Amends various sections of the Denver Revised Municipal Code by updating certain sections to address challenges experienced over the past two years; delete certain provisions that are now obsolete; standardize procedures between the Denver Revised Marijuana Code and the Denver Medical Marijuana Code; and harmonize sections within the Code by adding or amending sections to accommodate changes made in state law with regard to marijuana and medical marijuana. 
Thank you very much. Council President, members of the Denver City Council. I'm Stacey Lux, the executive director of the Department of Excise and Licenses. And I'm honored to be here before you today. Council Bill 912 is an omnibus bill of two dozen proposed changes that will ultimately provide clarity, consistency and codify excise and licenses existing practices for regulating medical and retail marijuana. The bill amends language in our general licensing chapter 32 and the Medical Marijuana Code in Chapter 24 and the Retail Marijuana Code and Chapter six and repeals the now obsolete medical dispensary code. The clean up changes in this bill will standardize language and definitions between the medical and retail marijuana codes and harmonizes the city's procedures and authority with the states. I appreciate your careful consideration of Council Bill 912 and remain available for any question. Thank you. All right. We've got five speakers, and I'm just going to call all five. Please make your way to the front pew so we can get through expeditiously. Vernon Hill, David Roybal, Nancy Grandees Jones and Elizabeth and Mike Elliott. So please make your way to the front pew. And Mr. Hill, you can go ahead and begin your remarks. Well, thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of City Council. My name is Vernon Hill. I'm a business owner and a resident of the Globeville area. And the reason I'm speaking to you today is I would like to clear up a couple of things over the last month or so. There's been a lot of discussion in reference to the marijuana issues in our area. And I've noticed through the media that there's been a lot of things said that we were more or less bashing the marijuana industry. That is not really. So what we wanted to do is we wanted to state the facts and let you be aware of the. Situation that we have been. Experiencing in our area. There are locations that are in our area that have been there and probably will be there. We're realist about this situation, and we do understand that this marijuana situation is going to be here for quite a long time. What we do want and what we would like to have from you is when you change these bills and you make up these rules and regulations for them that you think of us as. People that are living this whole. Situation. And what we would like you to do is give us the ability to have some control over what takes place in our neighborhoods. And as we move forward with this, we will do everything in our our our power to explain and give you an understanding of what we have to deal with with this situation. And as we move forward, not only do we want to see the the the medical marijuana and the retail locations in. This type of situation, to. Have rules on it is the real concern is to grow facilities. There are no buffers for these areas. For these types of businesses. As far as to grow facilities in these areas that will isolate them directly from the specific residences in the neighborhoods and. Stuff like that. And we would like to see. More of that information put into the bills. So that way there is some control over that. But the biggest thing is to have some type of teeth in this bill that will allow. Us to have some say so which that will allow us to. Have some say so about what's going to take place in our neighborhoods. And that's basically it. Thank you very. Much for your time. Thank you, David Roybal. Hello. It's an honor to be here. Thank you, Councilman Ortega, for bringing this courtesy hearing. I live at 2107. South Jason Street in a district 58. And in that area, we actually have 300 marijuana businesses, the most marijuana businesses. I'm originally from the Sun Valley. I live in the Sun Valley neighborhood from 1987. To. 2012. When the marijuana businesses first passed, they took over rapidly. We actually had a neighborhood stores there for 20 years. A&M, a good community store, had more than food, had more to offer. It got shut down, turned into a medical area. We actually had a reentry program for DACA in the neighborhood. They turned around, turn that into a medical area, medical dispensary. And it. Was actually two blocks from a. From a school. And the Sun Valley Coalition actually stood up about three years ago because we actually had. A marijuana grow facility. On the same block as the youth center. And one thing I like to just tell, you know, most. Areas that have the highest drug activity before marijuana came, those are the areas that, you know, the most medical facilities are. So people are still coming to the community for drugs. And if you see a the Denver Post. Interactive map, you can actually see where most of the the facilities are saturated. We have a you know, we have a lack of food. We have a lack of resources, healthy food stores. But we have so much so much of these in and. Of the Sun Valley coalition. Being a part of it. Since 2007, we never had a marijuana. Business owner come to the community group. We never had them bring in awareness, letting them know that they wanted to come here. And we, you know, we would love it. As communities that have more involved, me and some of the. Some of the stuff they give back to the community is discount medical marijuana. We don't want that. We want them to be a part of the community. And another. Thing that we had to issue. Some of the marijuana that was in dumpsters kids. Were finding and these kids were bringing. It back to the neighborhood. And there was a high possibility that some of it could have been contaminated. Could get people sick. And then plus, it's everywhere. It's everywhere in our communities. It's more it's more. More out to the youth. And I just hope. That, you know, that the the medical, you know, facilities. Could come to the. Community and try to make a good relationships, you know, so that way we can make the best make the best of this. So and to be part of the community, we don't want no discount weed. And that's all I want to share. I appreciate it very much. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Nancy Grandees Jones. Thank you council members and especially thank you to Councilwoman Ortega for giving us this opportunity, bringing the request for the public hearing. I am a member of the Globeville, Globeville Civic Partners, which I hope all you council members received the letter from the Globeville Civic Partners, which outlined our request some inclusions for the omnibus omnibus bill. And I just wanted to just give you a little background that I've had a commitment and investment in the GSA neighborhoods since 1975, when my husband, Bob, who's now deceased, purchased the meatpacking plant at 5300 Franklin that the city just bought back. We had the building that got repurposed into Project Angel Heart, and through my company we were a silver sponsor for the Globeville, for the Habitat President Carter Build. So we since 1975, have been committed to Globeville. The issue is the M.J. I call MJ OC. The marijuana businesses are embedded in a community that has a strong residential base. And so the omnibus bill needs to have more inclusions for community input through notifications and public hearings. And I think you have not I think I believe you have an opportunity to make course corrections in some of these regulations that previously did not have that inclusion for notification of R.A. and public hearings. The unique part about Globeville, Leary, Swansea, as you know, the residential communities, but the industrial areas where there are the grow houses without that 1000 foot distance protection, there has been a lot of investment by the residents, property owners, businesses and the city and county of Denver in the HIPAA, the Health Impact Assessment and the Geese Neighborhood Plans. I believe that City Council has an obligation to ensure that the omnibus bill aligns with the findings and the recommendations of the HRA. I've got lots of green stickies here of all the marijuana stuff and the Globeville Neighborhood Plan. And. To safeguard the health and the quality of life and the business vitality in the GSE neighborhoods. So I would request that you please take into consideration what our recommendations are and any more that you might make to strengthen the community input in the omnibus bill. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, we have an Elizabeth. Hi, folks. I appreciate that. Broncos resolution and Elizabeth P.O. Box 16545 in Globeville 80216. But it says Denver. I do have a business that I'm happy to eventually let people know about in Globeville, and I'm still being passed from person to person as I get a permanent home back in my neighborhood. I would like to speak in support of the effort and suggest a couple specifics. On page six, the results of investigation, decision and director. It is Strike MP, page six in item C one. The striking not less than five days prior to the date of hearing the director shall make known. It's striking that not less than five days prior to during the initial marijuana hearings of recreational hearings, I myself attended hearings where people had not or applicants had not met. The requirements for applying for licensing and the hearing essentially shouldn't have happened. So I'm not quite sure why that was stricken, because I think it was it's something that would support excise and licensing to have advance notice. So my apologies if I misread it, but it just seems like a housekeeping thing. In support of what Nancy was just saying on page seven, the reasonable requirements of the neighborhoods and the. The desires of the adult inhabitants, as evidenced by. And then there's a list of things like petitions. I would request that you add approved area or neighborhood plans and regional masterplan such as national western with the list where you stipulate petitions. Remonstrance is I can't say that word, have to look it up or otherwise and that this the neighborhood plans are aspirational but we need to move into an era where they are seen as implementing. I want to do a shout out to the National Western Center effort, which has outbid some of the acreage that could have gone to marijuana growers growth, growing efforts in the footprint of the National Western Center and ask going forward, that part of the discussions have to do with protecting the brand of the National Western Center as a neighborhood unifying asset in the neighborhood finalizing asset. And that some of that can happen under signage and advertising in in an omnibus bill. And so in in addition to that, I'd like to ask that. And I again, I tried to read this. I'm here predominantly as an affiliation with Globeville Cares, which is a resident based and neighborhood organization that nearly every event we've had in our park or community meetings has had between three and 600 residents from the area. It's always a reunion and there's a very definite change in atmosphere with the marijuana industries moving in. And I feel like the awareness, the concordance that you're creating with the ominous built with the state licensing is good, but I hope that the rigorous discussion will be in terms of public education, youth education and listings. Are we at the Red Oak anyway? So thank you for your effort and please consider the marketing as part of the the enforcement as well. Thank you. Last speaker, Mike Elliott. Thank you, councilmembers, for this opportunity. My name is Mike Elliott's. I'm the executive director of the Marijuana Industry Group. We primarily want to thank the people working with the city because it's been a really you all have a really great team put together. Of intelligent people working. On these audiences. We had a number of issues going into this that we managed to get a lot of them