about who are parties and interests, it always is an R.A. and then it depends on the different type of license types. And then like a business owner and one license type, it might be a commander of a district. But like what we'll do, and I think I've mentioned it to a lot of you guys and I know I have with you, Paul or Councilman Lopez, if you've got a community that doesn't know or is unsure of these rules, we are happy to kind of walk them through that. The city attorney's office has been gracious enough to help sort of train people if they're not sure what they need to do in a hearing. In the dispensary model, a party of interest is a councilmember. I think so. Is that we? Yeah. Yeah. Does that carry into this one? Pardon me? Does that does that not apply to this particular license? Let me let Angel answer that. It's different. Did it change from. Does it change from those the dispensary licenses to this. Good morning. Members of Council Antrel Bagger. I work at the Denver City Attorney's Office. I was looking up your other question. Sorry, why you ask this question. So for your question about whether city council, a city council member would be a party of interest in these hearings, they would be we refer back to the same rules for all of the same reasons. That's what I wanted to ask. And, you know and I know I don't want to go into comments, Mr. President, but I just wanted to confirm that that was still the case here, despite what the you know, the reduction in the proposed reduction in. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. Joshua, can I ask you a couple questions? So, first off, I think the initiated ordinance did a lot of good things to sort of make sure that it got community support. I think it was well intended and well written. I think it probably gave us a little too much latitude. But thank you for that as well. But in there, it said that there's designated conservation areas shall not require specific zoning permits and shall be permitted in any zone lot where underlying business or event is permitted. That one always sort of bothered me, right? Which is that, you know, wherever, you know, we're not going to put a zoning threshold, you know, to to this. But I'll be honest, I see that as a potential way forward. Are you familiar with the Denver, right? Yeah. Blueprint Denver. A planning update that's under consideration right now. I haven't read the 2041. Okay. There are six vision elements in that that sort of really shift the paradigm that we you know, the lens that we view land use decisions going forward and sort of trying to take a more equitable point of view on, on on our decision making. Hopefully, the reason why I'm bringing that up is I think I think a surgical placement of, of, of, of potential locations would benefit both the community and those businesses that pursue these opportunities, because they could they could make the case with the community, make the case with their bankers, and and then move forward in a way that doesn't create a whole area that ability granted on a sort of zone lot by zone lot basis. And so I think through zoning might be a way to to sort of so a way to to determine what of these industries that are out there are compatible by by you know, there's different business cases that they're throw out there that are already considered in that. They've already looked at that and said these are compatible businesses where we could actually work with exercise and license with our planning department and create a tool that would grant. Councilman, I just want make sure that we're still on questions about what on the hearing at hand. Since he's not familiar with Denver. Right. I feel like you have to go in a little bit more detail on on how we get here. But ultimately, would you relax this? Would you be okay with relaxing this prohibition in the original zoning? I mean, in the original initiative were so that this council could actually create it, you know, potentially use a different avenue whereby you could grant licensure to properties that are well below these thresholds if, if, if other zoning of other conditions are met. Yeah. The the intent of that section was actually to decrease the costs of opening the business. You know, so a yoga studio or a barber shop could just apply for a permit without going without having to update their building code and bring it to the the 2017 IBC or whatever it is in Denver is currently on. So it's actually a way to to make this more accessible. Now, if if, you know, if we could get accomplished through zoning the true intent of the initiative, which is to have places where people can consume cannabis and that are outside of, you know, outside of public finance. You know, we'd be very supportive of changing hours, you know, of creating some special seed up process or some other process for businesses within, you know, that are close to these sensitive use districts. How that actually works, I don't know. Well, I think I think I think you and others nailed it. And I wrote it when you spoke, actually. Um, and so the question is about there are always this concern that there's too much public consumption already going on in places where it's not legal. And this would create this avenue for us to sort of address that concern. So do you think that we could we could. We could. Do you think we could come up with a series of. Do you think we could come up with some sort of structure whereby we could ask that question and answer that question? How does this resolve how how does your business resolve public consumption concerns in this area that is being put it mean established? And if we could answer that question, we basically made the case for why this business should go there. I definitely that's possible. That's what we try to do by having these businesses work with the neighbor. You know, that was who we wanted the gatekeepers to be as these neighborhood organizations. And the problem that we have now is you have the neighborhood support and you still can't operate. And so there's another mechanism that's like more scalpel. Like, you know, we'd be very supportive of it, you know. Hit the nail on the head, right? Which is this is why when Cindy came and called and made