solved and a lot of them addressed through just open communication and working through a lot of items. So we do have one final concern, though, that it's our understanding it's going to be addressed through rulemaking. But I did want to highlight it just to throw it out. There is still something we've been worried about and it gets back to the public comment I made at the committee hearing, which was the current language in this proposed ordinance, would say that any transfer of ownership would be stopped for any disciplinary action. And our question was, well, how far does this go with any disciplinary action? Could it be something as minor as just having a camera pointed in the wrong direction? And after speaking with folks in the city attorney's office and the mayor's office and Stacey Loucks, of course, we're under the pressure now that this is really intended for the more egregious violations. And and so this is apparently going to be addressed in rulemaking, and we will be satisfied with that having it be addressed there. But this is just one of those issues that we just wanted to see how far that language would go. So wanted to put it on the record. But we definitely want to thank Stacey, Ashley, Marlee and all the folks of the city because they've been great to work with. So thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions from members of the council. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. Stacey, can you come to the microphone, please? And then Malia may have a I am an attorney question legal question for you, Stacey. Can you talk about one of the speakers discussed the public hearing process. And so for that specific bill are around IMAX zones, industrial use zones. Can you talk about the public hearing process and why you all decided to change it? The challenge that we're facing over here. Exactly. So in the proposed bill that you're looking at today, there's actually three kind of references to public hearings. The first one is that we're adding a requirement for needs and desires for medical centers. That's we've never traditionally done any sort of public hearing in order to open a medical center. So for right now, under the moratorium, that'll be for transfers of locations. So we now are adding the first public hearing requirement for medical centers. We're also codifying an existing practice, which is that we do do public hearings for transfer as a location for retail centers, but that's not an ordinance. So that's something that we're putting in the proposal before you amphitheater requirement is what Councilman Brooks is referring to right now in the code. If you are in a grandfathered grow location, if you're in an impact zone district, there is annual public hearing requirements to look at whether or not it's frustrating the comprehensive plan or violating kind of some of these have safety welfare aspects in the last year and some are that we've been conducting these public hearings. We've held over 100 public hearings and we've only had one resident show up. So what we're proposing is, is that tool, it's very valuable and I think will absolutely address concerns as growth happens, particularly in some neighborhoods where the neighborhood plans and the comprehensive plans are being traded. So we're asking that there's an absolute minimum threshold, ten signatures, then we'll hold the public hearings. But having 100 public hearings has been a significant resource challenge for our department. We think it's actually caused a lot of fatigue for registered neighborhood organizations, for people that are getting constant notifications, maybe about one location has multiple licenses, and these are getting multiple notifications. It's also there's a lot of resources for a city attorney's office, for a hearing, officers to have 100 public hearings where no one has showed. So our proposal is, again, not is to keep that tool, to keep the public hearing, but to have that ten signature threshold grant. And my next question is just we had another speaker talk about the five days and striking the five days. I don't know if you or Marley want to address that, but can you can you talk about why you put the five day, why you struck the five day? Thank you, Councilman. I think that might have been an earlier version of the bill. We've added that back in. Done. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I was actually going to ask some of the same questions just to clarify for the global civic partners. I read your letter very carefully today, and I believe that what Stacey just clarified actually addresses some of your bullet points about the hearings. No. Oh, man. Man, we're gonna need you to come to the microphone. Can you feel free to come on? I just need you to speak for the microphone. Out of the 100 hearings, I don't know how many were were held for Globeville, Elyria, Swansea. Hear the word on the ground and in the communities has been there have not been public hearings and notifications in Globeville, Elyria, Swansea. And I think it has something to do with the idea in IBI which that zoning which is used by right as I understand, and learning all these things. So it's so we're not afforded those public hearings that were part of the IMX. So I'm learning. I mean that's that that's my under. That was my understanding. So Globeville Elyria, Swansea does does present a unique situation that may not be in other areas of the city that have a lot of marijuana places, marijuana businesses and especially the cultivations. That is huge. Well, one improvement that will hopefully impact your community is that this bill is now going to require a needs and desires hearing for both medical and retail. And so in the future, if a medical or retail facility wanted to go into the neighborhood, there would be a needs and desire hearing, correct? Yes. And that the community would have input on that. So moving forward. But there's there's nothing. I may be mistaken. You know, I tried to read that bill spent many hours that there's nothing for public hearings for the renewals which were those weren't those 100 public hearings about license renewals. I mean, I don't know. So that I mean so that so that's one thing that we're really concerned about is renewals, businesses that have violations that we know about that. Thank you very much. There is one. I am zone district north zone grow license north of I-70. Nancy's correct. Most of the growers and north of I-70 are used by rights and I zone districts in terms of renewal hearings. Actually, one of the elements that's in the recommended, if the 24 recommended changes that we're bringing for you today is to give that director of excise and licenses the ability to call for a renewal hearing for exactly just what that's and that's not an authority that I have currently, but that's one that we're being asked for in this new bill. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Black, Councilman Espinosa. I don't know if there's anybody here from maybe CPD that can answer this question, but that whole discussion that just transpired there, you know, back when the zoning code was adopted in 2010, that predated much of what we're seeing now. And I would like to know what specific uses were in the use table that allows this as a use by. Right. In both a retail and a plant. Husbandry Council member actually had an answer. So I don't have an answer specifically for that, but this is a big issue that we said we want it to be taken care of in in actually marijuana committee and on February 8th. And so CPD hopefully that day, if they're ready, is going to present everything to us and dealing with all the uses before 2010 and some of the issues that we're facing now so that we can make some policy decisions on where to go from here. Yeah. And so to that end, I actually think the zoning is potentially a better tool. It comes it comes back to us on what we what we do to rule on a rulemaking side. So then my other two questions particular to to this. Is. What was the. Well. It's confusing about this renewal hearing is that all renewals are the nonconforming ones that require ten signatures. I mean, ten signatures. Exactly. That is just for the non-conforming for the for the growers that are licensed and non-conforming zone districts which are typically IMAX zone districts. So if if neighborhood plans are adopted in some traditionally industrial areas, then become mixed use areas, those locations would then be grandfathered and also subject to these hearings. Is there a distance requirement or is it just any ten people? Right now, we've we're are aligning it with liquor that you have to be ten people within the designated area. I believe the designated area is five blocks north, five or an R.A. that touches and overlaps within the designated area. So any member of the R.A.. The R.A. body itself. Okay. So I think. And then to that end, right now, it's an automatic renewal hearing. How can we ensure that neighborhoods continue to receive some sort of notification on these types of. Great question. We have a three part strategy. The first one is we'll put it on our website. All the renewal dates for all of the. Grows in the IMAX zone districts. Our intention is also to notify other council members who have these grows in your districts. And then the third piece we're looking at is the technological solution. If we can just send out an automatic email to the impacted areas, that one, we just have a little bit of trickery and we're working with technology services and kind of need to maintain a little bit of flexibility. So our two point strategy is to work with your offices and to have all the information available on our website. Previously it was an automatic hearing. Now it's any time, right? It's or is it some window? So it's a 90 day window before the renewal. Is there a way to extend that if per request or something like that? If we wanted to extend that window for the neighbors to be able to collect signatures. Yeah. It's no. Yeah, I might have to. We'll have to think about that. I think that idea is that it's 90 days before the renewal date. So he's thinking like more 120 days before the renewal date that the neighbors could submit. Well, it really I would much rather and I'm sorry I didn't think of this before, but I would much rather say any time after the renewal, you know, because what's going to trigger somebody to even inquire about that is an incident and a problem. And you can't time that in a 90 day window. And so if you start to have an operator that starts to go south, you would like to be able to sort of fire off a hearing if it's a community gets the ten signatures. Absolutely. So. So the bill has a couple has a lot of different elements. So with the Imac's grow facilities themselves, it's 90 days before the facility. Now those facilities have violations. One of the things that we're asking for in the bill is to give the director immediate summary suspension authority and to do renewal hearings for any of the thousand licenses, not just grow licenses, not just grow licenses and Emacs districts. So we feel that would be an effective tool as well for if there are incidents, if there are complaints, if there is that trigger, that we can hold a renewal hearing for any of our thousand licenses. Great. And then the last one, what's the rationale behind the transfer? I'm trying to figure out my own writing between the rationale behind the sort of loosening up of the transfer constraints, uh, for lack of a better term. Is that another alignment with the state or what is that. That is that the speaker the before we are really trying to tether the local and state licenses. There have been times that we've gotten out of sync with somebody supplied at the state for a transfer of ownership or transfer vocation, but didn't necessarily come in in a limited amount of time and apply with us. So we're trying to synchronize as much as possible, and especially if you're under significant disciplinary action at the state, if you're under a show cause of the state because of a major violation, we want to be able to have protections that you can't come in and transfer ownership into somebody else's name at the local level. We want to make sure that we have the same ownership on licenses at the same time with the state. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Stacey, if you could stay there for a minute. So first of all, I want to ask how. The complaints play a role in addressing odor or disposal of product. Not following the the rules of other types of complaints. So help me understand if that applies the same to all or just certain licenses. We track complaints on every license, so every license has to go through a number of annual inspections and compliance investigations. We also track complaints through 311 through the Denver Police Department, through the State MPD. So all that is tracked on the individual licenses. So we are able to see if any particular licensee or business is starting to accumulate complaints, then we can take the appropriate action. But we track everything and we have a pretty good data gathering. So with the changes in this omnibus bill. That will give you the authority to call a renewal hearing. That can happen anywhere, regardless of the HIV issue. There are no hearings for any license renewal. Okay. That's that's good to know. And the complaints all have to have at least ten signatures. Now, that is just to hold a public hearing for the I am ex the non-conforming gross. Whether or not that's the issue. There are ongoing issues with some of those things that we just talked about in terms of complaints being lodged with exercising license. That can be enough to call a show cause hearing or a renewal hearing. Right. We can hold a show cause any time. Absolutely. I think that's good to know. So I'd like to know that for any of those that came in after we adopted the regulatory framework for recreational. I attended most of those meetings, paid close attention, and thought we were doing a moratorium on everything. And when I realized that medical establishments were still being able to get their licenses and I saw the numbers and how they had grown, it just shocked me. So I just have to share that. But. For any of those that may still be in the pipeline. How does the fact that a community any and we're doing more and more these tied to our neighborhood plans that have health impact assessments how does that health impact assessment get factored in when you are issuing licenses? Is there some kind of overlap communication that happens and if it's not happening, we need to rectify that. That ensures that you all get to look at those recommendations and those concerns from those neighborhoods, many of which already have serious other issues, which is why they're trying to do these in the neighborhoods with their neighborhood plans. But the most direct way to consider impact studies and stuff like this. If it's about to attention during the public hearing, then that's can be something for contemplation. But if you're in a neighborhood that doesn't get a public hearing because your zoning is used by. Right. Zoning, that's a problem. So we need to correct that. And I know that's something we'll be talking about at our February meeting. So that's what I was just trying to kind of underline here. So. Okay, that's that's helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. Stacey, I have a question for you. So when an applicant submits a completed application on that application, do they need to specify if they are going to move into a preexisting building, if they're going to, you know, do construction or if it's a brand new build? And are those treated any differently? They specify with the planning department. So you go to the planning department to get your zone use permit initially, and then you come to our department to actually apply. And that kind of once you apply, that kind of saves that location as you go through the application and inspections process. So zoning looks at that initially. If it's a new location, as long as it has an address, we're able to accept the application. We don't treat it differently if it's preexisting. It has the same expectations for inspections, certificate of occupancy and has to meet all the same building code standards, whether it's a new build or whether it's an existing building. Thank you. Thank you, counselor. I'm sorry. Was that all you had, Councilman Gilmore? Yes, Mr. President. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? 912. Scene. None public hearing is now closed. Time for comments. Calvin Brooks. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Stacie Marley and the whole team for putting this together. This was those 24 adjustments that were making administrative adjustments. But as we had this in the Business Development Committee, it was quite clear that they were, you know, microcosm of some bigger issues that we need to address. And it just kept coming up. And so I want to thank all the folks who who testified today. Your words are not lost on us. We are we're working diligently to make sure that we're trying to get the right balance here, because it is clear in certain neighborhoods we are out of balance. And, you know, some of our neighborhoods that are in transition, some of our neighborhoods that have been historically industrial, that are right next to a school, right next to a residential location, we didn't think about that when we talk about zoning and some of it got passed, all of us. And so we really want to address those those issues. So, you know, and I think in the neighborhoods I represent, the IMX, there are IMX zoning locations there, but it's more I-and I be in An and B locations. Even though we can trigger a public hearing, there's no notification, there's no distance between schools and residential neighborhoods. And it's a it's a serious issue that we need to address. So excited that we will have a hearing conversation about this with CPD. CPD will give us a lay of the land in our marijuana task force or committee of the whole that we have. And we can begin to talk about how we might address some of these issues. So thanks, everybody, for moving this forward. I am fully on board with supporting this. This came through committee. We we had a lot of conversation about it. And some of the changes that I think we do want to make may may have to wait until another conversation. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to have a clarification for the viewing public. I think people in my district in particular are going to be pleased with the fact that in the future we're going to have a needs and desire hearings for both medical and retail, and it will be more similar to the way liquor license are issued. But that said, under our current moratorium, no one is applying for retail or medical licenses except for testing facilities. Thank you, Nathan, for pointing that out to me. But also in the coming months, I know you all have brought forth a lot of issues. David Roybal One of those issues is concentration of a lot of facilities in the same neighborhoods, and we are all meeting, you know, over these coming months to discuss a lot of the issues that you're bringing up. And we want to address them and we hear what you're saying. So we'll talk about zoning and location of ground facilities. We'll talk about zoning odors and again, the concentration in certain areas. So we are listening to you. And I think the bill that that we all look into is a complement to this, what they're doing from excise and licenses. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Ortega. Well, Councilwoman Black just gave my speech, actually. Thank you for making those comments. First, I want to thank everybody, including the industry, who participated with our excise and licensed team in shaping this. And I know this would not we wouldn't have as few people as we have here tonight, even with the weather. Had we not done that, this room would still be full. So I appreciate all of those efforts. And, you know, there are some things that we still need to work on. My hope is that we can do that within this timeframe before we make a decision on whether or not we extend a moratorium, whether I want to make sure we have a conversation about whether or not we cap the number that we have in this city because, you know, no place else has the same number of establishments that we have in Denver. And, you know, we thought we were capping them. I thought we were capping them when we brought forward the last group of regulatory bills on the recreational marijuana. But so I think this will be part of the deliberations that we will go through, ensuring that we deal with the issues that have been brought to our attention at the public hearings around. You know, odor and crime in some cases is is a big issue for communities that are next to some of these facilities. So I just want to encourage the ongoing participation from both residential communities as well as the industry. And thanks for for all the work that you all have brought forward. I think these are good changes and it will help, you know, ensure that we're doing a better job dealing with some of the issues that have been brought forward. And I know that because it is such a new industry and we've sort of been the lead city trying to shape this as we go along. You mentioned earlier that they got police next to schools. Well, what we know is when the state legislation passed, some of these places just started opening before we got a chance to deal with any of the regulations, including the state. And so that's why we have a number of nonconforming uses in various locations. And, you know, it's been it's been a lot of fast and hard and important work that's been done by the city as a whole. The legislative body, along with our administrative branch and the excise and licensing department working side by side with industry and communities. And so. Great job. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. I want to thank you guys, too. I think it's a smart move to get this alignment with the state and to sort of figure, you know, use the lessons learned to come up with these changes. And I think it's a smart way forward. I'm not a big fan. I'll just say it right now. License transfers. Hopefully we can figure something out going forward about that. But I also think that zoning might be as much as people don't want to probably go there. I'm happy to go there. I think that I think we should look at it. We did some special carve out for six plants and 12 plants or whatever to sort of say, here's where it's appropriate and residential and here's where it's appropriate in commercial and industrial. So we have already the tools there. We just didn't layer them in in a in a manner that would allow us to actually have a a zoning hearing, you know, a public zoning hearing about whether this is the appropriate place. We just mapped it to an existing use. And and I'm jumping to conclusions. I look forward to having that conversation as part of the marijuana moratorium hearings, the committee of the whole. So I encourage you guys to stay involved. I know that I've seen you there because that's probably an opportunity to get a little bit more advance involvement on placement, concentration, density, size and impacts. So thank you. Thank you, counselor Sosa in the comments. 912. Scene nine. Madam Secretary, welcome. Ortega. I. Black eye. Brooks Clark. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. Cashman. Hi. Lopez Mr. President. Kathleen Kennedy is back each. I thank you. I thank you. Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Now the results. 11 Eyes. 11 eyes 912 has been ordered published on Tuesday, February 29th, 2016. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill one changing the zoning classification for 3901 to 3991 North Cook Street. It required Public Hearing County Bill 39, changing the zoning classification for approximately 6756 Archer Drive and required public hearing on Council four zero changing the zoning classification for 668 to 670 Anchor Street. Any protest that counts against council bills 139 or 40 must be filed with the council offices no later than Monday, February 22nd, 2016. Seeing no other business before this body. Go Broncos. This meeting is adjourned.