her case, I was like, yes, we should have an exception for you. If you have that level of support, there should be a mechanism whereby we can grant that exception. We don't. And it was and that's why we didn't put in arbitrary set back requirements to start with. That's why we only had the 1000 foot from the school because that was federal law. You know, we didn't want to upset the federal government if we put that one arbitrary set back in. But all the other ones really made no sense to us because it was actually about working with the community. And if the community would rather have a place where people can consume cannabis, that's right next to the park, you know, as opposed at the park, then that's the community's choice. And that's what our intent was, was, was really have these businesses rooted deep in the community and that just can't be accomplished when there's these arbitrary setbacks. And so that's why I'm asking. I mean, I wanted to bring it back to where we're going with our zoning code because we had more arbitrary approach initially when we started doing grow operations and other things. And we got a lot of unintended outcomes in communities that we had to address subsequently. Here's our chance to sort of we're now on that concept. We go back in that direction and hope for the best, or do we actually look at what language we're putting forward and maybe figure out with you how we might actually sort of proactively engage the community and get that buy in and then make that a condition for and I know you don't want to do that because you make it sound like that's cost prohibitive. But I almost think that these business operators would welcome that because it's better than no option at all. But you don't want that option. And, you know, actually, I read the 2020 Denver vision, but I haven't read the 2040. So I think I'll just get back to you on the you know what I see. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega, you back up? Yes. So along those lines, I like the fact that, you know, looking at this approach. That sort of gets away from looking at the same neighborhoods where we already have the growth facilities and many of the the retail stores for both medical and recreational marijuana. But I wanted to ask you a question, if you wouldn't mind coming back up. I should have had you stay there. I wanted to ask about the compliance with the Clean Air Act, because I understand the bill moving through. The Legislature is asking for an exemption for vaping from the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act. So the bill, as it was written, would comply with the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act. Correct. Initiative 300. Correct. It complies with with the Colorado. Okay. And then I just wanted to ask about. So if, you know, we have a lot of people that that are involved in this process who may also have some of the stores that may want to look at a different model where they can for move their product into a different social consumption model, if you will. And and I just wanted to ask the question about if we lax the rules from what was created in in the regulations from 1000 feet to 500 feet, what that means for down the road wanting to use this move. If council moves to to change this, to then say, well, you did it for social consumption. We now would like to see that change made to stores to grow facilities. Is is that something that has been talked about? Is that something that would be a desire of some of the clients that you have worked with? It's not something that I've had discussions about, you know. You know, 500 feet. Now, I think we can change all of the regulations. You know, our intent is, you know, it's always has been like, you know, the the current set back requirements have created saturated neighborhoods with cannabis businesses. This loosens and, you know, so it provides more more spaces for a less lucrative model. Now, if the state passes their law. I think the city council has another chance to do it. We'll have we'll probably have another opportunity to look and see how they want businesses that sell cars that sell cannabis for on site consumption to be zoned and regulated. But would you see? This, opening the door for the same facilities to be able to sell. So if we create this particular model that allows people to bring in. I mean, it already exists. We're just talking about reducing the the the distancing that these operations would be expecting to also incorporate sales into the same locations. And I don't know. I don't think I'm in a position to sort of speculate about that. I think ultimately it's going to be a choice for the council, you know, in terms of if these you know, of how that of how state law interacts, you know, and if these businesses will be asking for on site sales. Okay, Councilwoman, I think we would have to increase the number of licensed establishments for that to occur. I don't know that that's that's the case, because we're talking about social consumption, because this bill is being brought forward under the social consumption model, which is different from our licensed facilities that are seed the sale. And I would ask our our folks for exercise and license if they could weigh in on that particular point, because I think that's an important clarification. And I'll just I don't think this measure and I'll just say allows for onsite consumption. You're not onto the consumption for onsite sales. So it's going to require an act of, you know, this body to, you know, create the rules around consumption with ons, with onsite sales. So, Ashley, would you mind coming forward so we can. Okay, Molly, we've been tracking this. I think it's important to have some clarification. So if the bill passed that the state we in Denver would have to we would take some would take a legislative action to create the license for both for hospitality and sales. So if one if we wanted to start allowing the hospitality and sales locations, we would have to create that license and it would come before you all. And then also along those lines to Councilman Espinosa's point, we would have to consider and do some analysis of what that would do to the cap and lease locations that allow for sale. So right now there is a cap on locations that allow for sales of marijuana. So we would have to consider if we want to make that one cap or separate caps for places that allow for sales and consumption. So those would all be things that would have to occur, conversations that would have to occur. And then my other just last comment is that if the bill passed, the state would still have some rulemaking that we would want to see how some of that plays out as well. So just a clarification. I have a copy of the bill right here, and it wasn't clear to me if this is isolated to the hospitality industry, does that mean hotels are B and B, restaurants? How how broad is that in terms of the definition of hospitality? I don't it's not defined in there right now. I don't I think and I think we would have some local authority to define it if we wanted to narrow it in some way. But it's not it's not narrowed in the bill, I don't believe. Okay. And just one last question. In in your opinion, in having followed this particular state, Bill, does what what do you see as the impact of us adopting this tonight in isolation of what happens with that state legislation? I mean, I think there's a there's a lot of moving factors here. So it's hard to say what you know, to speculate on what might happen. But I think I mean, well, the conference around one of the questions when we talk about local authority will have to and if it is decided that this is a license that we would have in Denver, one of those questions, as it was during the task force that we did in 2017, one of those questions is obviously setbacks. Okay. And just one last piece. So that all is focused around social consumption as well, correct. I mean, the sales, the the three things that it does, the mobile consumption facilities, the minimum sales that would define what the amounts are that could be available. And then the exemption for vaping. Their consumption licenses. Yeah. Okay. There are consumption models. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman. Councilman Flynn, you back up? Yes. Just a really quick question. Based on what I've been hearing, Molly, could you stay there and relieve Ashley from having to come up? I don't see anything in and maybe I'm just because I've missed it in any of our regulations that require setbacks of these facilities from one another. Can social consumption licensee licensed locations be within a thousand feet of each other? They can. Okay. Could they? They could be next door to each other. They can. There's no set back between consumption and consumption. And there's no set back between a consumption area and a store that sells. Have to spend it. Okay. And I may have gotten a fact wrong about the bill so that ultimately I want to clarify. And is there. Is that true for marijuana centers and dispensaries, or is that not true? Marijuana centers and stores cannot be within 1000 feet of another marijuana. Okay. Actually, we didn't. And we didn't import that. Prohibition into the Israel. Okay, now. Thank you. That that makes sense because opening up these additional areas would not be very fruitful if if one location could block out a bunch of others. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. But we have a legal clarification to get on the record. To Councilman Ortega's point. The question was how does the US or the council passing this restriction affect the state? There is a provision in the current state bill that says that anything in that draft state bill, if it does pass, it doesn't affect the enforcement of an ordinance that's already been passed by a municipality. So it would not affect the enforcement of either. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Constable 19 0349 is closed. We are going to go into comments, but I will remind council members that this is just for publication. We will this will be back for final where we will need nine votes next week. So I will ask that everyone keep your comments if you're going to make them today concise, because I'm guessing that we will also deliberate this again in a week. Councilwoman Black, would you like to go first? Mike. Thank you, Mr. President. Maybe we won't need to deliberate next week's spending so many hours talking about it tonight. Thank you all for being here. Very impressive and passionate public comment. I think you really made the point about what is the issue here. I did want to clarify on the state bill. Councilman Flynn, I already provided you with those answers. I know our attorney has. I did give everyone an FAA cue. And just to be certain, Kristen Crawford and Troy Bratton checked my answers. The state bill will leave us with the same proximity issues we have now. It just creates this same obsession. It has a public consumption option that is bring your own. And it has the tasting room option, which is if you had a dispensary, you could opt to get a license for that if the city decides to opt into that. But the bring your own model, which is what we're talking about here tonight, that is would be made illegal by the state, but we would still have to have these exact same discussions. So if you want to talk about it in six months or a year, we can sit here again for 5 hours and talk about it. But we're going to be talking about the very same thing. So I encourage you to read the answer on this. Q. And I'd like to say that a lot of us have spent a lot of time on this. This is a really, really modest compromise. We are respecting the work that excise and licenses did. We are not eliminating that. The requirements for those of you who who think the reason there aren't any is because it's a viable it's not a viable business model. I guess you think all these people aren't being truthful? I believe them when they say the five feet would help. I'm sure they would love it if we reduced them down to what the voters did approve. But if you think the business model is the problem, then you should vote for this because then the distance requirements don't make a bit of difference. I would also like to point out that we were talking about protecting kids. We heard a lot about the protections that do exist. Again, there's a list of them in this FAA queue, but it does protect neighborhoods. Eric, I can't remember your last name, but your first name is Eric. And if the neighborhood doesn't want it, they won't support it. And all of us council people can go to the public hearing and oppose it. There are so many protections in place and in the bill itself it says that the consumption cannot be viewable to kids. It does not say that the building cannot be viewable to kids, but it can't say on the outside what's going on inside. There are restrictions about signage and advertising. So. Again, it's a very, very modest compromise, and I hope that everyone will support it again. We need seven votes tonight. Next week it'll be on final reading. We have a very long night next week also. So I hope you'll support this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman by Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. And I almost did utter the words that Councilman Black read into the record. Listen, when this first when we first started regulating this industry, I started out very nervously, very gingerly and and took some very, you know, very conservative stands on it. And a lot of us did. We didn't know how to regulate it. But over time and time is always good proof. You realize that this industry is not like alcohol. It's not like some of these other industries. And we had a problem with with with problematic liquor stores and predatory nature of them in our in our neighborhoods . Much like what L.A. went through, you know, over over overconcentration in poor communities of color. Right. And so I put these protections in place. These are my amendments. And I fought for them. I find myself in a very different situation because now I'm traveling with with with the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and presenting with Brownies and Cheetos, by the way, to other local governments and other local officials, saying you need to regulate this in a way that is fair, in a way that is responsible. A fair and responsible regulation. That's what's needed. And you have to involve stakeholders and community. And, you know, I understand. I understand. And I don't want to I don't want folks to feel, you know, I understand that that that folks still feel very nervous about this. And we do have to approach everything with caution. We do have to make sure that it's out of the hands of our young people. From what I hear, I think that's there's there's I don't hear any anything contrary to that. And I am going to support this. I am going to support this move forward, because I know that we even power the public in general, especially through community and through creating a public process, a needs and desires, hearing where community members can participate. Community leaders can participate. And elected officials like your council members can participate. I tell you, where where we still have trouble is with the alcohol industry, we're not parties of interest. So we're actually doing this the right way. But and my and my, my, my desire was, let's do this the right way. So that 80 years of of outdated laws that the liquor industry actually wrote themselves on the state level can learn. And this is one of those steps. So I you know, I know we're going to be considering this later and deliberating. And I just figured I'd just do it right now because you all are here in the chambers and we're here till 9:00. So having said that, thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate everyone being here, and particularly for listening to our very long question and answer session, which included a lot of masked comments that were hidden as questions. So you all have been very patient. I am not passionate about marijuana. I don't think it's the most important issue facing the city. I don't believe it's totally healthy. I don't believe it's harmless, and I don't believe it's the cause of our amazing economy. I don't think it's the cure to all illnesses. I also don't think it's the end of the world and that it's destroying our city and that it's destroying our state. I simply want to take a practical approach to making the rules. That is my only goal. And, you know, I will tell you, I'm not happy sitting up here. This to me, we have so many huge challenges facing our city and the time we have spent on this with the level of homelessness and transportation crises in our city, frankly offends me. So I'm struggling. But I'm going to talk about two issues that influence my vote tonight. First, do I think that the rules adopted by excise and license are legal? I speak only for myself. I do not speak for the city. I'm not the city's attorney, but I do not believe they are legal. There were a few terms thrown out by our department head and what gave them the authority to make this rule ? They talked about the intent of the ordinance. Let's be very clear. Nothing in the ordinance gives the department any authority to clarify the intent. It gives them authority to do two things. To administer and enforce. That's it. The term that was thrown out about protecting where children congregate. Let me just read to you that language. It says The permit holder shall ensure that any outside smoking of cannabis occurring at the street level is not visible from a public right of way or a place where children congregate. Nothing in that sentence relates to defining that as a power of the department. Nothing in that sentence relates to indoor use. It's about outdoor. Use. So I guess the question is how do we end up with rules that are about interpreting the intent of the ordinance that go beyond administering and enforcing? I don't believe it's responsible. I mean, and I will just translate for you. We heard some testimony today talking about frustrating the intent of the ordinance. And that testimony was in part from several attorneys. That is code for we think we might sue you because we think you violated the terms of this ordinance. I don't think it's responsible to leave the city vulnerable to a lawsuit to litigate this. Right. I personally think that any distance requirement beyond what was in the ordinance is probably not legal. But if everyone has agreed not to sue, if we go to 500 feet, I'm going to support this tonight because I frankly want us to move on to the real issues in the city. So the other thing I would just want to clarify is in terms of whether we would just immediately have, you know, sales situations, there are these this ordinance added pools and recreation centers. There is no pool or recreation center reference anywhere else in the marijuana code. So we not only invented new distance requirements, we invented new locations. There are other places children congregate. They congregated ice cream shops, they congregated churches. They congregate in all different. My son congregates in trees along the right of way. So I just I really I think that the I am disappointed in the in in preciseness with which the authority of the department was described by this testimony tonight. It did not accurately refer to what the ordinance says about the authority of the department. So for me, that's a significant thing. But let's just imagine, let's imagine that there was no legal issue. Then what's the policy analysis? I am practical. If there is evidence that these distance requirements concretely impact youth marijuana usage. I want to know it and I want to legislate based on it. So I did my own research and I looked at what are the influencing factors on youth usage of marijuana? And it's tough news, folks, if it were as easy as distance requirements. Boy, my job as a parent would be a lot easier. The number one thing related to me is marijuana usage. Is parental time and parental persuasion. I have a ten year old kid and my least favorite thing in the world is talking to him about drugs. But I do it anyway, and I'm sure Bumpy and I still need lots of help in how to do it better because there's not a lot of curriculum about this in our schools or in our world and how to do this as a parent. Also, to talk to my son about suicide. And that may not seem like it's related, but it is because youth and our commission in the city have named their top three issues, and one of them is mental health. And if we don't think kids are turning to substances because they feel isolated and parents aren't talking to them about the risks of suicide, because we think if they don't see suicide and they don't talk about suicide, they won't commit suicide. Well, it's no cure for marijuana than it is if they don't see it. It doesn't mean we don't have to talk to them. And I don't want parents to think that we've protected their kids from marijuana by a thousand feet versus 500. The only thing that can protect kids from marijuana is having these conversations, and there are studies that document it. I'm not going to cite them all for you. But let me ask about alcohol availability. What do we know about that? Iceland did a pretty big transformation in youth alcohol usage, and it had nothing, nothing zip to do with reducing alcohol locations. It had to do with doubling the amount of time you spent with parents and doubling the amount of free activities that gave them natural highs. That's what they did. They didn't create distance requirements and eliminate alcohol. They did this much harder, much harder things. And if we're serious about it, that's what we need to do, too. What about young kids? For young kids, the number one risk factor for marijuana and drug use is parental risk factors, abuse, neglect, those things. That is hard work, folks. That's how we prevent use of substances among young kids. And what about all kids, older kids, peer use and attitude? Number one, influencing factor. I actually found one study that looked hard at whether reducing retail access of alcohol had any impact on youth drinking. Guess what? It did not. Enforcement and ticketing was was correlated, right? The more you ticketed youth for alcohol use. But reducing retail establishment access had no impact on youth usage. So we have to do the hard work. And I would have loved to spend 4 hours talking about any one of these topics. That to me is evidence based legislation. Evidence based legislation takes facts and it says, how do we translate those facts into protection for our kids? There is no evidence whatsoever that kids are at risk from an activity happening inside a building that they can't see at a thousand feet, at 500 feet or next door, which right now the sales locations are for rec centers and ice cream shops and pools. And this only came out because of these new regulations that, in my opinion, violate the ordinance. So with that, you can tell I will be voting yes on this compromise in the hopes of saving the city wasted resources, litigating, frankly, such a. Minuscule difference of distance. So thank you, Mr. President, and thank you to my colleagues for I know what our sincere opinions on the other side. But hopefully we can base our decisions tonight on evidence. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flint. Thank you, Mr. President. The fact that we have only two licensed businesses open now with 20 square miles of the city. tOe to toe. Square miles of the city. Eligible tells me that the distance and that's what the additional distances added by Excel tells me that that is not the reason that this isn't successful. I believe it's a flawed business model. I thought it was goofy when we voted on it and that was kind of odd. The reduction in 500 feet in my district, according to the maps that our guys people supplied to me, would open up eight additional business locations. They are. Subway. GNC Nutrition. Sally. Beauty Supply. T-Mobile. Sprint. Colorado Credit Union. Never Nails and King Soopers. None of which I venture to say. Even though the initiative supposedly was based on overlaying on existing businesses for some of the reasons we explored. That's the reason we only have two. Not because we took out 2.2 square miles that this will restore. What I think we're dealing with here is as a junk vehicle, a car that has a blown engine, and we're trying to fix it by washing a windshield and putting air in the tires. When the solution is, I believe, to waiting until 1230 passes and opens up new opportunities, which I think would be more successful to allow on site sales because BYOB into a hair salon really wasn't going to be a profitable venture for people. I think the legislature's about to hand as something that would would would be a little more have more chance at success. And yes, we'd have to deal with the same distance requirements. But again, 20 square miles of the city, we only have two. And I'm being told that 30 people are just waiting for those other 2.2 square miles to open up. It just doesn't it just doesn't sound reasonable. I think we're we're fixing the wrong thing with this this initiative passed by seven percentage points in the city. It passed citywide. And I'm committed to finding a way to make it work. But in my district, it failed by 14 percentage points. That was a swing of 21 percentage points. So I need to make sure that that my voters interests are represented and that it's fairly regulated. And so I would I'm going to vote no on this tonight. And I would even entertain if there's an appetite for it, entertain a postponement until the legislature gives us more tools that we could build into this and make it work the way the way everybody wants it to. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, gentlemen. Flynn. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. Councilman Flynn, if you make that motion, I'll second that. The. The. I will be supporting this going forward tonight, but I am very much on the fence. My district, northwest Denver, voted overwhelmingly in support of the Initiative 300. Probably put it over the line, to be honest with you. But, you know, I don't I won't make it easy if it was hard for you to read between the lines in my in my questioning. What I was suggesting is that we relax the distance requirements, but on the condition that they deliver improved environmental the improved environment process mean promised. Sorry, I'm going to say this all over again. So I want to be very clear. I was suggesting that we relax the distance requirements, but on the condition that they deliver the improved environment promise and serve all income levels. That's it. Plain and simple. You know, I think that's the right thing. And so relaxing them carte blanche does not do that. It will serve the market. And that market is not all income levels. But if we can build the tools that do that, I'm all there. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. So, first of all, I just want to share with you all that I have an amendment that I was planning to bring forward tonight. I'm going to wait and look to bring it forward on final. And what it would basically do is say that that's why nothing in the passage of this bill tonight or on final reading would in any way indicate the position of this council that we would lax the rules for stores or growth facilities from the thousand feet to the 500 feet. So I will look to bring that forward. I am planning to abstain tonight because I wanted to try to understand when the state is planning to take action on that bill. I think the fact that we're going to be doing this twice is is a little goofy. Rather than trying to do it all at once so that we would have the ability to deal with both sales as well as people being able to to bring their own to whatever business model makes sense. I think the the point of sale piece probably makes better sense as a business model than people bringing their own to an existing business model and sort of share some of the comments that were made by Councilman Flynn. And I've asked the question of some of the folks that I met with in the marijuana industry about why we haven't seen more applications than the two that have come forward. And and so without belaboring that point, I'm going to abstain tonight. I will look to bringing that amendment forward on final. I think postponing the bill would make sense, but I don't see that we have the votes here tonight for for that to move forward until we have the state legislation passed. But again, I think just being able to do this once is what makes the best sense rather than, you know, doing this now and then coming back as soon as the legislation passes and then doing it all over again. So thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Herndon. Yes, Mr. President. This is on publication, so I'm going to vote yes for publication and I'll just reserve my comments for final consideration next week. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Herndon. Councilman, consider you back in. Yes, sir, I am. Mr. President, I have another comment. Go ahead. Thank you. Just two quick things. Several folks have stated tonight that there have only been two applications and that is not accurate. We didn't have testimony about it tonight, but we had extensive testimony at committee. There was a third application that was denied based on distance. So I just want to make sure that the record is clear that there in fact was a denial based on distance, that they were not they had community approval, they had the site and they were less than a thousand feet, but more than 500 feet. So there is at least one applicant who would be directly impacted. So that counters the claim that this would not help any businesses. Secondly, I just want to remind folks of the testimony we had from the city attorney's office that stated that any regulations that we pass are protected and grandfathered under the state statute that's being proposed . And that secondly, if indeed we needed to add a piece, we could simply add any pieces we would not need to re debate these pieces. And I see the city attorney, the legislative counsel, nodding her head. So with that, I just wanted to clarify the record before folks vote. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, can you seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call uncountable 19 dash 0349. Black. Brooks. I. Espinosa. I. Flynn no Gilmore. I. Herndon, I. Cashman Carnage I. Lopez, I knew no Ortega. Abstain assessment i. Mr. President. Hi, I'm Secretary. Please close the voting and notes results. Tonight, two nays, one abstention. Tonight, two nays, one abstention. Council Bill 19 0349 has been ordered published as amended on Monday, April 22nd. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 302, approving and accepting comprehensive Plan 2040 as the city's comprehensive plan for the city and county of Denver and a required public hearing on towns Bill 303 Approving and Accepting